# On the marketing of 4E



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 5, 2009)

If we assume the release of the 4E rules as they have come to be, that they were released with a delayed and later revised GSL and not the OGL, discontinued support for previous editions(including the removal of PDFs) and the release of DDI as it came to be(including online Dungeon and Dragon magazines), could WotC have marketed or promoted 4E in a way that would have led to a different perception/opinion than what has come to pass?

I hear a lot of criticism of the marketing of 4E, but given the substance of 4E as it has come to pass, would it really have made a difference?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2009)

Most definitely.

Examine the way 3Ed was rolled out vs the way 4Ed was rolled out.

*3Ed*

1) There was a 2Ed to 3Ed conversion guide.  This made the transition easier and more palatable.  It gave a sense of continuity.  It allowed people to continue playing PCs and campaigns they liked.

2) 2Ed was not badmouthed.  It wasn't even mentioned.  Only 3Ed was mentioned in the marketing.  That was the only horn trumpeted.

3) While there were mechanical changes, 3Ed had substantial backwards compatibility.  No core races or classes were eliminated.

4) The only thing going on when 3Ed was rolled out was that rollout.  Sure, 2Ed was being replaced, but there were no other licenses or products getting the axe.

*4Ed*

1) No conversion guide.  Admittedly, there are mechanical reasons for this, but in all honesty, there have been dozens of threads here by amateur game designers- IOW, regular players- about HRs to import 4Ed mechanics into 3.XEd and vice versa.  The guys being paid to design 4Ed could have done likewise.

Instead, we were told to ditch old campaigns and start new ones.

2) There were pointed commentaries about how 4Ed did things *better* than 3Ed.  The new game was constantly compared to the one it was replacing, which only highlighted how radical a change this would be.

3) Core classes and races were removed from the PHB.  This didn't sit well for a lot of reasons.

4) The rollout of 4Ed was either contemporaneous to or subsequent to the ending of several licensing agreements with Paizo, Weis and others.  IOW, things that people liked- besides 3.XEd- were disappearing, and this created a perfect storm of anti-WotC sentiment.



I could go on.

The point is, as a whole, WotC demonstrated a real "tin ear" as to what the installed base wanted...and how certain actions were being perceived.

Yes, they did market research.  However, the risk with even the best market research is that the responses you get only reflect the most vocal portions of the market, not necessarily the bulk of it or the ones with the most spending power.  This is the lesson that New Coke teaches us.

Certainly, the majority of their respondents gave them favorable feedback on their proposed changes.  However, each survey I've seen since then has indicated that their wonderful sales reflects a higher-than normal influx of new gamers and a lower than normal changeover.  If that's what they wanted, that's great.  If not, its potentially a sign of bad things to come.

I can guarantee you that something as simple as a conversion guide would have added a great deal to the % of changeover among gamers.


----------



## Thasmodious (Sep 5, 2009)

Where a lot of criticism of the marketing arose was really surprising to me.  The designers did something pretty unprecedented in game design in blogging about, discussing,  previewing, and explaining the changes and development of the edition in the months leading up to release.  And this is where they took the most constant flak.  Every word was analyzed, developers were attacked for perceived "trashing" of 3e (where explaining why a change was made amounted to crapping on 3e).  I don't know how bad it was perceived from their end, if we won't see that level of openness with 5e.  I think we might in that much of this openness  has continued through DDI and all the preview articles and Design & Development articles.  

There is just a lot of nerd rage in the community anytime things change*.  Look at all the rage that spread like wildfire from GenCon about the previews of the new Warhammer edition.  The game isn't even developed yet and legions already hate it.  Same as with 4e.  So many people never even gave it a chance.  

Personally, the marketing of 4e got me increasingly excited to play 4e.  So much so I was running multiple preview games based off all the information members of the community accumulated (people equally excited).  The game had a huge release and remains very popular.  All in all, I'd say the marketing was a success.  You aren't going to please everyone, especially in the geekdom.  There were community splits over 2e and 3e as well, and there will be over 5e and 6e.  Just the nature of the beast.  But I loved the access we had to the design process this time around.

*by nerd rage, I do not mean criticism of the mechanical elements of 4e, but the people who became angry at the mere mention of a new edition, the same types who are angry when Marvel Studios announces a new superhero franchise, who assume it will completely suck, hate the person picked to play the hero, even before that person is announced, etc...


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 5, 2009)

I don't necessarily buy this. I don't think a conversion guide would have made much of a difference, because 4E the game really is that different. While people were angered by claims of 4E doing things better than 3E, I think the substance of 4E by itself would have resulted in the same conclusions by those people. The removal of core classes/races and licenses is part of the substance/business part of this I had put as a constant.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I don't necessarily buy this. I don't think a conversion guide would have made much of a difference, because 4E the game really is that different.




There are conversion guides for games as mechanically disparate as 2Ed and HERO 4th, HERO 5th and Tri-Stat, Palladium RPG and 2Ed...

Not to mention all of the GURPS or D20 versions of other games out there.

3.X has a lot more in common with 4Ed than _any_ of those.


> Where a lot of criticism of the marketing arose was really surprising to me.




2 things you should know about me: My MBA is in Sports & Entertainment marketing; I have no inherent dislike against RPG edition changes.

I was actually looking forward to 4Ed before I got it.

And even before I got my hands on 4Ed via my pre-order, I was _constantly _astounded at the (bad) quality of the marketing campaign.  They violated several basic tenets of marketing.

Believe me- when you are replacing a successful product, you don't do point by point comparisons with how you're changing things in the new product.  At least, not explicitly.

IOW, its one thing to say "We are doing X with this subsystem" and quite another to say "We are doing X with this subsystem which really never worked right and caused a lot of problems in the old edition."  By making that comparison _explicit_, you evoke an entirely different mentality than when you simply point out you're changing it.  You're inviting the comparison: you're saying the new system *is better*, when the truth is it may merely be _different_.  Even if the change is better suited to work other changes you made, outside of that complete context, you've made a statement that begs a value judgment.

And by the time the players have a chance to see the change within the complete context of the revised game, that judgment may be set in stone.

Consider the marketing of "The Last Temptation of Christ."

The ad campaign specifically pointed out that it was a realistic depiction of how the Bible described Jesus' final days on Earth before his crucifixion.  They even mentioned/leaked the nature of the titular temptation- forsaking the sacrifice in favor of a life married to Mary Magdaline.

Had they just done standard Hollywood advertising of it, there would not have been a huge backlash among conservative Christians who hadn't seen the movie.

Bible movies are HUGE for Hollywood.  They LOVE a big Bible epic.

But by talking about how "realistic" and "accurate" they were, by playing up the movie's dialog being in Aramaic, etc., they invited comparison with previous Bible movies.  That the final temptation was something that involves a touchy area of Christian theology- just how human was Jesus- made that comparison all the worse.

The movie did fine, to be sure, but it got a LOT of negative press.  (Ultimately, it was probably a wash, but its hard to be sure.)


----------



## ggroy (Sep 5, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, they did market research.  However, the risk with even the best market research is that the responses you get only reflect the most vocal portions of the market, not necessarily the bulk of it or the ones with the most spending power.  This is the lesson that New Coke teaches us.




A better question is what exactly were the sample populations used in their pre-4E market research, and whether they were the appropriate populations to survey.  (Such market research probably would have been done back in 2005-2006).



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Certainly, the majority of their respondents gave them favorable feedback on their proposed changes.  However, each survey I've seen since then has indicated that their wonderful sales reflects a higher-than normal influx of new gamers and a lower than normal changeover.  If that's what they wanted, that's great.  If not, its potentially a sign of bad things to come.




Do you have a link or reference to these particular surveys?


----------



## Thasmodious (Sep 5, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2 things you should know about me: My MBA is in Sports & Entertainment marketing; I have no inherent dislike against RPG edition changes.




Funny, I was just reading a thread where people were mocking the Appeal to Authority.

Something you should know about me:  claiming your opinion is special because you have a degree means nothing to me.  Facts are facts, knowledge is knowledge, opinions are opinions.


----------



## Azgulor (Sep 5, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> The designers did something pretty unprecedented in game design in blogging about, discussing,  previewing, and explaining the changes and development of the edition in the months leading up to release.  And this is where they took the most constant flak.




While the circumstances you cite certainly happened, so too did the  aforementioned "Selling by criticism" by WotC developers.  Too often in the Edition Wars, both sides choose to turn a blind eye to the mistakes made by their respective sides.

Even though 4e isn't my cup of tea, I can objectively state that it's a well-developed fantasy RPG.  

Objectively speaking, the list of WotC marketing blunders for 4e is pretty damn remarkable.  (I say this as someone who works in sales and must regularly deliver marketing messages to customers in customer-facing meetings, presentations, and conventions -- customers that span several "editions" of my employer's product line.)  One can argue the severity of any damage inflicted by them, but it's tough to argue that the entire list cited in the original post didn't harm the WotC brand in some fashion.

The best defense cited regularly for most of these blunders was "it make the best business sense for WotC" and "they were within their right to do so".  I've seen competitors and my own employer make marketing blunders - and those two reasons were true for them as well.  It didn't make the moves less of a blunder.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2009)

ggroy said:


> A better question is what exactly were the sample populations used in their pre-4E market research, and whether they were the appropriate populations to survey.  (Such market research probably would have been done back in 2005-2006).




I can't say what their sample was.  I know they used several outlets, including subscribers to their magazines.



> Do you have a link or reference to these particular surveys?




They're the quasi-scientific ones that keep popping up on the various RPG boards.  Invariably, the non-adopters- those who played previous editions of the game- show up in those polls between 30-50%.  Even though the polls have their flaws- there may not be enough controls on the sites to prevent multiple votes, the "volunteer" problem, etc.- they _keep polling in those ranges._  And those numbers are ridiculously high- typically, you'd expect those numbers to be around 15-25% _max._


> Something you should know about me: claiming your opinion is special because you have a degree means nothing to me. Facts are facts, knowledge is knowledge, opinions are opinions.




I brought up my education only to point out that I'm not just talking out of my hat.

Again, let me reiterate: they violated a bunch of *basic* marketing practices- that is objective fact- too numerous to enumerate.  I did, however, provide you an example.


----------



## Perram (Sep 5, 2009)

Wizards was taking a big risk with the transition to 4e.  3e was such a successful product that any transition was going to be rough, and 4e was going to be such a sharp change in direction that nothing could have made it a smooth ride.

And then they botched the launch.

When 4e was launching, I was behind them.  I liked a lot of what I was seeing, even though I knew that not everyone would, not even the majority of my game group.  But the marketing... 

Killing the OGL... taking so long in releaseing the GSL that they ended up creating their own primary competition in Paizo... The original state of the GSL and its restrictions...

And then there was DDI.  The very existance of DDI was enough to alienate a player base who enjoy playing table top RPGS, a genre that is thick in tradition and books and PAPER.

But it was not ready for launch.

Over a year later and they STILL do not have all of the original announced features in the product, INCLUDING the big one that they slapped over every marketing piece: The Virtual Tabletop.

And when the problems started showing?  Wizards clamped their mouths shut, speaking only short bursts with obvious withholding from... somewhere above.  Their forum presence was muzzled, and it became hard for me to take any official statement from them at face value any longer. 

And finally... the PDF debacle.  I still do not buy their press release for this decision because it honestly makes no sense at all.  Piracy was around before their pdfs, and pirated pdfs are still available with nary a hick-up.  I don't pretend to know the real reason behind the decision, but their stated one does not hold water on any level of examination.

I can say this at least:
If Wizards had handled their product launch better, irrelevant of the quality of the 4e game, they would have had one more customer.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 5, 2009)

This is not your father’s Oldsmobile…This is the new generation of Olds.


----------



## Wayside (Sep 5, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, let me reiterate: they violated a bunch of *basic* marketing practices- that is objective fact- too numerous to enumerate.  I did, however, provide you an example.



Yes, they violated some basic marketing practices. Violating basic marketing practices can be a very effective marketing practice. See: Dana White.


----------



## Perram (Sep 5, 2009)

Wayside said:


> Yes, they violated some basic marketing practices. Violating basic marketing practices can be a very effective marketing practice. See: Dana White.




As with any form of art (and I consider marketing an art, indeed): Yes, you can break the rules, but you better have a really good reason for doing so.  And the result better be worth it.

4e's marketing for its launch was not a wild success.

Or are you arguing that it was handled correctly?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 5, 2009)

Hey, folks?  You know, getting in each others faces is really not going to get you anywhere useful.  

Beating on WotC for mistakes that have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum is again, not particularly constructive.

So, let's try phrasing this in a positive mode, hm?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 5, 2009)

For me personally, no.

For the big picture, I think they lost some interest before they got a fair look.  And some fraction of that group would have been players in a different universe.

But I don't think it was a huge impact.

I think mostly final choices were made more on the game than the chatter.  And the marketing mistakes were in line with the design philosophy, so the ore one liked 4E, the less is bothered them and the less one liked 4e the more it bothered them.  The displeasure was biased toward non-fans in the first place.

The end of Dungeon and Dragon (and yes, they are gone, a name does not define a product) may be an exception to this, and may have lost some otherwise happy players.  I have no idea how significant that is.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 5, 2009)

The real question to me, is does it matter.

And apparently the answer is no.

WoTC will do as it wills.

I remember when they were talking about selling PDFs of the books with some type of code in the physical books for a dollar or two. I could go on about poor product support for the Dragonborn via the miniature line, or PDF support, or any one of other numerous bits but really, is it going to change the way WoTC does business?

No.

And until I and others stop paying for the new material, I expect that WoTC will keep using it's choke hold on the D&D brand to continue to push through what I preceive as piss poor marketing skills.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2009)

> Violating basic marketing practices can be a very effective marketing practice. See: Dana White.




I know who he is and that he's president of and partial owner (about 10%) of UFC, but I'm not aware of his marketing practices at all.  Got any of the hows and whys?

Even if he violates 1 or 2 and succeeds, you have to know why, because breaking the rules is an exceedingly risky thing to do.  See the ash-heap of business.

4Ed's rollout violated several in short succession.  It still succeeded because they attracted a large number of new players- many of whom were not even targeted by the practices in question- largely because of the first axiom of marketing:

*Being the first player in a given market is the #1 correlative factor deciding the success or failure of a business.*

That's not the sole reason.  You still have to manage your brand.  But being first is the single most crucial factor.

D&D is the first commercial RPG.  It has the name recognition.  It has it to such an extent that its name is synonymous with the hobby as a whole.

And with D&D coming off of one of its most successful economic periods, with a product that revolutionized the hobby, only a completely disastrous marketing campaign would have scuttled 4Ed.  3.X was a 600lb gorilla- a successor product was going to be big.  The only question was how big.

(Currently, I'd say its about 675lbs.)


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 5, 2009)

I fully admit the marketing wasn't optimal, but I still think it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Even with perfect marketing, those whose personal preferences weren't catered to by 4E's design still would have been alienated. Very few non-adopters say that they liked 4E but were turned off by WotC's marketing. I've seen it once or thrice, but its very rare.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2009)

There were people on these very boards who said they were unlikely to buy 4Ed because of the non-renewal of licenses to Paizo for the magazines, and the cessation of the Dragonlance license, etc.  Some even called for a boycott.

The announcement of class & race exclusions was a detriment.  From a marketing standpoint, it was a tactic that could *only* hurt sales.  Why?  Because that announcement turned off people for whom those excluded features meant their favorite race or class was gone, or that their campaign was non-convertible.  By simply staying silent as to those changes, that group - or a portion thereof (esp. those who pre-ordered the books)- would not have known about the unpalatable change until after the product was in their hands.  There was, in addition, no indication that for those who viewed these changes positively that it was a selling point.  IOW, while they may have liked the racial or class changes, those changes were not a _deciding_ factor in whether they intended to buy the game.  More often than not, people cited dissatisfaction with 3.X in general or certain mechanical changes as being more important selling points for the new edition.

And while better marketing may not have converted anyone to 4Ed, it probably would have meant more sales.  Those sales would be to people who might have bought the game and still not converted, but for being turned off by the marketing campaign.


----------



## Treebore (Sep 5, 2009)

All their marketing choices definitely turned me off, but ultimately it was 4E itself that turned me away. I simply do not like it best, like GURPS, Paladium, etc... I appreciate parts of their rules, I can play them, but they are not my favorite, and neither is 4E.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 5, 2009)

Treebore said:


> All their marketing choices definitely turned me off, but ultimately it was 4E itself that turned me away.




Yep.

While the pretentiousness of the marketing was a huge turn-off for me (not to mention over the top, IMO, saying "the game you're playing (3.5, or any other version for that matter) is not fun.  We _know _fun!"), the bottom line is that the 4e game itself changed too much for my liking.  I had happily bought (heavily) into every other D&D edition - but not this one.  Too different for my tastes.  

The marketing aided in the "turn-off" process.  It made me pissed off enough to better resist any initial "try out" buying temptation.  The game itself did the rest.

But, IMO, the marketing failure was that it did nothing to lure players that were *happy* with the 3.5 ruleset.  I was happy with 2E when 3.0 came out, yet switched immediately, so whatever the 3.0 folks did that the 4.0 folks didn't is probably worth reviewing (and yeah, the conversion manual - lame as it was - may have played a bigger factor than anything).


----------



## 3catcircus (Sep 5, 2009)

While the marketing certainly contributed to my disgust with WotC's current offerings, I think that basic fact is that I would have been turned off of 4e because of the conscious decisions as to how to package the content.  For me, it isn't the _marketing decisions_, rather, the business operations decisions.

It is almost like the Packard-Bell situation - where a company builds a reputation for quality, later sells the name to another company, and then the name is used to sell crappy products that have nothing to do with the original.


----------



## Derren (Sep 5, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I fully admit the marketing wasn't optimal, but I still think it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Even with perfect marketing, those whose personal preferences weren't catered to by 4E's design still would have been alienated. Very few non-adopters say that they liked 4E but were turned off by WotC's marketing. I've seen it once or thrice, but its very rare.




So? People constantly say that 4E plays better than it reads.
With a better marketing campaign more people would have likely playd 4E, if only to get something out of the books they preordered.
And when the initial statement is true, some of those people would have stayed with 4E, instead of not even trying it.


----------



## Cyronax (Sep 5, 2009)

As a person who bought into the marketing and even listened to a former player's complaints about 3.X's semi-permanent conditions (i.e. longer than a round or two), I thought so-called 'bad fun' argument had merit. I began to think that the penultimate basic rules (initial core books) of the AD&D tradition/edition was bloated and poorly designed. The more I see what kind of 'fun' Wizards' thinks its customers should have has indeed turned me off to slavishly supporting 4e products in general. 

I dislike the way 'core' has become synonomous with you must include everything (ie all classes/power sources) or else you're limiting your players. Apparently being a bad DM means not house ruling or encouraing versmilitude (both being loaded words on these forums). The implication is much stronger in this edition, but again that's merely a personal observation. I still like 4e and own many of the books, but I miss a lot of aspects of 3.X. 

C.I.D.

PS -- If I had my druthers, Star Wars SAGA would have been pretty much turned into a fantasy version of itself and released as D&D 4e. Star Wars SAGA is probably the best set of heroic RPG rules I've ever seen.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 5, 2009)

I'm sorry, I have to call bull about 3e's marketing not talking about what didn't work in 2e, and how they were going to change things for the better in 3e.  Take out your old dragon magazines and look at the race and class previews.

Heck, they talked about what didn't work in 3.0 and how 3.5 was going to make it better, when they were doing the marketing and roll out for that revision.

The 4e designers just did what the 3e designers and marketers did when marketing the new edition.  They said that they found this mechanic or game philosophy problematic so they are removing/changing it because it works better.  You may disagree with that decision, but it wasn't like they went around saying "3e sucks and only stupid people play it."    

Now if I was to point out the biggest mistake of 4e's marketing, it would probably be the cancellation of dragon.  It would have been fine if dungeon and dragon were ready to launch and provide content when they canceled the magazines.  I think Dungeon could have been canceled without too much trouble, because it was never particularly popular or profitable.  There would have been howls of protest of course, but Dungeon wasn't needed for marketing the new edition and fewer people would have mourned its passing.   Dragon on the other hand would have been a good source of marketing in the hobby shops, which is not an advertising medium one should give up on easily.  Once the new edition was out, that would have been the right time to move Dragon to an electronic format.  I'm absolutely sure that it was the right decision in the end, and that DDI makes more money for wizards than Dungeon or Dragon ever did, without the headaches of distribution and printing.

They compounded their error of shrinking market coverage by making all their previews only available to those that provided their email address to view content.  That meant that casual surfers of the website were left out, while only the hardcore online community was let in.  If the hardcore gamer didn't like what he saw, I guarantee that the rest of the established gaming group of more casual players isn't going try 4e based on what the hardcore gamer tells them.  What is more, the hardcore are usually going to assume the worst and are the most resistant to change.   

If the previews had been available to all, then you have a direct line of communication to 4-5 guys, not just one.


----------



## Cyronax (Sep 5, 2009)

ferratus said:


> They compounded their error of shrinking market coverage by making all their previews only available to those that provided their email address to view content.  That meant that casual surfers of the website were left out, while only the hardcore online community was let in.  If the hardcore gamer didn't like what he saw, I guarantee that the rest of the established gaming group of more casual players isn't going try 4e based on what the hardcore gamer tells them.  What is more, the hardcore are usually going to assume the worst and are the most resistant to change.
> 
> If the previews had been available to all, then you have a direct line of communication to 4-5 guys, not just one.




On that line though, what is the effect of people just going into Borders or B&N and just page-flipping? That catches a lot of casual interest. That's the sole reason I picked up a lot of game-related books over the last few years. The 4e original core books are especially attractive to the casual reader, IMO, despite any perceived flaws of homogeneity, etc. All the books are really professional looking and really are designed for quick and easy reference ... which lends itself to be visually appealing. 

Most corporations that publish but provide online content (even most major newspapers, NYT or the Washington Post) have requirements for email addresses. I'm not saying it works or doesn't work, but its not uncommon.  

C.I.D.


----------



## carmachu (Sep 5, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> attacked for perceived "trashing" of 3e (where explaining why a change was made amounted to crapping on 3e).




Hmmm, no. While I'm  certain there were percieved trashing, but there were actually instances of them trashing 3.x as 4e was the new hotness. Your whitewashing there a bit.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 5, 2009)

4e is quite simply a completely different game.

Marketing does not explain the people who tried it (perhaps _despite _the marketing) and switched back.

Nerd Rage aside, I really don't think the marketing has much to do with its successes or failures at all. It's all about the rules and the implied setting.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 5, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I'm sorry, I have to call bull about 3e's marketing not talking about what didn't work in 2e, and how they were going to change things for the better in 3e.  Take out your old dragon magazines and look at the race and class previews.




Also do note that the internet was a less powerful force for communication at the time 3e was released.  The stuff in Dragon was print media, and the discussion boards that now repeat and critique the marketing _didn't exist yet_.

There is a pathology on the internet that I think we are all well-aware of: it amplifies and distributes anger.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Sep 5, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I'm absolutely sure that it was the right decision in the end, and that DDI makes more money for wizards than Dungeon or Dragon ever did, without the headaches of distribution and printing.



Of course, because it was Paizo that was producing Dragon and Dungeon when it was ended. But now I can't causally pick up a copy on the newsstand to browse through. I have to have already chosen to lay out a subscription to see anything at all.


----------



## mmadsen (Sep 5, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I hear a lot of criticism of the marketing of 4E, but given the substance of 4E as it has come to pass, would it really have made a difference?



The 4E marketing did not dissuade me from buying the 4E books, but the 4E rules did dissuade me from playing the 4E game.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) No conversion guide.  Admittedly, there are mechanical reasons for this, but in all honesty, there have been dozens of threads here by amateur game designers- IOW, regular players- about HRs to import 4Ed mechanics into 3.XEd and vice versa.  The guys being paid to design 4Ed could have done likewise.
> 
> Instead, we were told to ditch old campaigns and start new ones.



I agree that it's bad marketing to tell D&D players who have invested mightily in their campaign to just start fresh, and it's both bad marketing and bad design to break not just the mechanics of backward-compatability but the flavor as well.  Continuity is important in a game where you create an elaborate shared history.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2) There were pointed commentaries about how 4Ed did things *better* than 3Ed.  The new game was constantly compared to the one it was replacing, which only highlighted how radical a change this would be.



That may be bad marketing, but I personally love a good design discussion, and I'm baffled by people who take offense.  Of course, we see the same things here on the boards all the time, so it shouldn't' have surprised WotC at all.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> 3) Core classes and races were removed from the PHB.  This didn't sit well for a lot of reasons.



This harks back to the earlier point about backward-compatability.  Really though, what galls people is the _inclusion_ of new races and classes, when old standbys get left out.  That feels like a betrayal.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> 4) The rollout of 4Ed was either contemporaneous to or subsequent to the ending of several licensing agreements with Paizo, Weis and others.  IOW, things that people liked- besides 3.XEd- were disappearing, and this created a perfect storm of anti-WotC sentiment.



None of that hit me personally.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 5, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There were people on these very boards who said they were unlikely to buy 4Ed because of the non-renewal of licenses to Paizo for the magazines, and the cessation of the Dragonlance license, etc.  Some even called for a boycott.




A. As a player, my DM was not going to end Age of Worms half-way through, so the lack of a conversion kit made switching impossible in that campaign.

B. For me as a DM I didn't switch because I flat out do not trust WotC to write a decent module. I've read many of theirs and only Red Hand of Doom (by Jacobs) really grabbed me. Goodman Games does a great filler dungeon crawl, but they don't feature campaign worlds or town design. If I want to avoid DM burnout, I have to have access to solid modules and flavorful towns and I just don't trust WotC to do that.

So, when Paizo went its own way due to WotC bungling, that was the nail in the coffin for switching that campaign.

C. My third campaign ended a few months into the switchover, however. Why not switch there? "The economy, stupid." Our players were not going to shell out for new gaming supplies while they were either out of work, holding on to their jobs, or seeing their housing value plummet.

D. In a monthly campaign, we're in 4e, just to try it out. It's early, but some of the mechanics changes make for a problematic world-build. 

But, as you can see, the actual game mechanics were the least important reason for my lack of support for 4e.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 5, 2009)

I'm one of those people who adopted to 4E *despite *the marketing. It seemed like there were two schools of marketing: the official pronouncements, which there weren't very many of, and then the actual comments from the designers, which I respected and enjoyed, which there were even fewer of.

When Star Wars SAGA was announced there was a similar furor over the edition change, and I remember Rodney Thompson coming in and quelling a lot of the problems by essentially saying "I love Star Wars, I'm an RPGer that you all know, trust me." There were a couple of similar messages from Mike Mearls, but not nearly enough in my opinion.

There were a few articles about the changes in the new edition that really worked: the one on hit points and dying was a good example, since it talked about the rules and then said "here's how to use those rules in your 3X campaign now!" Why they didn't do more of that, I have no idea.

So I guess my take on it is that the marketing (or lack thereof) is one of the main issues with initial and ongoing adoption of the new rules. The people who are behind it are incredibly nice folks, but the 4E launch was made much worse by the lead up.

--Steve


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 5, 2009)

*...would it really have made a difference?*

Absolutely!

But, I honestly don't know if it would have been better or worse for them.

For me, I was hooked on the rules and edition philosophy/ideas leaks that were made prior to release.  The end product ended up not being quite what I expected, and just isn't my cup of tea ... but I wasn't mislead (whether purposely or accidentally) by WotC by the leaks and previews.

However, the promises of features (DDI) that never appeared, the creation of the GSL (instead of remaining OGL), the pulling of pdf's and end of any support or occasional supplements for older editions, the sanctimonious and demeaning way they have treated requests and feedback from fans/customers, and the absolute boondoggling of most of their public relations attempts ... IMO adds up to, at worst, false advertising and straight up lying ... at best, absolute and inexcusable mismanagement.

If they had been honest and realistic about their abilities and what they would actually produce and release ... and had been up front about their intentions regarding the OGL and older edition materials ... I still would have bought the 4E core books, occasional supplements that I think I might be able to mine material from, occasional adventures, and most importantly - I would still be paying for a DDI subscription.

Because they didn't, I no longer purchase anything from them.

Whether I'm atypical in that regard, or whether a significant portion of WotC's possible customer base feel the same way, is the part open for conjecture.

But, I guess we'll never know what might have happened had WotC done the right thing instead.


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 6, 2009)

SteveC said:


> I'm one of those people who adopted to 4E *despite *the marketing. It seemed like there were two schools of marketing: the official pronouncements, which there weren't very many of, and then the actual comments from the designers, which I respected and enjoyed, which there were even fewer of.




Honestly it was some of the designer comments that got under my skin w/ regards to what 4e was all about. Two quotes or series of quotes come to mind.

"Of course, these planes don't hold a candle to 2E's hilarious Plane of Vacuum, which is truly the antithesis of fun.)" - Chris Perkins

And from the D&D Podcast #16

"Guardinals - Bullet in the Head." - Mike Mearls
"What's a guardinal???" - Dave Noonan
"They're outsiders from the plane of neutral good!" - James Wyatt
"There's a plane of neutral good? Which one was that again?" - Dave Noonan
"...Bytopia? Maybe?" - James Wyatt (giving the wrong answer, which apparently none of the other guys knew was wrong)
"I'm probably going to offend a bunch of Planescape fans, but Bytopia sounds like a place where you'd go to buy a gimmicky hamburger..."
*insert laughter and jokes cracked about the plane*

What's funny is that the page for the podcast actually went back and added a printed correction for them botching what the NG plane in the Great Wheel was, and what Bytopia was.


----------



## Wereserpent (Sep 6, 2009)

The Marketing did turn me off from 4E, but overall it was just the fact that the game was completely different and not what I am looking for in an RPG that made me not switch to 4E.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2009)

Marketing didn't matter to me.  Marketing rarely tells me if I'm going to like something; too much flash and not enough substance.  It's the game I care about not the opinions of the people who make the thing.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Sep 6, 2009)

Umbran said:
			
		

> There is a pathology on the internet that I think we are all well-aware of: it amplifies and distributes anger.




This. It's funny, I was thinking pretty much exactly this before I scrolled down to your post. 

The marketing had its problems. I also think that, from the outset, a lot of 3.x fans on this site and others willfully misconstrued/misrepresented the 4e marketing campaign in order to push their own agenda. So much, that I wonder if it may have actually impacted the game's success. 

4e isn't my cup of tea, but that choice is based on the game, not the marketing, or the negative press of the game's instant detractors.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 6, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> If they had been honest and realistic about their abilities and what they would actually produce and release ... and had been up front about their intentions regarding the OGL and older edition materials ...




I can't speak to WotC's intentions regarding 4E materials, but about the OGL I can tell you that WotC honestly had no idea what their intentions were.

I was at Gen Con 2007, when 4E had been announced, and there was a seminar about what 4E would mean for the third-party community. I attended, and so did a LOT of big players from various companies, such as Paizo, Green Ronin, and many others, and waited to hear what WotC had to say...only to find out that WotC was waiting to hear what we had to say.

See, the "seminar" was WotC asking for thoughts and opinions on whether or not - and if so how - 4E should be open. In fact, they admitted that this was because they weren't sure what to do yet and hadn't decided how to proceed. A lot of thoughts and ideas were tossed around, some good and some not so good, but the message was clear - WotC had no clear plan for how to proceed. It was nice of them to ask for input, sure, but it was still disheartening that they didn't have their act together.

That, I believe, is indicative of how the entire 4E launch was handled - there was only a vague idea of what they wanted to do, and almost no idea how to accomplish it.


----------



## Elbeghast (Sep 6, 2009)

Treebore said:


> All their marketing choices definitely turned me off, but ultimately it was 4E itself that turned me away.



This. 

The marketing failed to draw in people who *liked* 3.5 in the first place. It encouraged them to stay where they were and raised their doubts, to put it mildly. It's a lesson on what *not* to do when marketing a new edition of a very successful game/previous edition.

The game itself did the rest.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 6, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, let me reiterate: they violated a bunch of *basic* marketing practices- that is objective fact- too numerous to enumerate.



"Marketing" and "objective fact" do not belong in the same sentence.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 6, 2009)

Crothian said:


> Marketing didn't matter to me.  Marketing rarely tells me if I'm going to like something; too much flash and not enough substance.  It's the game I care about not the opinions of the people who make the thing.



Wise.


----------



## Shroomy (Sep 6, 2009)

Elbeghast said:


> This.
> 
> The marketing failed to draw in people who *liked* 3.5 in the first place. It encouraged them to stay where they were and raised their doubts, to put it mildly. It's a lesson on what *not* to do when marketing a new edition of a very successful game/previous edition.
> 
> The game itself did the rest.




I liked 3.5e, like it a lot in fact, and I had no real problems with the marketing or the game itself.  I'm not alone in my playgroup (which actually includes a trio of primarily Exalted players, in addition to a couple of people who played the older editions), and we're loving 4e.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2009)

Honestly, the marketing didn't turn me off at all. Despite that I wasn't primarily a D&D player anymore, I was looking forward to the release of 4e and seeing what all the design team had done with it. It was only by my enduring poverty that I did not end up purchasing the core rulebooks on preorder.

I got the chance to read the books later, and play in a game or two. That's when I decided I didn't like it.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 6, 2009)

I don't think the marketing actually alienated 3.5 lovers.  I think the marketing provided a flashpoint for people who were going to be angry anyways.  Many of the more common criticisms of the marketing at the time simply weren't reasonable and generally boiled down to criticisms of the entire concept of a new edition.  The most common criticism, that they "tore down" 3e instead of "building up" 4e, is fundamentally flawed for the simple reason that like it or not the two editions are in market competition with one another, and the selling points of the latest edition include, in prominent point, refinements of the prior edition.  There's simply no easy way to say "we improved X" without suggesting to a certain degree that "X" was in need of improvement.  And they had to say that, because it was directly relevant to the nature of the product they were selling.


----------



## The Ghost (Sep 6, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Marketing does not explain the people who tried it (perhaps _despite _the marketing) and switched back.




Me!

I found WotC's marketing very annoying but it was not enough to keep me from trying the system. Much like how I find Subway's marketing campaigns annoying - I still eat at Subway. In the end it was the rules themselves that turned me off to 4e.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 6, 2009)

While I don't know if better marketting would've made 4e more played, I think it did contribute a lot to the edition wars.

WotC told me in no unkind terms that the way I liked to play was bad, that I didn't know what fun was, that my enjoyment of certain races was bad, that my enjoyment of certain classes was bad, that settings I liked were bad, that the fluff I enjoyed was bad, and that some of the things I've done while DMing is bad.

That's not how you foster a big welcoming community.

Then they destroyed their third party support, slammed down on third party producers I liked, made it impossible for people who *WANT TO WORK FOR 4e* to do so, and made it illegal for me to purchase my .pdfs.

This is not how you treat a fan base.

Would better marketing improve 4e's sales?  Probably not by a lot.  As someone else said, 4e is still DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, and the name has a lot of weight going for it.  But it certainly made the split between fan bases a lot worse.


----------



## Shazman (Sep 6, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Where a lot of criticism of the marketing arose was really surprising to me.  The designers did something pretty unprecedented in game design in blogging about, discussing,  previewing, and explaining the changes and development of the edition in the months leading up to release.  And this is where they took the most constant flak.  Every word was analyzed, developers were attacked for perceived "trashing" of 3e (where explaining why a change was made amounted to crapping on 3e).  I don't know how bad it was perceived from their end, if we won't see that level of openness with 5e.  I think we might in that much of this openness  has continued through DDI and all the preview articles and Design & Development articles.
> 
> There is just a lot of nerd rage in the community anytime things change*.  Look at all the rage that spread like wildfire from GenCon about the previews of the new Warhammer edition.  The game isn't even developed yet and legions already hate it.  Same as with 4e.  So many people never even gave it a chance.
> 
> ...




I remember quite distinctly that the "marketing" of 4E, if you can call it that, shortly after the announcement of 4E, was essentlially trashing 3.5.  They spent a lot more time talking about how this or that part of 3.5 was bad, than they did talking about the good parts of 4E, especially the specifics of why 4E was better.  It basically amounted to hyberbole like "X about 3.5 was so horrible.  It's so much better in 4E.  We can't tell you why, but it's so awesome!" Saying your last prodcut was horrible, but your new one is awesome simply on the word of people whose jobs depend on you buying the new product is a lame and pitiful attempt at "marketing".  Comparing people that weren't crazy about the coming of 4E to farmers shaking their fists at clouds or saying their games probably weren't fun if they actually used non combat skills like profession and craft in their games, didn't help much either.  Add that to the fiasco that was  the killing the print editions of Dungeon and Dragon and some other licenses, and it's almost like they didn't want many of thier current customers at the time to remain their customers.  They were definitely giving the impression that they wanted to "fire" their audience and replace them with fans of MMORPGs.


----------



## Shazman (Sep 6, 2009)

Derren said:


> So? People constantly say that 4E plays better than it reads.
> With a better marketing campaign more people would have likely playd 4E, if only to get something out of the books they preordered.
> And when the initial statement is true, some of those people would have stayed with 4E, instead of not even trying it.[/QUOTE
> 
> INMHO it actually read much better than it plays.  The math is so off, so skewed towards long grindy combats, it's just sad.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2009)

mmadsen said:


> That may be bad marketing, but I personally love a good design discussion, and I'm baffled by people who take offense.  Of course, we see the same things here on the boards all the time, so it shouldn't' have surprised WotC at all.




All well and good, but when the tone of that discussion is "What came before was bad, this is much better," you're alienating those who actually what came before.  You've just elevated opinion to the level of fact.  IOW, you're telling them they had badwrongfun- and there go a few bricks into the wall.

In contrast, a design discussion couched in terms of "This is what we're doing, and this is why it rocks!" is an entirely positive tone, and doesn't cause a reflexive backlash.



> I don't think the marketing actually alienated 3.5 lovers.




Oh, it did.  I don't know how many, but it did.


> I was at Gen Con 2007, when 4E had been announced, and there was a seminar about what 4E would mean for the third-party community.<_snip the story_>
> WotC had no clear plan for how to proceed. It was nice of them to ask for input, sure, but it was still disheartening that they didn't have their act together.




In many businesses, heads would have rolled for that.

You ask for industry insider input quietly...and at a time interval before the product launch that allows you the ability to discuss and digest and possibly even implement some of that input.  GenCon 2007 was in August right?  And 4Ed was released in June 2008.  That's a _short _period of time for that kind of process...and I think it showed.


> The most common criticism, that they "tore down" 3e instead of "building up" 4e, is fundamentally flawed for the simple reason that like it or not the two editions are in market competition with one another, and the selling points of the latest edition include, in prominent point, refinements of the prior edition. There's simply no easy way to say "we improved X" without suggesting to a certain degree that "X" was in need of improvement. And they had to say that, because it was directly relevant to the nature of the product they were selling.




I disagree.

It is entirely possible- and is in fact a basic tenet of advertising- to build up your current product without tearing down your previous ones.

You don't say "we _improved_ X" unless you _objectively_ have- and I mean with real quantifiable numbers, not based on opinion polls.  Best practice states that "improved" language should only creep into marketing when you've had a product rack up lawsuit after lawsuit (check the recall lists), stacks of customer complaints about frequency of repairs (watch out, Microsoft X-Box), or a genuine performance increase.  There you can talk about how you've made the product safer, more reliable or more efficient in a statistically verifiable way.*

With D&D, you're talking about the rules of a game- "improved" is going to be in the eyes of the Beholderkin.

Instead, you say "We _changed_ x" and tell people what that means for them.  As the song goes, "You've got to aaaaaaac-cent-U-ate the positive!" You don't bring up potential negatives.  *YOU* don't do it.  You let Joe Customer find out the negatives by himself, or wait for your competitors to point it out.

The difference is that in one case, you're being explicit, and in another, you're being implicit.  And believe it or not, that makes a HUGE difference in how your product gets received by the buying public.

If a big portion of your installed base goes into the store thinking "Those bastards gutted my game!" they're not going to buy.  If, OTOH, they go in thinking "Did you hear, Fighters have more combat options!" you may make a sale.

* And sometimes _even then_, you don't use that language.  Tylenol NEVER mentioned its improved safety precautions after the poisonings- they just instituted the changes and stayed quiet.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 6, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Instead, you say "We _changed_ x" and tell people what that means for them. As the song goes, "You've got to aaaaaaac-cent-U-ate the positive!" You don't bring up potential negatives. *YOU* don't do it. You let Joe Customer find out the negatives by himself, or wait for your competitors to point it out.



Well, clearly you know more about it than me.  But your rules of advertising apply to the general economy.  I rather suspect that the rules of practice are different when your product is competing almost solely with your own discontinued product, the product in question never expires so no one strictly requires a new version, and the primary improvements of the new version are better usability.

Personally, I suspect that people's interpretation of the marketing was colored by preexisting preferences, not the other way around.  

Just look at this thread- its being regularly claimed that 4e's marketing upset "people who liked 3e."  

Obviously that's a silly thing to say.  We all know its a silly thing to say.  You know it, I know it, we all know it.  People who liked 3e are almost certainly the primary purchasers of 4e!  They just like 4e more, or like to play the current supported edition of the game, or any number of reasons.  

But people are tribalistic and want to claim ownership and throw out those they don't like.  So they declare themselves to be "the people who like 3e" and imply that people who like 4e aren't.

The reality was that the editions were actually being compared, and consumers were actually being exhorted to choose one over the other.  I'm not sure that WotC could have made everyone think that wasn't true by changing their language, especially given the emotional reaction people were inevitably going to have to an edition shift, and the resulting colored perceptions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I rather suspect that the rules of practice are different when your product is competing almost solely with your own discontinued product, the product in question never expires so no one strictly requires a new version, and the primary improvements of the new version are better usability.




First, we have to stop using the word "better" in this context.  Your "better" is someone else's "different" and another's "ruined."  Its so subjective that it presents a barrier to communication...just like it did in the 4Ed rollout.

Second, while an RPG doesn't have an expy date, there are items with long shelf lives and those that get upgraded within the product's lifespan.

Look at game consoles: people are complaining about the new slim Playstation 3& its pricing vs the older version of the same console; people are complaining about new vs old Wii controls; people are complaining about rising X-Box failure (and re-failure) rates.

And the companies are saying_ nothing._  Not in their ads, at least.

Apple, at one point, glutted its market with several new product releases a year- some of which made releases as little as 6 months old obsolete.

Again, Apple said nothing.

Heck- I can't even think of another RPG revision release that involved a badmouthing of a previous edition.  Ditto wargames and boardgames.

The version of Acquire I have is different from the one my buddy's dad had...and different from the one my buddy owns.  New editions of Risk and Stratego have popped up, but no ad info- other than what IP inspired the change- regards the changes to the game.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 6, 2009)

How come Paizo didn't get raked over the coals given that they EXPLICITLY said things like "The Bard sucks"?


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

*Hey, folks, your friendly admin here. If you're curious on how not to post, please use this series of posts as an example. It's the sort of thing that gets people threadbanned or suspended: deliberate insulting language that is designed to stir up arguments instead of discussing them. Please avoid this sort of thing when you're posting yourself.  Thanks.  ~ PCat*



AllisterH said:


> How come Paizo didn't get raked over the coals given that they EXPLICITLY said things like "The Bard sucks"?



Because people are just making up things to rake WOTC over the coals with and their criticisms are not really valid.

I find it particularly contrived to decide there's some big faux pass involved in trying to improve the game, or _daring_ to suggest that 4e is an improvement over 3e. Rubbish. New versions of products advertise their improvements over older versions all the time. This includes new versions of apple products, software, games, I mean for crying out loud some computer game development companies advertise their _patches_ if they're big enough.

Not only is it absurd to demand the makers of a new product avoid mentioning it's advantages over a new one, not only is it ridiculous to claim that this is some kind of big advertising no-no, but I think we all know such a change in their promotion of 4e would have had limited effect on the people who decided to hate 4e.

This is particularly true of those people who hate it to the point where they can't stand to have 4e compared favourably to 3e.

If they had said things like 'not better just different' then the 4e haters would have said things like 'if it isn't better why make 4e at all' and this whole ridiculous process would begin anew.

There are certainly a lot of things that WOTC could have done better during the launch of 4e and in the time since then, but this ridiculous idea about 'tearing 3e down' hs got nothing to do with promotion or advertising, and everything to do with diehard 3e fans venting their spleens and other people giving the argument far more credit or support than it deserves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> How come Paizo didn't get raked over the coals given that they EXPLICITLY said things like "The Bard sucks"?




You mean in the context of their game, Pathfinder?

*1) *They are the _competition._  The competition can get away with saying bad things about features of previous editions of D&D because that's how they define_ their_ product.  That's how _they_ get contrast.

Maybe they won't escape backlash completely, but their comments aren't going to be taken in the same way as the comments made by the company that owns the property both are maligning.  Their product may resemble D&D, but it isn't D&D.  _WotC/Hasbro_ is the owner of D&D in all of its iterations.

*2) *Not only are they the competition, by making their release a tweaked version of 3.X, they are seen a bit as the "savior" of the old system, thus becoming the "enemy of my enemy"...or at least standard bearers for a _revision_ rather than _replacement_ of 3.X.  The changes_ they_ are making are perceived as far less radical than the change from 3.X to 4Ed.  They are making "tweaks," not wholesale systemic changes, and that lessens the impact of the blow.

Consider: there was barely a squeak when WotC reworked the Polymorph rules...just a short time before releasing 4Ed.  That tweak wasn't trivial, either.  But it stayed within the framework of extant rules- it wasn't part of a huge change.

*3) *They are a small company, especially relative to the 800lb gorilla that is WotC/Hasbro.  If both Apple and Microsoft did something that created a negative impact on the PC using public, Apple wouldn't get the same kind of negative press- or legal scrutiny- as Microsoft would.


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 6, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> Honestly it was some of the designer comments that got under my skin w/ regards to what 4e was all about. Two quotes or series of quotes come to mind.
> 
> "Of course, these planes don't hold a candle to 2E's hilarious Plane of Vacuum, which is truly the antithesis of fun.)" - Chris Perkins
> 
> ...



Not a big fan of sarcasm I take it?



AllisterH said:


> How come Paizo didn't get raked over the coals given that they EXPLICITLY said things like "The Bard sucks"?



Because not enough people care what Paizo says.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2009)

> I find it particularly contrived to decide there's some big faux pass involved in trying to improve the game, or daring to suggest that 4e is an improvement over 3e. Rubbish.




No, its not rubbish.

That 4Ed is "an improvement over 3.X" is a matter of _opinion,_ and opinions vary _greatly_ on that matter.  Its entirely subjective.

By asserting it as objective fact in an advertising campaign, by taking that as your marketing strategy's starting point, you're adopting an adversarial stance right out of the gate.  You're helping create and temper your own opposition.  You've given them a rhetorical foothold.



> New versions of products advertise their improvements over older versions all the time. This includes new versions of apple products, software, games, I mean for crying out loud some computer game development companies advertise their patches if they're big enough.




Look at the character of those improvements in those ads.  In neither case are they criticizing their previous products on _subjective_ grounds.

They tout that a computer runs faster, has a more powerful graphics processing card, are more stable, more secure, less prone to damage by viruses, more compact, bigger screen or lower price than their previous models - all things that are _objectively_ verifiable.

The patches for games address known issues- software conflicts, freezes, backdoors, bugs, etc.- or _again_ add or improve the program's functionality in objective ways with increases in world size, more realistic & challenging AIs, smoother graphics and so forth...and are also rarely part of an actual advertising campaign.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 6, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I don't think the marketing actually alienated 3.5 lovers.  I think the marketing provided a flashpoint for people who were going to be angry anyways.




You would be wrong in at least one case: mine. 

When 3e was announced, I was extremely skeptical. But the marketing and tidbits release over time on Eric's 3e news page pretty much won me over before it hit the stores.

When 4e was announced, I was optimistic. After all, WotC had delivered before both with 3e and with SWSE. Then as the year-long marketing campaign unfolded, I got more and more turned off to the point that I wasn't even seeking out the real previews put out by WotC. By the time the rules came out, I was pretty disgusted with WotC as a company. The company's failures to live up to commitments with the licensing and DDI were the icing on the cake.

For me, the marketing of 4e makes the difference between being disappointed and being disgusted. The way it ended up, 4e was never going to replace 3.5/PF for me. But the marketing campaign made it far less likely I would ever come back.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, its not rubbish.
> 
> That 4Ed is "an improvement over 3.X" is a matter of _opinion,_ and opinions vary _greatly_ on that matter. Its entirely subjective.



That's not what I said. I said your claim about advertising was rubbish, and it is. I'm not suprised you jumped to the wrong conclusion, because if it's one thing people in these arguments can't stand, it's the idea that 4e might be just plain better than 3e. Gasp! No! We must keep that idea taboo!



> By asserting it as objective fact in an advertising campaign, by taking that as your marketing strategy's starting point, you're adopting an adversarial stance right out of the gate. You're helping create and temper your own opposition. You've given them a rhetorical foothold.



Rubbish. Are you saying advertisers don't compared their product favourable to competitors? And previous models of their own products? Don't be ridiculous, of course they do. 



> Look at the character of those improvements in those ads. In neither case are they criticizing their previous products on _subjective_ grounds.



Your entire argument is a contrivance. There's no validity to your claim. Adversiting doesn't make subjective criticisms? Subjective claims? That's what adversiting _is_. 



> They tout that a computer runs faster, has a more powerful graphics processing card, are more stable, more secure, less prone to damage by viruses, more compact, bigger screen or lower price than their previous models - all things that are _objectively_ verifiable.



Your argument is simply not valid. You have created a fantasy world where advertisers work purely in terms of objective facts and that simply isn't true. 



> The patches for games address known issues- software conflicts, freezes, backdoors, bugs, etc.- or _again_ add or improve the program's functionality in objective ways with increases in world size, more realistic & challenging AIs, smoother graphics and so forth...and are also rarely part of an actual advertising campaign.



Not only are many of these claims at least somewhat subjective, but they're obvious examples of where an improvement is made over a previous iteration, and these improvements are promoted.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Wise.




Lessons learned from paying too much attention to movie trailers over the past two decades.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> That's not what I said. I said your claim about advertising was rubbish, and it is. I'm not suprised you jumped to the wrong conclusion, because if it's one thing people in these arguments can't stand, it's the idea that 4e might be just plain better than 3e. Gasp! No! We must keep that idea taboo!




What wrong conclusion?

How does one measure and quantify the "objective betterness" of 4Ed vs 3Ed?


> *catastrophic's own words*
> I find it particularly contrived to decide there's some big faux pass involved in trying to improve the game, or daring to suggest that 4e is an improvement over 3e. Rubbish.




To which I responded that it is indeed a faux pas from a marketing perspective to suggest that "4E is an improvement over 3Ed."

Its not that making the effort is the problem- like many others, I was fine with the advent of 4Ed as an idea.  I appreciated the effort- I just didn't care for the game's design in reality.  I'm currently waiting to see what 5Ed looks like, and will be similarly optimistic and hopeful when 6, 7, and 8Ed revisions get announced in their time.

Its the argumentative and authoritarian tone of that assertion- 4Ed>3Ed- as a matter of fact that is the problem.  4Ed isn't better, its different.  And continuing to assert 4Ed>3Ed _as_ fact doesn't do WotC's marketing plan any good...nor this thread.


> Are you saying advertisers don't compared their product favourable to competitors?




No.  Not at all.  That, in fact, is one of the primary ways of differentiating your product from the product of a competitor.


> ...And previous models of their own products? Don't be ridiculous, of course they do.




Yes they do, but they do so with caution and precision if they do it right.

Done poorly, not only do you damage sales of the product you're rolling out, but you risk damaging sales of entire product lines that may be related to that product.

And how this is done varies from product to product.

The American auto industry is currently criticizing their own past products in their ad campaigns...because historically speaking, they have been producing lower quality products than European and Japanese competitors.  They're able to criticize themselves now because they've substantially closed the quality gap on many models, and they need to let the buying public know this.  *That's* a selling point.

However, you won't see an insulation manufacturer talking about how their older products contained a lot of asbestos, and now they don't.  The closest they'll get is saying their new stuff is asbestos-free...not that it used to contain the cancer-inducing fiber.

The tobacco companies only mention the cancer link because they have to.



> Adversiting doesn't make subjective criticisms? Subjective claims? That's what adversiting _is_.




Some advertising _does_ make subjective claims.  And if one company makes a bold subjective claim that is objectively testable, you can bet that the competition will trot out commercials that show evidence to the contrary.  That's how the whole Coke & Pepsi "taste test" advertising campaigns got started...which resulted in the creation of New Coke.

But an amazing amount of advertising is based on quantifiable data.  The 2 main ways of competing in a market are with quality or price.  Most advertising on price is obviously fact based.  Something is either cheaper or not.

Quality gets more difficult.  Depending on each product, certain characteristics are going to be objectively quantifiable and some will be subjective- known in the field as "fluff" or "puff" language.

But even the objectively quantifiable may be measured in many ways- and which way matters differently to different consumers.



> You have created a fantasy world where advertisers work purely in terms of objective facts and that simply isn't true.




No- that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying that its extremely bad advertising practice to criticize *your own product* on subjective grounds, not that advertisers never use subjective statements.

Snapple's current campaign subtly compares their new products to their old.  "The best stuff on Earth just got better." is the tag-line.

"The best stuff on Earth" is clearly subjective.  Its called "puff" or "adspeak" in the biz.  But its also not a claim that can be objectively challenged...because its simply too vague.  Its also their original tagline.

"just got better" isn't.  Why?  Because the "better" is referring to the quality of their new ingredients- fresher produce, better QC, and other objectively verifiable facts underly that claim...and they're only really explicitly emphasizing the quality of their ingredients.

It is obliquely critical of their own product, to be sure.  But its done properly.  They're not ticking off, point by point, how Snapple 2009 is better than Snapple 1999, and that the 1999 stuff wasn't good at all.  Their ads just call out they're using superior ingredients to what they did in the past.



> > The patches for games address known issues- software conflicts, freezes, backdoors, bugs, etc.- or again add or improve the program's functionality in objective ways with increases in world size, more realistic & challenging AIs, smoother graphics and so forth...and are also rarely part of an actual advertising campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are many of these claims at least somewhat subjective, but they're obvious examples of where an improvement is made over a previous iteration, and these improvements are promoted.




Subjective how?

How are patches for bugs, conflicts etc. not objectively better?  How is it subjective that a claiming its good that a MMORPG gets a size increase due to a patch?

Smoother graphics?  That can be verified by direct comparison.

Realistic & challenging AI?  You mean that its not objectively discernible that a new AIs for Commandos acts more like RW Commandos?

And no...patches are NOT promoted.  _Expansions_ are, on occasion, but not _patches_.

Do they get released?  Yes.  Do they get announced to the people who bought the software?  Yes.

Do gaming or computer magazines talk about the patches?   Sure.

But did WoW have Ozzy & Mr T talk on TV about the latest patch?  No.  Patches are like FAQ updates.  The word gets out, but its not part of the advertising budget.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

*Admin note: this has been addressed. In the mean time, we're leaving this up as a good example of how not to post at ENW. Confrontative insults aren't a great way to get anyone to pay attention to you. ~ Piratecat* 

I'm not going to go back and fourth with you when your argument is absurd and clearly untrue. I see you're backpedalling a bit in your latest post, but it doesn't change the fact that your criticism of WOTC's marketing is absurd.

You're just drawing arbitary lines and creating a set of contrived rules in order to juge WOTC a failure while, for instance, denying that Pazio falls under the same criticism even though it obviously should. 

*It is not a faux pass from a marketing perspective to claim the new model is better than the old model. It is certainly not considered bad form for RPGs and similar games to talk about how they've improved from edition to edition- some fans may disagree, but no matter what you may claim, the retro faction of an edition war is not the majority vote it pretends to be, and it's not going to be mollified by 'different not better'.

*Advertising relies on subjective factors at least as much as objective data, and frankly it tends to rely on non-objective data a great deal more. If you aren't aware of that, welcome to planet earth, where you need to drink coke to enjoy life and 'life' is a synonym for 'carbon'.

*Oh, and patches are increasingly promoted and certainly advertised. For instance Valve promotes it's updates to tf2, going as far as to release short animated films and using other promotional methods to raise awareness of the product, such as splash pages on a part of steam normally used only to advertise upcoming products. When DOW2 got a major overhaul of it's balance and gameplay, the developers advertised it with videos and branding and even gave it a fancy name based on the game's setting ("there is only war"). And no, you can't brush this aside by drawing yet another arbitary line between 'promotion' and 'awareness'.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 6, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> How come Paizo didn't get raked over the coals given that they EXPLICITLY said things like "The Bard sucks"?




Because it's objectively true.


----------



## Cyronax (Sep 6, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Because it's objectively true.




Ah .. well bards only suck if you let yourself be pulled into the Stormwind Fallacy. A suboptimal choice shouldn't deter a truly good roleplayer 


Anyway, Paizo hasn't been criticized as much because they're just the smaller companay in the mix. They aren't the ones forcing the change, and Paizo was merely doing what a lot of 3PP did when working on their own OGL games -- tinkering with the basics of 3.5.

C.I.D.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 6, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> Honestly it was some of the designer comments that got under my skin w/ regards to what 4e was all about. Two quotes or series of quotes come to mind.
> 
> "Of course, these planes don't hold a candle to 2E's hilarious Plane of Vacuum, which is truly the antithesis of fun.)" - Chris Perkins
> 
> ...




That's...sad.

Oh, well.  Those that agree with them can have what they deserve - 4E.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 6, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> How come Paizo didn't get raked over the coals given that they EXPLICITLY said things like "The Bard sucks"?




Simple. MANY people got to playtest beta rules for a possible bard and debate changes in a public forum where the designers participated. Some of those changes were incorporated in the final product, but the most important impact was that core customers felt heard by the process of creating the revision. Contrast this with the closed system of playtesting that you had with 4E and you have a key difference.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 6, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> While I don't know if better marketting would've made 4e more played, I think it did contribute a lot to the edition wars.
> 
> WotC told me in no unkind terms that the way I liked to play was bad, that I didn't know what fun was, that my enjoyment of certain races was bad, that my enjoyment of certain classes was bad, that settings I liked were bad, that the fluff I enjoyed was bad, and that some of the things I've done while DMing is bad.
> 
> ...




Look, every single one of those blogs and whatnot are still online.  Can someone please show me where WOTC went out of their way to either be overly critical or insulting of anyone's playstyle OR 3e?  Can anyone actually back that up with quotes other than "Oh, remember that thread?"

I mean, when we had that "cloud watching" blog post, people freaked.  People went ballistic.  How dare they say that we don't have the full picture.

Then cooler heads went back and read the blog and asked for exactly what was so bad about the blog post.

I remember the reply - critics actually accused WOTC of going back and revising the blog post - of editing the blog post after the fact.  When it was proven to be DEMONSTRABLY false, people kind of slunk away and the issue died.  (It was demonstrable due to Way Back Machine and the fact that the "objectionable" part of the blog was actually quoted on En World and then nothing objectionable was found.)

Critics of WOTC were going so far overboard as to claim that it was more likely that WOTC was editing its own blogs to change their message than perhaps people were being a tad thin skinned and reading things that weren't really there.



			
				DannyA said:
			
		

> To which I responded that it is indeed a faux pas from a marketing perspective to suggest that "4E is an improvement over 3Ed."




So, a better marketing strategy would have been, "Here's 4e, it might not be better than what you're playing right now but, please buy it anyway"?  

Hey, I know I don't have a marketing degree, but, that doesn't sound right to me.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 6, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> That's...sad.



I think it's funny, though Bytopia is obviously the Elemental Plane of Rush Fans. To each is own, but the profusion of _stuff_ in the Great Wheel --at the intersection the Para-elemental Planes of Salt, Smoke, and Tasty Peppers lies the Para-Elemental Demi-Plane of Paprika-- always struck me as a cosmology designed by a group of undergraduate engineering students sharing their first joint, which is to say, as lacking a certain mythic power and lyricism.   



> Oh, well.  Those that agree with them can have what they deserve - 4E.



The 4e Cosmology is okay as a starting point. My friend and I improved it quite a bit for our homebrew (ah, modesty...).

As for the marketing of 4e... I thought it was fine. It created an awareness of and interest in the product in me. I didn't find it insulting in the slightest. What I did find was a surprising amount of thin-skinned response on the Internet (of all places), claiming the new design/marketing team wasn't showing the proper amount of deference for all that came before. Where they supposed to suggest the new product was wholly unnecessary? That no improvements were made? That so few changes were made that it's practically the same product users already owned --hmmm, it worked for Pathfinder, so maybe... Anyhow, color me confused.


----------



## ggroy (Sep 6, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> Simple. MANY people got to playtest beta rules for a possible bard and debate changes in a public forum where the designers participated. Some of those changes were incorporated in the final product, but the most important impact was that core customers felt heard by the process of creating the revision. Contrast this with the closed system of playtesting that you had with 4E and you have a key difference.




Wonder how 4E would have turned out if it had an open playtest similar to Pathfinder.

Or for that matter, would attitudes be different if WotC had said back in 2006 that the "Book of 9 Swords" was a possible design for 4E.


----------



## Harlekin (Sep 6, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Where a lot of criticism of the marketing arose was really surprising to me.  The designers did something pretty unprecedented in game design in blogging about, discussing,  previewing, and explaining the changes and development of the edition in the months leading up to release.  And this is where they took the most constant flak.  Every word was analyzed, developers were attacked for perceived "trashing" of 3e (where explaining why a change was made amounted to crapping on 3e).  I don't know how bad it was perceived from their end, if we won't see that level of openness with 5e.  I think we might in that much of this openness  has continued through DDI and all the preview articles and Design & Development articles.




I think this is the key point. Wizards were trying to communicate openly with us about their thoughts, goals and intentions. They did not add much filtering or other corporate BSing that is the hallmark of a "good" marketing campaign. Thus, there was enough honesty in their statements that readers who wanted to get offended had material, and, as Umbran mentioned, the Internet is the perfect place to amplify such perceived offense. 

So for the next edition, we can expect corporate BS again, as we obviously cannot handle honesty. Yay.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 6, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> I think this is the key point. Wizards were trying to communicate openly with us about their thoughts, goals and intentions. They did not add much filtering or other corporate BSing that is the hallmark of a "good" marketing campaign. Thus, there was enough honesty in their statements that readers who wanted to get offended had material, and, as Umbran mentioned, the Internet is the perfect place to amplify such perceived offense.
> 
> So for the next edition, we can expect corporate BS again, as we obviously cannot handle honesty. Yay.




Except that designers getting the word out happened with previous editions too, without the same backlash. When 2e was under development, there were updates in Dragon. I recall updates from WotC under 3e. Things accelerated under 4e, I suppose, because even more people have access to the internet since the 3e era. But the basics remained the same. Developers aired some of their ideas and gave updates on the process.


----------



## Mark (Sep 6, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Except that designers getting the word out happened with previous editions too, without the same backlash. When 2e was under development, there were updates in Dragon. I recall updates from WotC under 3e. Things accelerated under 4e, I suppose, because even more people have access to the internet since the 3e era. But the basics remained the same. Developers aired some of their ideas and gave updates on the process.





That "Things accelerated" seems to be the biggest difference and notably significant because of where this dicussion is taking place.


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 6, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I remember the reply - critics actually accused WOTC of going back and revising the blog post - of editing the blog post after the fact.




Nah, they haven't done that in years as far as I can tell. The first and only time I've seen that was when the official transcript of the 3.x Planar handbook designer chat was heavily edited versus the raw transcript to remove a number of questions and responses that didn't exactly come off as flattering.


----------



## catastrophic (Sep 6, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> Simple. MANY people got to playtest beta rules for a possible bard and debate changes in a public forum where the designers participated. Some of those changes were incorporated in the final product, but the most important impact was that core customers felt heard by the process of creating the revision. Contrast this with the closed system of playtesting that you had with 4E and you have a key difference.



You know there's a three colum page full of small print playtester credits at the back of the phb, right? And that they were openly stating that they used late 3e products and feedback from them as part of the 4e design? And they used the RPGA for a great deal of playtesting? And they've been doing playtest releases of classes?

I guess WOTC's evil closed playtest system is going to be a new element in the rich mythology of 4e-hate.

Frankly I don't think you can hold the pazio playtest up as some kind of exemplar, from what I heard, the playtesters actually opposed efforts to make the fighter more powerful. And then there's the fact that they boasted about having tens of thousands of playtesters, based purely on how many people downloaded the free pdf. I mean, I'd be pretty happy if that many people downloaded a free pdf I put out, but it doesn't mean they're all playtesting it.

If somebody was looking for excuses to slag off pazio's testing process, they could find plenty. But they'renot- people are willing to give them a fair go. 

Plenty of people are looking for excuses for slag off WOTC- and it's not like there aren't valid cricisms to be made again them- but all too often people reach into pure fantasy in the process.


----------



## Windjammer (Sep 6, 2009)

Ah, the conundrum why Paizo can get away with marketing moves that WotC can't. 

Here's the answer. It's not product marketing, it's customer relations. 

Listen to any podcast featuring Erik Mona. And then (re)read Dan Noonan's old "The clouds are moving, 4E is coming, and you fans can do NOTHING about it! Wuhahahaha!"-blog entry. 

Spot the difference?


----------



## billd91 (Sep 6, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> You know there's a three colum page full of small print playtester credits at the back of the phb, right? And that they were openly stating that they used late 3e products and feedback from them as part of the 4e design? And they used the RPGA for a great deal of playtesting? And they've been doing playtest releases of classes?




There's some good things to be said about transparency in the play test process. It helps to show exactly how ideas get listened to, filtered, modified, and adopted and that's good for buy-in. 



catastrophic said:


> Frankly I don't think you can hold the pazio playtest up as some kind of exemplar, from what I heard, the playtesters actually opposed efforts to make the fighter more powerful.




Your source is misinformed. There was a great deal of debate on _how_ to improve the fighter, relative to the other classes, but the general consensus was to improve him.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 6, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Your source is misinformed. There was a great deal of debate on _how_ to improve the fighter, relative to the other classes, but the general consensus was to improve him.




Er, paizo's open playtest did have a lot of detractors who felt that it wasn't a true playtest (basically, the playtest didn't focus on "stretching/breaking the rules" but basically more of a "does this seem to work in this specific context").

I'm not sure an open playtest is actually a GOOD thing anymore after seeing how Paizo got slammed for it.

(I'm still personally unclear as to why changing the number of SKILL points each class gets was considered too much of a change compared to what did get changed. This WAS openly debated on the paizo boards and one feature I don't think I ever saw disagreement about yet it pretty much wasn't implemented)


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 6, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Wonder how 4E would have turned out if it had an open playtest similar to Pathfinder.
> 
> Or for that matter, would attitudes be different if WotC had said back in 2006 that the "Book of 9 Swords" was a possible design for 4E.



"What if" 4e had turned out not to be what it is? The problem, I think, is that the negativity in the selling accurately reflected the design goals. The aim was not to improve 3e, but to produce a game for people who didn't like a whole lot of what D&D had been from the start. That was bound to piss off people who _did_ like the game for which it was billed as a replacement.

That _replacement_ was a key factor. People can't buy what's not on offer, so if you choose to stop offering it then losing their patronage is a lump you choose to take.

I expect the Wizards had enough moxie to know that going in.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> Here's the answer. It's not product marketing, it's customer relations.




This. Times infinity.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 6, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Er, paizo's open playtest did have a lot of detractors who felt that it wasn't a true playtest (basically, the playtest didn't focus on "stretching/breaking the rules" but basically more of a "does this seem to work in this specific context").
> 
> I'm not sure an open playtest is actually a GOOD thing anymore after seeing how Paizo got slammed for it.
> 
> (I'm still personally unclear as to why changing the number of SKILL points each class gets was considered too much of a change compared to what did get changed. This WAS openly debated on the paizo boards and one feature I don't think I ever saw disagreement about yet it pretty much wasn't implemented)




There *were* people who pushed at the boundaries and reported their results on the Paizo play test web pages. Anyone claiming none of that was going on is incorrect.

They didn't change the number of skill points (or things like BAB) for the backward compatibility. Paizo laid out design parameters that they weren't going to cross in that regard and, in at least some of the threads debating the issues, communicated that.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

billd91 said:


> There *were* people who pushed at the boundaries and reported their results on the Paizo play test web pages. Anyone claiming none of that was going on is incorrect.
> 
> They didn't change the number of skill points (or things like BAB) for the backward compatibility. Paizo laid out design parameters that they weren't going to cross in that regard and, in at least some of the threads debating the issues, communicated that.




A lot of anecdotal reports said that people were getting shouted down for that sort of thing.


----------



## Primal (Sep 6, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Yep.
> 
> While the pretentiousness of the marketing was a huge turn-off for me (not to mention over the top, IMO, saying "the game you're playing (3.5, or any other version for that matter) is not fun.  We _know _fun!"), the bottom line is that the 4e game itself changed too much for my liking.  I had happily bought (heavily) into every other D&D edition - but not this one.  Too different for my tastes.
> 
> The marketing aided in the "turn-off" process.  It made me pissed off enough to better resist any initial "try out" buying temptation.  The game itself did the rest.




This is what happened to me, too -- I really *WANTED* to love 4E, because I felt it *was* time for a new, revised edition. However, ever since the silly videos with French guys mocking 3E and the first comments ("Cool! I'm going for sword-and-board myself!"), I felt my intelligence being constantly insulted by their marketing. Not only that, but I felt irritated at the constant use of 'More Fun' and 'More Cool' in forum posts (the few they posted), blogs and previews, combined with repeated trashing of 3E. I even remember one of the designers claiming they couldn't remember how a certain mechanic worked in 3E anymore, because the mechanic is so much better and intuitive in 4E; when they were reminded by another designer, they laughed how silly it is in 3E (and this took place just as the 'Rules Compendium' was coming out, and this designer worked on the book). Shortly put, I felt like they told that my own judgement and sense of what constitutes as fun for me was "wrong", and the edition I had enjoyed (and many of those books had been written by these same guys) had not been "fun" at all. 

So, I, too, think they blundered pretty badly at marketing; all that affected my own perception of the actual mechanics. When the previews started coming in, I already had a very negative image of 4E. It didn't help, of course, that 4E turned out to be a game that just didn't fit my own group's taste; it had some nice ideas, but I felt disappointed at realizing that no matter how I tried to spin it, I didn't want to run it. Would a more positive image have affected this? No, not really; but I know guys who canceled their pre-orders when they felt they had had "enough" (if I had had a more positive image, I *might* have bought 'KotS' so we could have tried the preview rules, but I doubt I would have bought the core rules anyway).

I think WoTC could learn a lot from Paizo, i.e. how to establish a positive and good rapport with the fans and how to market a new edition/game in a more positive way. Not only did the Paizo staff constantly communicate with the fans during the playtest process of the Pathfinder RPG, it's a general policy on their forums (unlike during the 4E design and the closed playtesting process; 4E designers posted on an irregular basis in their blogs, but didn't post on the forums at all -- in fact, I think they still post more often over here than on their own forums). For me, as a customer, this means a *LOT*; I feel like I'm getting truly first-class customer service when the Lead Designer, Editor-in-Chied or CEO replies to my question on saturday night.


----------



## Derren (Sep 6, 2009)

Yes, they really overused the word "cool".


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 6, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I'm sorry, I have to call bull about 3e's marketing not talking about what didn't work in 2e, and how they were going to change things for the better in 3e.  Take out your old dragon magazines and look at the race and class previews.
> 
> *snip*




Ferratus, you've got to stop being so damned reasonable.  This is the internets after all.  

And you're right about the 2e vs. 3e comparisons.  I specifically remember seeing columns in Dragon stating THAC0 was terrible and unintuitive, how all classes should use the same XP progression, that multiclassing was broken, that magic item distribution was too reliant on GM generosity, that it was inconsistent that there weren't step-by-step guidelines for caster PCs to make any magic item they wanted, that it was silly monsters and PCs didn't use the same rules, etc.

For what its worth, 4e is quite a bit different from the previous edition, but I think its fair to also say it has improved on the groundwork 3.x laid.  Over the last few years 3.5 was being produced, WotC was trying new mechanics in books, taking note of lots of conversations on internet forums, seminar discussions at cons, and requests of players and fans about issues 3.x had.  Some of the more prominent ones I remember seeing discussed were:

* magic item Christmas tree
* multiclass spellcasters being weak (usually in the context that their spell DCs were subpar, or their casting level was negatively impacted)
* rapid outscaling of attack bonuses vs. defenses, or skill bonuses vs. DCs
* "rocket tag" combats that were too swingy
* the dedicated healer character being marginalized as a support character
* out of control buffing (see Codzilla)
* non-intuitive/clunky XP system design for encounters
* power disparity between casters and non-casters
* grappling rules (shudder)
* turn undead
* wonky math at level 10+ in 3.x
* "traps" in the system (weak feats, PrCs, etc)
* rogues being largely useless vs. undead and constructs
* lack of meaningful options in combat for non-caster classes
* DM workload
* lack of good computer tools for playing/running the game
* overly complex monster stat blocks, which paradoxically also had little mechanical differentiation between monsters

...just to name a few.  I'm sure I've left out others that have slipped my mind right now.  Many, many players complained about these very issues, and even Pathfinder has tried to correct some of these that were very disruptive (although the core of the 3.x system precludes fixing some of these).

The thing is, all of those issues were addressed by 4e, and were objectively improved based on player feedback.  Thats a fact.  None of those topics listed above are an issue anymore in 4e.

Now, you might not agree that some of those things needed to be changed, which is fine.  And obviously the changes in fluff are completely subjective as far as improvement goes.  But it cannot be denied that the issues listed above that many people had problems with were addressed and "fixed" in 4e.  In that regard, 4e is an evolution and improvement of the 3.x system.  

I truly think the designers thought that most folks had problems with these issues, and saw their solutions to them as improvements, and were very excited about what they had come up with.  From some conversations of the folks at WotC, I don't think any of them meant any disrespect towards any of their fans, and I think many of them were shocked and dismayed that people reacted in such a volatile manner.  Yes, they used some sarcasm in their ad campaign (FWIW, I thought the video making fun of 3.5 grappling the troll was funny, although the faux French guy was annoying), and while some of their comments were said with the intent of being funny (with varying degrees of success), people viewed the upcoming 4e in different ways.  Some folks just didn't like some of the changes being made, but kept a cool head and simply disagreed with the new design direction.  Other people were opposed to any changes at all, took it as a personal attack, wanted to be upset no matter what, and grasped at any opportunity to vent their frustrations/nerdrage.  Things went out of control from there, and now we have the edition wars.

4e does have its own set of issues and peculiarities, which I'm sure a 5th edition will attempt to deal with.  By no means is 4e perfect, but it DID solve a lot of issues and built-in flaws that the 3.x system had at its core.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 6, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Look, every single one of those blogs and whatnot are still online.  Can someone please show me where WOTC went out of their way to either be overly critical or insulting of anyone's playstyle OR 3e?  Can anyone actually back that up with quotes other than "Oh, remember that thread?"




Craft skills are lame, talking to villagers is lame, lawful good paladins are lame, aasimar are lame, gnomes are lame, the Great Wheel is lame.

Consequently, they sure did take a lot of time out of their day to correct me on what I'm supposed to think is more cool and more fun.

A lot of people, both 4e fans and not, felt talked down to from their marketing.  For all they "We're gamers just like yourself!" stuff that was going on, the marketing took a very high and mighty "We know what's best" approch.

Lastly, those two things of "Here, pay for our designer notes" that they released sold me _off _of a game faster then anything else could have.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Craft skills are lame, talking to villagers is lame, lawful good paladins are lame, aasimar are lame, gnomes are lame, the Great Wheel is lame.




Depends on your perspective. Aside from the fact that I'd say talking to villagers is something I don't need rules for and Paladins being Lawful Good only doesn't really fit in a non-christian pagan universe(as well as being annoying in the hands of jerk players), I agree with all of those. My response to them when they were posted was "damn straight!"

Your response to quotes like that is based on your own prejudices.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 6, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Depends on your perspective. Aside from the fact that I'd say talking to villagers is something I don't need rules for and Paladins being Lawful Good only doesn't really fit in a non-christian pagan universe(as well as being annoying in the hands of jerk players), I agree with all of those. My response to them when they were posted was "damn straight!"
> 
> Your response to quotes like that is based on your own prejudices.




Uh, yeah.

I didn't say WotC are jerks who kick sand into peoples' eyes.  I said that their marketing insulted me.

You just sorta said "Well, maybe that's insulting to you, but I agreed.  Your response is based purely on you having been insulted."

...Which was sort of what I was getting at.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Uh, yeah.
> 
> I didn't say WotC are jerks who kick sand into peoples' eyes.  I said that their marketing insulted me.
> 
> ...




They weren't speaking to insult you though. They were speaking to people who thought that Craft skills were lame, who thought that you didn't need rules for talking to villagers, people who'd like Paladins to be able to follow any divine ethos, who thought aasimar are boring as dirt(especially compared to Tieflings), people who thought Gnomes were silly things that nobody played whose space in the PHB was better used by a race people would actually use, and who thought the Great Wheel was silly.

They were trying to appeal to people who weren't you.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 6, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> They weren't speaking to insult you though. They were speaking to people who thought that Craft skills were lame, who thought that you didn't need rules for talking to villagers, people who'd like Paladins to be able to follow any divine ethos, who thought aasimar are boring as dirt(especially compared to Tieflings), people who thought Gnomes were silly things that nobody played whose space in the PHB was better used by a race people would actually use, and who thought the Great Wheel was silly.
> 
> They were trying to appeal to people who weren't you.




I thought they were trying to appeal to the (then) current market of D&D consumers?  How is it not insulting, in the same way many 4e fans find it insulting when 3e fans list off what they feel is unnecessary/silly/unimportant/etc. about 4e and it's fans get in an uproar... I mean you could argue... "they're not trying to appeal to fans of 4e... but just people who like what they like"   however does that change the fat they are putting certain things about 4e down and/or how you feel about that?


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 6, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The aim was not to improve 3e, but to produce a game for people who didn't like a whole lot of what D&D had been from the start.




It's statements like this that pisses off 4e fans, because you're implying that if you like 4e, you didn't like previous editions of D&D, when the majority of 4e fans are players of previous editions. It's dismissive and condescending.



			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I said that their marketing insulted me.




That's how some 2e fans I knew felt about 3e's marketing.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 6, 2009)

If you prefer the mechanics and design philosophies of a game that is being replaced by a new edition, any promotion of that new edition, its mechanics, and its design philosophies is likely to be distasteful to you.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 6, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And no...patches are NOT promoted.  _Expansions_ are, on occasion, but not _patches_.




Blizzard has been making trailers for their patches since 2007, some of which are incredibly awesome (Black Temple trailer, Zul'Aman trailer). While they don't get TV air play, they do get released to gaming community sites. On the Lich King behind the scenes DVD, they indicate that their patch trailers are their machinima team's primary purpose.


----------



## Freakohollik (Sep 6, 2009)

Count me in as one who thought Wizards was trashing 3.5.

Looking back, I believe the problem was that the designers would talk about parts of 3.5 that they claimed weren't fun. They would then go on to explain how the faulty mechanic in question would be better in 4e. This approach backfired on them because for a long time after the 4e announcement and certainly during most of these previews, we didn't really know what 4e was going to be like or how big of change 4e was going to be. They were trying to explain the new system to us, but were only giving us small details rather than the big picture. So we weren't really getting a sense of how 4e was going to be better. All we were getting was a sense that the 4e designers didn't like 3.5.

I bet if we went back and read those previews now, they'd make a lot more sense and would seem less insulting to 3.5.


----------



## Primal (Sep 6, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> That's how some 2e fans I knew felt about 3e's marketing.




I didn't; I liked 2E a lot, but I felt it wasn't a coherent, unified system at all. For example, Initiative was D10 - minus modifiers, skill checks D20 under your stat minus/plus the proficiency value, save categories were weird ("Wait, this trap uses the Rod/Staff/Wands save? Why?"), Thac0 minus AC to hit,  odd bonuses from stats (e.g. Dex 16 vs. Str 16), percentile rolls for Thief Skills, and so on. 

Just my opinion, but I think they did a great job with 3E by eliminating all those weird subsystems from the mechanics. In any case I think they didn't use the same kind of condescending tone WoTC used in 4E marketing. YMMV, of course.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 6, 2009)

Primal said:


> Just my opinion, but I think they did a great job with 3E by eliminating all those weird subsystems from the mechanics.




This was called homogenization by 3e detractors at the time.

The more things change, and all that...


----------



## Primal (Sep 7, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> This was called homogenization by 3e detractors at the time.
> 
> The more things change, and all that...




NOOooo, it wasn't! You're misremembering it all now! 

(Yeah, I guess it was... I don't think the changes were marketed as aggressively as "bigger, better and more cool" back then, meaning that the designers knew they were taking huge risks by those changes and tried to point out why the changes made playing easier; with 4E, they really went out of their way to make certain 3E mechanics look like a pile of lame houserules that resulted in nobody having fun)


----------



## billd91 (Sep 7, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> A lot of anecdotal reports said that people were getting shouted down for that sort of thing.




If they were, I didn't see it. There were a lot of cases in which someone would post their suggestion and a bunch of people would disagree or relate the Paizo line that skill points wouldn't be changed. I've seen that called "shouting down" plenty often on the internet, but that's the result of someone being WAY over-sensitive to not winning the debate.

Any "shouting down" was no worse than 4e fan attempts to bat back the homogeneity claim in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/264420-removing-homogenity-d-d-4th-edition.html. And it was certainly no worse than your average message board full of gamers - for better or for worse.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2009)

catastrophic said:


> I'm not going to go back and fourth with you when your argument is absurd and clearly untrue.




By what measure?  How am I being untruthful?  What backpedaling?

Remember, you opened this can of worms with:



> …could WotC have marketed or promoted 4E in a way that would have led to a different perception/opinion than what has come to pass?




The answer is an unequivocal "yes"- and the first step is not throwing your own product under the bus.



> You're just drawing arbitary lines and creating a set of contrived rules in order to juge WOTC a failure while, for instance, denying that Pazio falls under the same criticism even though it obviously should.




No, I'm not.

I'm not calling WotC a failure- its clearly not.  They have multiple successful product of which 4Ed is one.

I'm saying they used a flawed advertising campaign in the launch of a single product line, and it cost them customers & sales.

And I'm dead on about Paizo.

They don't own D&D, and never did.  At most, they held a license to produce certain supplementary material.  That license was not renewed.

Now they have released an RPG based on elements of a discontinued RPG, but containing certain changes that distinguish it.  That makes them a competitor to WotC.

Pathfinder is competing in the same market as 4Ed, and it means different rules apply.  The kid gloves are off.  They can get away with the advertising equivalent of bloody murder and they won't engender the same kind of backlash as WotC did.  By making fewer mechanical changes, the baseline perception will be that they didn't "hurt poor 3Ed" as much as WotC did.  That the game they're using as their inspiration was one of the most popular in RPG history gives them a further pass.



> It is not a faux pass from a marketing perspective to claim the new model is better than the old model.




It is if you don't have hard data to back it up.  And in certain markets- not the RPG game market- it may even get you sued.

If you're just relying on subjective standards to make such a claim, you're playing with fire.


> It is certainly not considered bad form for RPGs and similar games to talk about how they've improved from edition to edition




Again, it depends on how that critique is done.  Claims that it takes less time to stat out a monster is potential gold and is pretty easy to verify.  Claims that combats will be more fun is subjective and shouldn't be made.



> the retro faction of an edition war is not the majority vote it pretends to be, and it's not going to be mollified by 'different not better'.



That isn't what I suggested at all.  I _said_:



> First, we have to stop using the word "better" in this context. Your "better" is someone else's "different" and another's "ruined."




You don't tout your new game mechanic as "better."  You don't say its "different, not better."  You present the new mechanic neutrally, and talk what positives it brings to the table, not how it compares to the previous way of doing things.

IOW, imply, don't preach; flies & honey, and all that.

By telling people in your ad campaign that the new way is "better," you're asking others to respond "no, its not- I *LOVE *that way of doing things."  By avoiding value-laden language in the press releases, you invite the customers to try things out and decide based on their _experience_ with the game rather than trying to fight past their (possibly erroneous) ideas about the game based on your tone.


> *Advertising relies on subjective factors at least as much as objective data, and frankly it tends to rely on non-objective data a great deal more. If you aren't aware of that, welcome to planet earth, where you need to drink coke to enjoy life and 'life' is a synonym for 'carbon'.




Yes, advertising relies on subjective factors- I never denied that.

What I'm saying is you generally avoid the subjective when you're rolling out a product designed to replace your own product.

That's part of how Coke (since you bring it up) got into a world of hurt with New Coke.  They had objective data: the New Coke recipe beat both the original Coke and hard-charging market competitor Pepsi in taste test after taste test.

However, their ad campaign talked about how much "better" New Coke tasted than the original recipe...and their installed base said "#%$#@^, no it doesn't!"...even with years of research data showing that it did.  Calls for boycotts popped up.  Their customers had been told what they should enjoy  and that the old stuff just wasn't up to snuff anymore... and they weren't having it.

Coke badmouthed their own product and paid for it with lost market share.   New Coke was fine as _another_ Coke product, but it wasn't acceptable as a _replacement._  (BTW, its still in production as Coca-Cola C2.)

Had Coke instead said New Coke beat Pepsi in taste test after taste test- as Pepsi had said of their product vs original Coke- and _completely avoided_ that it also KO'ed original Coke as well, the story would have ended much differently.



> *Oh, and patches are increasingly promoted and certainly advertised. For instance Valve promotes it's updates to tf2, going as far as to release short animated films and using other promotional methods to raise awareness of the product, such as splash pages on a part of steam normally used only to advertise upcoming products.




On this, I stand corrected.



Hussar said:


> So, a better marketing strategy would have been, "Here's 4e, it might not be better than what you're playing right now but, please buy it anyway"?
> 
> Hey, I know I don't have a marketing degree, but, that doesn't sound right to me.




No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying you promote it by saying "Here's 4Ed!  Please notice that we're doing _______, which means you can now do _______!!!  And the new _________ rules means that __________ never happens.  Isn't that great?"

You stay positive and don't badmouth your own product.  You get one type of psychological reaction if you point out the really cool consequences of a new rule mechanism.  You get an entirely different one when you denigrate prior product explicitly and directly.  Even if you're slaughtering a sacred cow, you don't highlight that fact- you let the consumer figure it out for himself after he's purchased the product.

When 3Ed press releases talked about certain mechanics being counterintuitive- which they did...because some were- I heard constant complaints about "needless changes dumbing down the system" from gamers in the stores I frequented.  One even went so far as to point out how the unification of the stats system (very intuitively and intelligently bringing the bonuses from Str in line with other stats) changed the math of combat...*with a spreadsheet.* _He _didn't buy a 3Ed book until early 2006, and his first 3.5 product in mid 2007.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Craft skills are lame, talking to villagers is lame, lawful good paladins are lame, aasimar are lame, gnomes are lame, the Great Wheel is lame.



I believe the request was for actual quotes as to what was said, not for your recollection or interpretation of what was said.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 7, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> Listen to any podcast featuring Erik Mona. And then (re)read Dan Noonan's old "The clouds are moving, 4E is coming, and you fans can do NOTHING about it! Wuhahahaha!"-blog entry.
> 
> Spot the difference?



As pointed out earlier in the thread, I think a re-read of that blog post is in order for a lot of people, in the "why was this supposed to be such a horrible thing to say again?" kind of way.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 7, 2009)

Folks, I've just addressed some problems earlier in the thread. Please be careful to discuss the subject instead of attacking the people who disagree with you.  Same goes for avoiding insults. Thanks.


----------



## chitzk0i (Sep 7, 2009)

ferratus said:


> They compounded their error of shrinking market coverage by making all their previews only available to those that provided their email address to view content.  That meant that casual surfers of the website were left out, while only the hardcore online community was let in.



  I think most people have no compunctions about giving WotC their e-mail address.  I also think that most of the people that _do_ have compunctions about it know how to register a new e-mail address for signing up to shady-looking newsletters.



Eric Anondson said:


> Of course, because it was Paizo that was producing Dragon and Dungeon when it was ended. But now I can't causally pick up a copy on the newsstand to browse through. I have to have already chosen to lay out a subscription to see anything at all.



 If you poke around the WotC website, you'll notice that there are descriptions of each article available to non-subscribers.  Furthermore, virtually every article gets some kind of discussion here on EnWorld.  It is also possible to pay for one month and cancel your subscription.  It's not free like glancing through a copy at a newsstand, but if you don't want to pay eight bucks to try it out, you probably didn't want to subscribe in the first place.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 7, 2009)

When WotC mocked the gnome, I felt they were mocking those who liked the gnome. I felt mocked.

When WotC claimed NPC design took too much time, I felt they were listening to people who mostly lacked a good blueprint for statting NPCs. When they presented their solution (giving NPCs the stat blocks of minis) I knew they had solved a different problem than I was seeing. I perceived that WotC thought character development was a waste of time.

When I was told all the cool kids were playing tieflings, I knew I was not one of the cool kids. WotC seemed to be telling me that the new game was not intended for people who did not think tieflings and dragonborn and six foot long swords were cool. 

When they announced the end of WotC support for the OGL, I knew the suits had taken over. WotC was just another company trying to do business in the 20th century way. DDI? If they felt I *needed* a subscription to be a supported customer, I knew they were selling incompleteness.

When I was told I would have to buy another MM to get the frost giant, I knew that WotC wanted me to buy more books. I would not be allowed to pick and choose any more.

Did it make a difference? Maybe. I don't like or play 4e. I probably would not have been as propelled to check out Pathfinder, but then, I wasn't keen on the Beta but I jumped in on the final version anyway. I can see how it would have made a difference in other ways. I would not be as angry with WotC. I would not be on message boards, occasionally remembering that I was angry with WotC.

I would not remember being on ENWorld, and not only being surrounded by those who mock gnome-lovers, but being assured I should enjoy being mocked. Perhaps I would have been granted a title like "grognard" rather than being assigned to the partisan resistance, whethered I wanted to be or not. I would not have heard WotC telling me how much the game they sold to me, that I enjoyed, that birthed a D&D renaissance, sucked. I could have been left to view DDI as an online magazine, rather than as a vision of a future without rulebooks, only subscriptions. I could have been left to view the tiefling and dragonborn as an affectation of the new edition, as Drow had been in AD&D and sorcerers in 3e. I might have the impression that WotC was still warm-hearted about the OGL, but was trying something else for a while. I might not have suspected that the cancellation of Dragon, the new edition, and everything was all an attempt to butcher open design, and it might not have been true. Instead of "edition wars" we could have had "edition profileration." 

When 3e rolled out, Wizards treated its fans with respect, and treating with respect the idea that people already had ideas about what D&D was. It's okay to add to D&D, but to attempt to define D&D once and for all, to obsolesce all the D&D that has come before, is not something I would do. Certainly, I would not have bought a Jetta 2000 if Volkswagen went around telling everyone how stupid and boxy the Jetta 1999 looked. If I can turn around today and say what I made yesterday was stinky and bad, that speaks to a lack of integrity. Either I knowingly produced something bad last time around, or else producing quality means nothing to me and I simply quackspeak that the new version is better, because the new version is always better.  

I could talk for hours about problems with AD&D, but I'm not going to tell someone, "Your game sucks. Despite the evidence that it has pleased thousands of fans who have gone on to define the RPG hobby, I hereby declare it was unfun and sucked." Every game has its good points and its bad points. 3e was a hugely successful design. To say it sucked speaks of a lack of perspective. When someone compares 3e to accounting or complains about 3e sourcebooks or whatever, I think, "Gosh, this person must not have enjoyed playing very much." 

Do I want to buy a new edition of D&D from people who think playing D&D is a chore?

And that's why, even though my eagerness to do business with WotC vanished as soon as they pulled their PDFs, that eagerness would be hard to replenish even were those PDFs restored today.

I've been playing D&D since I was eight years old. I have stronger feelings about D&D and roleplaying in general than I do about any city in which I have ever lived.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Sep 7, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> When WotC mocked the gnome, I felt they were mocking those who liked the gnome. I felt mocked.




I would hate to live in a world where you are not allowed to mock things now and then. Especially imaginary races. At the 4e launch, many people said ridiculous things about the Tiefling, mocking it as "goth" without knowing anything about that subculture. But that is, it seems, okay and good-natured humor while mocking the Gnome is disrespectful. And personal.

Again, i would hate to live in a world where a company and it´s employees are not allowed to make light fun of something now and then. It´s a truly scary thought. 



pawsplay said:


> When I was told I would have to buy another MM to get the frost giant, I knew that WotC wanted me to buy more books. I would not be allowed to pick and choose any more.




I assure you we 4e DMs are still allowed to pick and choose. 



pawsplay said:


> I would not have heard WotC telling me how much the game they sold to me, that I enjoyed, that birthed a D&D renaissance, sucked. I could have been left to view DDI as an online magazine, rather than as a vision of a future without rulebooks, only subscriptions. I could have been left to view the tiefling and dragonborn as an affectation of the new edition, as Drow had been in AD&D and sorcerers in 3e. I might have the impression that WotC was still warm-hearted about the OGL, but was trying something else for a while. I might not have suspected that the cancellation of Dragon, the new edition, and everything was all an attempt to butcher open design, and it might not have been true. Instead of "edition wars" we could have had "edition profileration."




I call this the Dragonsfoot defense: "If they would have acted reasonable we didn´t have to attack them on a regular basis." I´m sorry, but "i didn´t like a lot of their decisions and actions" still has a lot of "i" in it and not only "their." 

Edition wars are created by fans, not companies. Companies can only help. These are OUR wars: we birthed them, we keep them going, we are responsible for the respective fallout and the anger and agressiveness they create. Just look at this thread.


----------



## Cyronax (Sep 7, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> When WotC mocked the gnome, I felt they were mocking those who liked the gnome. I felt mocked.
> 
> I would not remember being on ENWorld, and not only being surrounded by those who mock gnome-lovers, but being assured I should enjoy being mocked. Perhaps I would have been granted a title like "grognard" rather than being assigned to the partisan resistance, whethered I wanted to be or not. I would not have heard WotC telling me how much the game they sold to me, that I enjoyed, that birthed a D&D renaissance, sucked. I could have been left to view DDI as an online magazine, rather than as a vision of a future without rulebooks, only subscriptions. I could have been left to view the tiefling and dragonborn as an affectation of the new edition, as Drow had been in AD&D and sorcerers in 3e.




I agree with a lot of what you said. I play 4e regularly (in fact as my only regular game system nowadays), but I do have gripes. One of the smaller gripes I had was regarding the way they treated gnomes. Now I know that gnomes are handled differently by a lot of people, sometimes ignored, sometimes treated as furtive tricksters, or sometimes as somewhat crazed genius illusionist adventurers (my particular preference). 

Anyway, I can take a joke, but I do get sick of hearing 'I'm a monster' when gnomes are mentioned.  At the same time though, I think that animated clip was also making fun of the tiefling and just D&D races in general. The tiefling lady in that clip was a parody of a lot of overblown goth-emo female characters I've seen played over the years (since 2e Planescape .... remember the cloven-hoofed tiefling that was the iconic picture of the Transcendentalist Order faction??) (Edit: Keefe the Thief made a similar point .. and posted while I was writing my points).

Overall gnomes get about as much respect as they always have and to WotC's credit they had gnome stats in the MM immediately (despite some people saying why bother) and the gnome was in the PHB2. 

Gnomes got better treatment than some of my now-missing items from past editions -- regular dispel magic (and not just a power that belongs to a single class), the disbursement of the druid into three different classes, or the poor treatment of Illusion magic. 

C.I.D.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 7, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I believe the request was for actual quotes as to what was said, not for your recollection or interpretation of what was said.




Ain't got my books on hand, so let me run through the vague quotes and I can fill them in with the word for words later if you really need me to.  Most of these are fairly well circulated through, and you sure as hell know exactly what I'm talking about.

If you used profession skills in your game, you're running a bad game.

If your players talk to the guards, you're running a bad game.

Lawful good is boring compared to grim dark anti heroes*

Aasimar are lame, grim dark anti heroes with ATTITUDE are the cool ones*

Great Wheel was just pointless symmetry for no reason, who the hell liked that?!

Gnomes were treated as just one big joke.

*See Races and Classes, a book with such *odious* designer thoughts that, as I mentioned earlier, nothing before has ever turned me off of a game faster.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 7, 2009)

It wasn't funny then and it's not funny now. Maybe it would seem funnier to me if it didn't come across as so progagandist. And I am still not amused by Keefe's suggestion that I should take it as good-natured rubbing. That is exactly the sort of suggestion that made this place seem unfriendly throughout the 4e advertising campaign.  Basically, I feel the gnome clip did an excellent job of encapsulating the 4e design philosophy, good and bad, and then used that as a vantage for mocking anyone who was so foolish to think gnomes needed stats simply because someone might want to play one.

I always wondered if WotC thought that since gnomes were so unpopular, even people who liked them didn't want to play them. "Everyone loves dwarves, you can play a dwarf, too! Gnomes? Won't even miss 'em."

Plus, I was still cheesed over the whole favored class: bard thing. Gnomes with banjos?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 7, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> I would hate to live in a world where you are not allowed to mock things now and then. Especially imaginary races. At the 4e launch, many people said ridiculous things about the Tiefling, mocking it as "goth" without knowing anything about that subculture. But that is, it seems, okay and good-natured humor while mocking the Gnome is disrespectful. And personal.




Except pretty much all the tiefling jokes aren't made about "Ololo tieflings" but the bizarro love WotC had while introducing them as LONER REBELS FILLED WITH EXISTENTIAL ANGST THAT NOBODY LIKES.  People make tiefling jokes because WotC took something that *people liked* and decided to change them into ANTI-HEROES THAT EXIST ALONE IN SOCIETY, BUT THEY DON'T PLAY BY THE RULES MAN, THEY DON'T PLAY BY THE RULES.

And what I'm typing there isn't making fun of them, it's just a rehash of everything we were told ABOUT tieflings.  Seriously, when WotC says "Tieflings are anti-heroes filled with angst who don't play by the rules," and then other people go "What the hell?  Tieflings are anti-heroes filled with angst who don't play by the rules?"  It's a little odd that it's awesome and positive coming from WotC, but *the same thing being said* by someone else is insulting.


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Sep 7, 2009)

Hey there folks,

I am going to steer clear of the main discussion here, but I did want to clear up a few small points concerning the Pathfinder promotion and playtest.

1. "The Bard Sucks" bit. This came from out April Fools blog and was the only time I ever used such harsh language in reference to the old game. We like the 3.5 rules, but felt like they could use some improvement, and that is where our rules come from. It was never my intention to insult the game that inspired us, it was just some fun on April 1st.

2. The playtest bit. There were thousands of playtesters (this is not based off the downloads, but the number of posters to playtest threads, the number of downloads was significantly higher). Some did get shouted at and down, but fortunately, being shouted at did not disqualify a poster's idea from our considerations. I, personally, spent a lot of time searching through such threads for the kernels of interesting ideas and observations. There were competing arguments, looking at topics from both sides. This was actually quite productive to our design process as it let us get a good look at an issue from all sides.

That is all...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


----------



## Windjammer (Sep 7, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> A lot of anecdotal reports said that people were getting shouted down for that sort of thing.




A couple of people providing high quality feedback were indeed shouted down during the open playtest at paizo.com; some of these people, namely those otherwise frequenting the GamingDen forum, were also vocal about that fact. What isn't true, however, is that _all_ posters providing negative feedback were excluded from the actual feedback circle (as in, them making an impact on the final game). 

All of this, however, pales in comparison to what WotC did with the Barbarian playtest before the release of PHB 2. It is conclusively documented here, that WotC asked its fans for feedback which they turned a deaf ear on.


----------



## Windjammer (Sep 7, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Edition wars are created by fans, not companies.




One of the most harmful, edition-wars-stirring, things to happen during the pre-release time of 4E was the claim that 4E rendered 3.5 obsolete. And you know who made that statement? It sure wasn't fans on the net who hadn't seen the game yet. It was two types of people: designers and playtesters. To make it worse, the only playtesters to be vocal on this point were guys who later miraculously landed a freelance job for the 4E project line, or people closely related to them. Two examples from the top of my head,

- Ari Marmell's DM during the playtest time, Massawyrm. He produced the worst ever pre-release "neutral playtest" by describing how, having played 4E for a fraction, he went to put his 3.5 books into the dumpster and/or sale them off for a couple of dollars. Wow! What a nice image! "I loved 3.5 so much that I sell off my 3.5 books cheaply to strangers!"

- That Transformer-movie-script witer who wrote the chapter on the Feywild in the Manual of the Planes. Feel free to peruse his online "contributions" in early 2008, and note how he conveniently forgets to mention that is in any sense commercially involved in 4E.

The same vibes were coming from most designers as well, like Chris Perkins describing why they stopped support for 3.5 (he didn't say "look, it's for commercial reasons", no, he said "it's not a game we would even WANT to play at the office any more, EVER again!"), or a couple of remarks by Mike Mearls, some of them on the podcast surrounding GenCon 2007, some of them on forums, saying that he disliked 3.5 to a degree that he would never want to play it again.

For me, it was those remarks which really put fuel to the (then only small) fire of the edition wars. They contained two things which in my estimate are not just ill-worded but ill-intended

1) People say they won't ever play 3.5 again. A needless overstatement to drive home the point they like 4E better, because it's stated in terms of dislike and condemnation of an edition that most other D&D fans at the time were still heavily enjoying, preparing campaigns for, and so on. It put a bad vibe on people who at the time enjoyed 3.5, when they should have been told instead "you're playing a great game now, but we're making that game - your game - even better!". They should have _congratulated_ fans for playing the game, for making the choice to commercially support a game produced by WotC.

2) It basically started the claim that once you start to play 4E meant *you would no longer play 3.5*. How silly! 4E and 3.5 are both great games, and if you like to play one of them, that should never automatically mean you won't touch the other. People like myself, who enjoy both editions - and enjoy them for precisely the reason that they are both great games which cater to different play styles - can only shake their head at this (mutual) edition exclusivism.

And that exclusivism wasn't started by fans. It was started by the marketing. It was the worst marketing move ever, because fans didn't need to be convinced to no longer commercially support a (now defunct) product line by buying 3.5 product. Fans couldn't buy new 3.5 anyway, so why tell them they shouldn't support it by _playing_ it?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 7, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> 2) It basically started the claim that once you start to play 4E meant *you would no longer play 3.5*. How silly! 4E and 3.5 are both great games, and if you like to play one of them, that should never automatically mean you won't touch the other. People like myself, who enjoy both editions - and enjoy them for precisely the reason that they are both great games which cater to different play styles - can only shake their head at this (mutual) edition exclusivism.




That's you.  But it isn't everyone.  When I first played 3e, after a couple of session I decided that I'd never play 2e again.  There was just no reason for it.  3e was clearly better.  It solved every problem I had with 2e.

When I played 4e, after a couple of sessions I had decided that I'd never play 3e again because it was clearly better.  I was even convinced to play 3e once more after I started playing 4e and I didn't have that much fun.  Stuff that used to be fun just wasn't once I knew there was a better way to do it.

Now, obviously you don't agree with this.  Just as a lot of people don't agree that 3e was clearly better than 2e.  That's fine.

But to say that the people at WOTC and the people who came online to share their enthusiasm for the game were not ALLOWED to share their opinions because if they no longer find 3e fun or no longer like 3e, then they can never say it, ever....well, that's just dumb.

I also find it completely absurd that you can advertise a new edition without ever say anything bad about the old edition.  People will complain that you are insulting the old edition no matter HOW positive you are.

You say, "The new edition is great because of simpler, easier to use grapple mechanics" and you have hundreds of people on the internet yelling "They said the grapple rules in 3.5e were complicated and hard to use.  They must really hate the old edition."

You say, "We managed to balance the character classes more effectively to make it more fun for everyone" and you have people screaming "They think that it's impossible to have fun with 3e."

I saw this happen time and time again.  No matter how positive a comment was, people claimed it was negative advertising.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 7, 2009)

re: Gnomes

I'm kind of wondering why WOTC gets this tacked on to them...For some reason, people seem to forget how TSR treated gnomes. ("serious settings don't have gnomes - Darksun, Birthright and Ravenloft. Gnomes are a joke race - Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms and Spelljammer").

Yet WOTC is the one that is mocking gnomes?

EDIT: I think people might not remember the switchover from 2e to 3e.....From both magazines and internet postings, WOTC wasn't as kind to 2e fans as they were to 3e fans IMO....Unlike 4e where WOTC mentioned simply starting a new campaign since the rules are so different, WOTC actually came out with "RSE adventure" to kill off 2E (Apocalypse Stone anyone). WOTC really, REALLY didn't expect anyone to continue playing 2e.


----------



## Windjammer (Sep 7, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> But to say that the people at WOTC and the people who came online to share their enthusiasm for the game were not ALLOWED to share their opinions






Majoru Oakheart said:


> I also find it completely absurd that you can advertise a new edition without ever say[ing] anything bad about the old edition.




I've made neither of those claims.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ain't got my books on hand, so let me run through the vague quotes and I can fill them in with the word for words later if you really need me to.  Most of these are fairly well circulated through, and you sure as hell know exactly what I'm talking about.



We know what you think they say, the request was for actual quotes, not for your interpretation of the quotes. Because the examples you provided are chock full of interpretation, and don't necessarily reflect what was actually said.


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 7, 2009)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> When WotC mocked the gnome, I felt they were mocking those who liked the gnome. I felt mocked.



I was unaware that there were people who _didn't_ make fun of gnomes, until I encountered this attitude on the internet.  I thought that was why we _had_ gnomes.  I thought their whole point was to be ridiculous and the butt of jokes.  I thought that was the whole reason gnome fans liked gnomes- because they're funny and you can laugh at them.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 7, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> I would hate to live in a world where you are not allowed to mock things now and then. Especially imaginary races. At the 4e launch, many people said ridiculous things about the Tiefling, mocking it as "goth" without knowing anything about that subculture. But that is, it seems, okay and good-natured humor while mocking the Gnome is disrespectful. And personal.



Indeed. It's especially disconcerting given that the tiefling was mocked by WotC at the same time as the gnome. In the very same video. So they made fun of a new race with an old one. But the old one is personal and insulting.


----------



## Shazman (Sep 7, 2009)

Freakohollik said:


> Count me in as one who thought Wizards was trashing 3.5.
> 
> Looking back, I believe the problem was that the designers would talk about parts of 3.5 that they claimed weren't fun. They would then go on to explain how the faulty mechanic in question would be better in 4e. This approach backfired on them because for a long time after the 4e announcement and certainly during most of these previews, we didn't really know what 4e was going to be like or how big of change 4e was going to be. They were trying to explain the new system to us, but were only giving us small details rather than the big picture. So we weren't really getting a sense of how 4e was going to be better. All we were getting was a sense that the 4e designers didn't like 3.5.
> 
> I bet if we went back and read those previews now, they'd make a lot more sense and would seem less insulting to 3.5.




Actually, for a long time they wouldn't explain why a 4E mechanic was "better" than the "horrible" 3.5 mechanic.  They would say something like. "It's awesome! We can't tell you why it's better, but trust us it's awesome!"  How incredibly lame.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 7, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed. It's especially disconcerting given that the tiefling was mocked by WotC at the same time as the gnome. In the very same video. So they made fun of a new race with an old one. But the old one is personal and insulting.




Context is important. People have been playing gnomes since at least the beginning of 1e and now the race was being *de*moted from the main PH. Tieflings were being *pro*moted. The ribbing thus becomes colored by teasing on the way up and a kick in the pants on the way down.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 7, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Context is important. People have been playing gnomes since at least the beginning of 1e and now the race was being *de*moted from the main PH. Tieflings were being *pro*moted. The ribbing thus becomes colored by teasing on the way up and a kick in the pants on the way down.




Again I'll ask about the gnome.

Given TSR's history/treatment of the gnome, why was WOTC take seen so offensive?  Gnomes WERE a joke.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 7, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> A couple of people providing high quality feedback were indeed shouted down during the open playtest at paizo.com; some of these people, namely those otherwise frequenting the GamingDen forum, were also vocal about that fact. What isn't true, however, is that _all_ posters providing negative feedback were excluded from the actual feedback circle (as in, them making an impact on the final game).




If we're thinking about the same people, I can think of at least one of them who got the treatment he got substantially because of his posting attitude and tone. The content, divorced of a particularly abrasive posting style, could have generated a far different debate from what ensued.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 7, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again I'll ask about the gnome.
> 
> Given TSR's history/treatment of the gnome, why was WOTC take seen so offensive?  Gnomes WERE a joke.




That's *your* opinion. Don't expect everyone to share it.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 7, 2009)

All that I can say is that I saw more Tieflings and Dragonborn played in the first 5 months of 4E than I saw Gnomes played in 14 years of D&D. 4E also marks the first time I've seen somebody play a Gnome character as anything but a punchline.

I'm sorry if Gnomes in the PHB was sacred to you, but when you combine my experience, other experiences posted on forums, and TSR/WotC's previous treatment of Gnomes, Gnomes being sacred was a real corner case opinion. The opinion that Gnomes needed to be in the PHB simply because they've always been there doesn't outweigh the fact that nobody really played them.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 7, 2009)

billd91 said:


> That's *your* opinion. Don't expect everyone to share it.




Really,

So when TSR killed off the gnomes in Darksun (and actually used to use that as a point in FAVOUR of selling the setting), said that gnomes don't exist in Brithright and that the Mists refused to take gnomes (and mentioned that gnomes didn't even exist in the Masque of the Red Death setting) this _WASN'T_ an insult to gnome fans?

When Dragonlance and Spelljammer only used the "crazy inventors to be treated as jokes" gnomes and Lantan in the Realms was regularly mocked by even hardcore FR fans/authors as "not really part of the Realms", this was TSR showing gnomes the LOVE?

Wow....if that's appreciation, I hate to see what you call hate.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 7, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I'm sorry if Gnomes in the PHB was sacred to you, but when you combine my experience, other experiences posted on forums, and TSR/WotC's previous treatment of Gnomes, Gnomes being sacred was a real corner case opinion. The opinion that Gnomes needed to be in the PHB simply because they've always been there doesn't outweigh the fact that nobody really played them.




They're not sacred to me. But I can empathize with people who were insulted or irritated by WotC's teasing and I think I can understand why they were.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 7, 2009)

billd91 said:


> Context is important. People have been playing gnomes since at least the beginning of 1e and now the race was being *de*moted from the main PH. Tieflings were being *pro*moted. The ribbing thus becomes colored by teasing on the way up and a kick in the pants on the way down.



You might see that as a demotion, but from my perspective (never having seen a gnome played for anything but a joke), they were *pro*moted in 4E from something that never saw use in my games to a legitimate monster that I can see all kinds of ways to use.

And I think you're reading too much into it. It was ribbing. I don't know why so much more is read into it.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 7, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Really,
> 
> So when TSR . . . said . . . that the Mists refused to take gnomes (and mentioned that gnomes didn't even exist in the Masque of the Red Death setting) this _WASN'T_ an insult to gnome fans?




  (Quote edited to limit it to Ravenloft, the only setting I really know.)

  Cite, please? My copy of _Domains of Dread_ says that "Among the demihuman races of Ravenloft, none is more scarce or misunderstood than the gnome," but they are there. Indeed, the DoD description plays up not only their sense of humor, but their love of learning and loyalty to those who have earned their trust.

  And Masque of the Red Death is Gothic Horror-style Victorian Earth. _No_ demihumans exist there. 

  Actually, WotC seems big on selling every new edition as a quantum leap forward--I remember someone from staff (I think it was a designer on the AOL Greyhawk boards, but I wouldn't swear to it) saying he'd never go back to 2E after getting a shot at 3E back when it was in development, and there's anecdotal evidence from William W. Connors that at least some folks were willing to 'fire the fans' back then too.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Sep 7, 2009)

I've been in marketing for 11 years now, and one thing we've learned, is that no matter how you do something, whether you are right or wrong, its ultimately the customer's perception that matters. 

The fact that we're still debating these same issues about the marketing after more than a year proves that. 

Regardless of the method of marketing WoTC used, the fact remains they still have the perception among some that the marketing was bad/insulting/etc. (even if the marketing was in fact brilliant, which I'm not necessarily saying)

Is it possible that they could have avoided this perception and still got their message across? Maybe. Hindsight is always 20/20. 

I have to admit, I found the marketing to be less than stellar, and at times, I felt some of the insult, but looking back with a slightly different perspective, I can see how I misinterpreted some things. 

Surely we can agree that there is/was room for improvement?


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 7, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> (Quote edited to limit it to Ravenloft, the only setting I really know.)
> 
> Cite, please? My copy of _Domains of Dread_ says that "Among the demihuman races of Ravenloft, none is more scare or misunderstood than the gnome," but they are there. Indeed, the DoD description plays up not only their sense of humor, but their love of learning and loyalty to those who have earned their trust.
> 
> .




I could've sworn I was remembering rightly that gnomes were NOT taken by the Mists explicitly.

It might just be me mixing up the lore with the discussions I remember from the old kargatane website pre 3e.


----------



## Miyaa (Sep 7, 2009)

I think what has hurt 4th edition was actually 3.5e. Between editions was a good five to ten year run between editions. Everything was spaced out long enough so that the books, supplements, novels, etc. maintained the customer's interest.

3.5 ruined it in that respect because a whole new quasi-edition was created within three years after the start of 3rd edition. And then, 4th edition emerged about five years after that. For customers who were used to a long stretch between 2nd and 3rd editions this decision for a revised edition must have seeded doubt, as the various editions between the beginner's set and 2nd edition had seeded doubts in TSR's ability to continue the brand.

Now the marketing aspect certainly did not help matters. But you could only do so much to cover or gloss over bad decisions that were made.

But, as Windjammer has so eloquently put it, customer relationship mistakes have made the situation far worse than it could have been. Such mistakes could have killed other companies in other industries.

So really, it boils down to two elements: company decisions and how companies view and treat their customers.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 7, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I was unaware that there were people who _didn't_ make fun of gnomes, until I encountered this attitude on the internet.  I thought that was why we _had_ gnomes.  I thought their whole point was to be ridiculous and the butt of jokes.  I thought that was the whole reason gnome fans liked gnomes- because they're funny and you can laugh at them.




And now they're gone. Or at least, relegated to being fey ninja halflings tucked into the Monster Manual who turn invisible in much the same way some lizards lose their tails. Comments about the "sacred gnome" are off-base. Clearly, different designers of D&D at various times have struggled with defining what a gnome was. Nonetheless, AD&D has always had the gnomes, less staid versions of the pick-toting dwarves with illusion spells and more reclusive but congenial personalities. At times they may have been presented in a ridiculous way, but they have long-time been a part of the D&D milieu. I remember, when I was a wee lad playing Red Box D&D, being perturbed that the D&D gods had granted gnomes to players of AD&D but not the basic set. There was a gnome illusionist in the AD&D miniatures set, along with a gnome thief-illusionist. Now that gnomes have been made over (to wingless pixies, essentially), you would have to go back to every D&D product that featured a gnome and replace 95% of them with something else. While every setting treated gnomes differently, all were clearly humanoid creatures with resemblances to humans and other humanoids. Gnomes are one of those creatuers that actually has roots in the culture outside D&D and its more specific influences. Unlike, say, a dragonborn, they do not have as compelling a visual hook and really rely on designer love to be appealing to a lot of people. 3e seemed to have trouble doing something with the gnome.

So bringing use back to the issue at hand. Gnomes were excised for page count. They were cut because they did not generate enough revenue to justify an extra one or two pages in the main book. Despite that WoW, that mutant offspring of D&D, features gnomes as a popular race, despite the gnome love of many Krynn fans, and so on, and so forth, the gnome was cut. Ok, that happens. You cannot make space for everything. Even though I personally would have tried to find a place for gnomes, for continuity's sake, I can respect that decision. 

Let's get back to the marketing campaign. The message in a nut-shell: "Gnomes are useless because no one wanted to play them." So if you liked gnomes, you were "no one," and if you like playing them, you like playing something that is useless. Ouch. So then people started to grumble. Wotc came back with, "Well, they're in the monster manual." Then, later, "Here's a funny cartoon that portrays gnomes as something useless and vacuous that no one plays. Haha. Don't worry, you won't even miss them." 

Let's review a few of the intended and unintended messages of that cartoon.
- Gnomes are squeaky, stupid dorks who feel good about being sidelined into being monsters. They are so stupid, they are actually happy not to be in the PHB. It is good they are not in the PHB and that the stupid gnome is happy.
- It's funny when gnomes die.
- If a playable race isn't popular with the largest segments of the D&D buyer, it isn't worth having.
- Things are monsters because they are intended to be slain. Logically, a gnome cannot then be something which you would not slay.
- Edgy, sociopathic tieflings are better than gnomes. 
- Gnomes look like halflings. You wouldn't want to play a stupid, beardless halfling would you?

And let's review the PHB situation at that time:
- Gnomes out, tieflings and dragonborns in.
- Any setting with gnomes either has to lose the gnomes or else customize something for that setting to be a "gnome" which is not the MM gnome.
- Similarly, to cover the PHB options, all settings now need an ancient race of dragon people and a fallen empire of fiendish casters. 
- Illusions are saved for a rainy day.
- The nature race is now the elf.
- Actually, you can forget about thief-illusionists for now, since multiclassing has been nerfed-by-unsupport for the time being and illusions are for later. 

So not only have basic assumptions been rewritten so that your home campaign now needs tieflings and there is no gnome, but if you wanted to play a thief-illusionist, whether a nature lover or a slightly impish craftsman, there really is not much left for you. In 4e, you might go with a half-elf wizard with skill training. And if you waited long enough, illusions did come back... sort of.

But this is funny, right? The gnome is just a particularly innocuous target in a broader theme: start a new campaign, your old one is obsolete. "Enjoy your half-elf wizard, lol."


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 7, 2009)

In some ways, the marketing of 4e still has to move up.

Having some things in Dragon that are essentially ads for upcoming product? Not a terrible loss to the reader of Dragon but a loss to the person who doesn't subscribe who you'd WANT to know about these things.

Claiming that you couldn't find a way to do a boxed set for an adventure when numerous other companies have? Hint, don't say you're doing a boxed set in the first place. (And if I'm wrong here and the Giants book has changed back to a boxed set with counters, I'll be happy to be wrong on that count.)


----------



## ggroy (Sep 7, 2009)

Miyaa said:


> I think what has hurt 4th edition was actually 3.5e. Between editions was a good five to ten year run between editions. Everything was spaced out long enough so that the books, supplements, novels, etc. maintained the customer's interest.
> 
> 3.5 ruined it in that respect because a whole new quasi-edition was created within three years after the start of 3rd edition. And then, 4th edition emerged about five years after that. For customers who were used to a long stretch between 2nd and 3rd editions this decision for a revised edition must have seeded doubt, as the various editions between the beginner's set and 2nd edition had seeded doubts in TSR's ability to continue the brand.




There could have been Hasbro corporate stuff behind the scenes which eventually led to 3.5E, which may have been significantly toned down (or almost absent) during the TSR era.

Working in a publicly traded multinational corporation setting could be quite different than working in a small or medium sized privately owned company.


----------



## TheFindus (Sep 7, 2009)

When I first heard of 4e, I was exited, although I had been an avid suporter of 3.5. And looking back at the marketing they did, I think they presented a good amount of information about how 4e would look like.

I did and do not have a problem with the fact that they pointed out the flaws of 3.5 and how they tried to fix those in 4e. In fact, I agreed with almost all of them and I see how 4e has changed those issues to the better.

Having said that, I could not agree more to those who say that they could have toned down some of the negative remarks on 3.5, no matter how much I agreed with them. I remember either Mike Mearls or David Noonan saying in one of their podcasts that he would not be willing to play 3.5 anymore now that  he had been playtesting 4e for quite some time.
Now, as a normal player or normal DM, one could say something like this.  I would have said something like this in some sort of nerdish affection. But as somebody who represents WotC in an official podcast, it makes poor marketing IMO, because it might alienate those who would be willing to try 4e out although liking 3.5 despite its flaws.
Then again, Mike Mearls and David Noonan are not the marketing team, but designers. But judging from the podcast, they are as nerdish sometimes as all roleplayers that I know (me included) get. And they might not have thought about the effect their comments would have in todays internet.

Regarding Paizo, I do feel, after lurking through many many threads on ENworld that a lot of people seem to think this company seems more altruistic than WotC. A lot of people seem to forget that Paizo made money with another company's product and development which WotC gave away for free. Now, when WotC decides to take part of the "free" away, everybody gets all upset and trashes WotC for the GSL ("it should have been an OGL, not GSL"). And everybody seems to applaud Paizo for their "new" Pathfinder roleplaying game, when instead they should be on their knees, thanking WotC to produce 3.x and the OGL in the first place. They made Paizo and Pathfinder possible. In my opinion, it was a legitimate move not to produce another OGL, because the OGL only makes the competition stronger. And why would you want that?

It does not make WotC evil (I think that is what some people mean when they say that "the suits" have taken over). WotC is not the BBEG.

And 4e is a very fine product. DDI is much cheaper than buying the printed magazines here in Germany every month. Plus with all the added content, it does the right things for me as a DM.

(edited for spelling)


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 7, 2009)

TheFindus said:


> And everybody seems to applaud Paizo for their "new" Pathfinder roleplaying game, when instead they should be on their knees, thanking WotC to produce 3.x and the OGL in the first place.




No - you mean, thanking Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison for the OGL, who are no longer with WotC. (And I *do* very much thank Ryan and Peter for the OGL.)

The WotC of today did not create the OGL, and deserve no thanks for it, IMO.


----------



## Elbeghast (Sep 7, 2009)

davemage said:


> no - you mean, thanking ryan dancey and peter adkison for the ogl, who are no longer with wotc. (and i *do* very much thank ryan and peter for the ogl.)
> 
> the wotc of today did not create the ogl, and deserve no thanks for it, imo.



qft.


----------



## TheFindus (Sep 7, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> No - you mean, thanking Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison for the OGL, who are no longer with WotC. (And I *do* very much thank Ryan and Peter for the OGL.)
> 
> The WotC of today did not create the OGL, and deserve no thanks for it, IMO.




Aww, come on. Or are you trying to be funny? The rules did not belong to these two people, it was the company's decision to do the OGL and allow others to use the rules for free. Dancey and Adkinson pushed for it, sure. But the company (including Hasbro, maybe) did not have to go along with them. Did the company good to do it, though, since 3.x sold very well (I do not want to start a discussion if WotC have done a new OGL, this is not the thread for that). 
However, if you are really unwilling to give the company any credit at all, at least include Skaff Elias.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 7, 2009)

billd91 said:


> That's *your* opinion. Don't expect everyone to share it.



I don't expect people to share my opinion. 

But I do expect them to be good-humored and not overly-sensitive about the things they enjoy (for instance, opera, D&D, NY Giants football). Or, more precisely, I think it's beneficial to a person to be good-humored and not overly sensitive about the things they enjoy.

Reverse this and see how it shakes out. Is it ever good thing for a person to be humorless and overly-sensitive about the things they enjoy?


----------



## The Ghost (Sep 7, 2009)

Re: Gnomes.

My girlfriend loves gnomes. When she first started playing D&D it was a gnome that she wanted to play. She does not play her as a practical jokester or comic relief but instead as a serious academic (albeit one who looks just like a garden gnome). I have been running a campaign for her character for a little over three years now. She loves her character. 

She has no real knowledge of TSR or other campaign settings or how gnomes have been portrayed. She is a very casual gamer; she only owns enough books to play her character but did buy a lot of books for me.  She tends to get a little frustrated with the complexity of the 3.5 rules from time-to-time. She is exactly the kind of person WotC should have marketed 4e to. 

And yet she refuses to try the game. Why? Because of how they treated the gnome. The one thing that she loved about D&D was being mocked. It didn't matter to her that the tiefling was also being mocked in that video. In her mind it was her character that was sitting up there - it was her character that was the joke. I certainly don't blame her (or anyone else) for feeling offended by that.


----------



## carmachu (Sep 7, 2009)

Windjammer said:


> Ah, the conundrum why Paizo can get away with marketing moves that WotC can't.
> 
> Here's the answer. It's not product marketing, it's customer relations.




Its the product too, but yes customer relations helps alot. Its why games workshop has a crappy reputation with many of its fans where as privateer press can get a pass in the miniature game world.

Customer relations always helps. Its not the only thing.....but it helps.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 7, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Not a terrible loss to the reader of Dragon but a loss to the person who doesn't subscribe who you'd WANT to know about these things.




You mean, like free previews and excerpts for products that are releasing soon?

DMG2... 7 excerpts (with one more to come).... free.
Adventurer's Vault 2... 8 excerpts... free.
Divine Power... 8 excerpts... free.
Eberron Campaign Guide... 8 excerpts... free.
Eberron Player's Guide... 8 excerpts... free.

Notice a pattern? 8 excerpts for each major product (adventures and dungeon tiles only get 1), all of which are free, and all of which together give you a good idea of what the product will have in it.

The exclusive previews you see in Dragon are for products that are months away at the earliest, and they include full racial write-ups, with feats and paragon path, or one entire build from a forthcoming class... or they're playtest articles, encouraging subscriber feedback.

So, you're saying that in addition to the 8 excerpts for a book that non-subscribers already get, they should get reams of pages of additional preview material? I disagree. I think 8 excerpts that cover the broad spectrum of material in the book is plenty... and most companies might think it's too much, since most of them don't even put out that many previews for their products.



> Claiming that you couldn't find a way to do a boxed set for an adventure when numerous other companies have?




They didn't say they couldn't. They said it was cost prohibitive. And White Wolf agrees with them, as they put out a boxed set for Exalted (Dreams of the First Age) and during the development/production (which was delayed a few times), openly admitted that they learned first-hand why people don't really do boxed sets anymore: more work and cost than they are ultimately worth.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 7, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> The exclusive previews you see in Dragon are for products that are months away at the earliest, and they include full racial write-ups, with feats and paragon path, or one entire build from a forthcoming class... or they're playtest articles, encouraging subscriber feedback.




_This month, keep an eye out for Adventurer’s Vault 2. This is a product that every player needs, because you can never have access to enough cool and powerful items and equipment. Check out the neat group items for something new and different. Also, Monster Manual: Legendary Evils huge miniatures boosters hit the shelves this month. In addition to the visible huge figure (including a beholder ultimate tyrant and a balor), each booster contains four random figures drawn from the newest D&D products.

Next month, make sure you get your copy of Dungeon Master's Guide 2, and look for a D&D Game Day event in your area. Also in September, the Revenge of the Giants super adventure provides a great paragon-tier epic involving giants, elementals, and a waking primordial. For D&D Insiders, next month also sees the premier of the exclusive player character class -- the assassin!_

So that's months and months ahead or extensive playtest material eh? Uh... no. It's not. It's a thinly, very thinly disguised ad.



The Little Raven said:


> They didn't say they couldn't. They said it was cost prohibitive.




Uh... what's the difference there? They couldn't BECAUSE it was cost prohibitive? That's really splitting hairs no?



The Little Raven said:


> And White Wolf agrees with them, as they put out a boxed set for Exalted (Dreams of the First Age) and during the development/production (which was delayed a few times), openly admitted that they learned first-hand why people don't really do boxed sets anymore: more work and cost than they are ultimately worth.




And yet, Troll Lord Games manages to do it. Green Ronin not only has done it for OGL material, but are doing it for a brand new game. Maybe WoTC needs to seek out the old Ronin boys and find out how they've done it eh?

And it gets back to the marketing aspect. Don't say you're going to do something if you can't do it. Stop talking about what you're going to be doing because when it turns out you can't do it ($1 PDF when you buy the book, various DDI aspects that still aren't there, GSL being done on time, boxed sets being cost prohibitive etc...), it just makes you look bad.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 7, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> So that's months and months ahead or extensive playtest material eh? Uh... no. It's not. It's a thinly, very thinly disguised ad.




Let's actually look at the content of Dragon, directly.

Dragon 379 (September)
- PHB3 Debut: Skill Powers
- Ampersand (Martial Power 2 excerpt)

Dragon 378 (August)
- PHB3 Debut: Githzerai
- Playing Githzerai
- Ampersand (Plane Below excerpt)

Dragon 377 (July)
- PHB3 Debut: Psion
- Ampersand (Draconomicon 2 excerpt)

Dragon 376 (June)
- MM3 Playtest

Dragon 375 (May)
- PHB3 Playtest: Monk
- PHB3 Playtest: Hybrid Characters

Every single one of these previews/playtests is for a book that is at least 4 months away from release at the time of the preview. That would make these previews... months ahead of release, like I said. And with the exception of the MM3 playtest, they're pretty extensive previews/playtest (extensive being the word you assigned for whatever reason, since I never used it originally).

Excerpt Archive

And here is the list of excerpts, all of which are 100% free, which begin releasing the month before a product hits shelves.

So, as I said, their Dragon-exclusive previews are longer articles with plenty of information (enough to let you play a class or a race) and are released months in advance of the book itself, and their free previews are one-page deals that give you a solid glimpse into the product's content shortly before its release.



> Uh... what's the difference there? They couldn't BECAUSE it was cost prohibitive? That's really splitting hairs no?




You're claiming they said "THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!" when they, in fact, did not. Hell, I don't even recall any promise that it would be a boxed set, merely that they were considering it and looking at the feasibility. But then again, this is the internet, where any off-hand comment of any kind becomes some kind of thrice-bound oath.



> And yet, Troll Lord Games manages to do it.




Really? Can you point me to their 8 excerpts for each product, please, because it sure isn't on their official website under C&C Previews, where they lack previews for a number of their products.



> Stop talking about what you're going to be doing because when it turns out you can't do it (*$1 PDF when you buy the book*, various DDI aspects that still aren't there, GSL being done on time, boxed sets being cost prohibitive etc...), it just makes you look bad.




Emphasis mine.

This is exactly what I was talking about with the internet making any statement into promises. Scott Rouse said they were exploring options, one of which was possibly paying a small amount for a PDF copy ("price of a cup of coffee"). Options being explored, not policies promised and put into place. You took a comment that was "This is something we're looking at, and it may or may not work out" and turned it into "We are doing this. PERIOD. END OF STATEMENT."


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 7, 2009)

TheFindus said:


> Aww, come on. Or are you trying to be funny? The rules did not belong to these two people, it was the company's decision to do the OGL and allow others to use the rules for free. Dancey and Adkinson pushed for it, sure. But the company (including Hasbro, maybe) did not have to go along with them. Did the company good to do it, though, since 3.x sold very well (I do not want to start a discussion if WotC have done a new OGL, this is not the thread for that).
> However, if you are really unwilling to give the company any credit at all, at least include Skaff Elias.




Actually, I believe that before he sold WotC to Hasbro, Adkison did indeed own the rules.  

But your point about Skaff Elias is probably a fair one.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 7, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> Hell, I don't even recall any promise that it would be a boxed set, merely that they were considering it and looking at the feasibility.




Item Code 241787400 
Release Date September 2009 
Format Boxed Set 
Page Count 160 
ISBN 9780786952052 
Price $39.95 ;  C$45.00 

Right from the product descritpion page. Is that a 'promise enough' for ya? "It doesn't have Gygax's signature from beyond the grave! It's not a promise!" Makes me laugh to see people leaping around to prove a point like that. "Well, I don't recall it and even if you're saying it's so, it's not a promise because it doesn't met this definition."







The Little Raven said:


> Really? Can you point me to their 8 excerpts for each product, please, because it sure isn't on their official website under C&C Previews, where they lack previews for a number of their products.




Speaking of boxed sets. Of which they've had several. Even one recently.

Ditto for Green Ronin which is launching a new RPG via the boxed set method.


----------



## carmachu (Sep 7, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> I would hate to live in a world where you are not allowed to mock things now and then.




Anyone can mock anything.

However, if your a business, and your mocking part of your customer base while rolling out a new product? That is not so ok.

Its funny, people defending WotC ask "what was it that turned your off or that upset you or such".

Then, when folks tell in plain words what it is, you said folks say "its not so bad" or "I dont feel they did."

WHy do you keep asking then?







> I call this the Dragonsfoot defense: "If they would have acted reasonable we didn´t have to attack them on a regular basis." I´m sorry, but "i didn´t like a lot of their decisions and actions" still has a lot of "i" in it and not only "their."
> 
> 
> > Incorrect. Many of the situations were of WotC's own making. YOu can label or shove the fault on other people, unltiately they lie at WotC's feet with their decisions.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 7, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Speaking of boxed sets. Of which they've had several. Even one recently.
> 
> Ditto for Green Ronin which is launching a new RPG via the boxed set method.



The new edition of WHFRP is also coming out as a boxed set and IIRC, the first expansion will be a boxed set too.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 8, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> We know what you think they say, the request was for actual quotes, not for your interpretation of the quotes. Because the examples you provided are chock full of interpretation, and don't necessarily reflect what was actually said.




As I said, I do not have the books or quotes with me on hand :U

Why does it matter exactly what they said, if you don't mind me asking?  Clearly, people *were* insulted by the marketing.  It's very likely that WotC didn't intend to insult their customers, ok, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened.

When you tell someone "Well, *I* wasn't insulted, and you shouldn't be insulted either," then you're demeaning them and their opinion.  You don't get lively discussions going by telling people to shut up because they don't matter.

I'm glad a lot of people here were happy with the marketing and didn't feel snubbed or insulted.  Really, feeling snubbed and insulted sucks, and it's better when people don't feel that way.  *But others were*, and when you tell them to suck it up and go away, you're telling them that they don't matter.  And such is what brings about edition wars.  Because here's the thing - the edition wars weren't about one edition being "better" then the others, the edition wars were about two groups who felt the other was trying to marginalize them, and felt they had to marginalize them better, faster, and more.

Telling a fairly sizable group of people, at least on these forums, that they're wrong about being insulted because _you_ didn't feel that way?  That's marginalizing.  It raises hackles.  You're telling them - be it that you mean to or not - that they should leave because they don't matter.

And it's most _not-awesome_.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Craft skills are lame, talking to villagers is lame, lawful good paladins are lame, aasimar are lame, gnomes are lame, the Great Wheel is lame.
> 
> Consequently, they sure did take a lot of time out of their day to correct me on what I'm supposed to think is more cool and more fun.
> 
> ...




As was mentioned earlier, try re-reading those blog posts without the reader filter you had in place at the time.  Try it now, with a bit of time to lend objectivity.



Freakohollik said:


> /snip
> 
> I bet if we went back and read those previews now, they'd make a lot more sense and would seem less insulting to 3.5.




Yup.



Drkfathr1 said:


> /snip
> 
> Surely we can agree that there is/was room for improvement?




I certainly can.  There's always room for improvement.  However, there is a difference between, "They can do this better" and "I can't believe how incredibly crappy they did!"  



ProfessorCirno said:


> As I said, I do not have the books or quotes with me on hand :U
> 
> Why does it matter exactly what they said, if you don't mind me asking?  Clearly, people *were* insulted by the marketing.  It's very likely that WotC didn't intend to insult their customers, ok, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened.
> /snip




It matters because it gets to the heart of why people say they were insulted.  I am of the opinion that people were being "insulted" simply because they were pissed off about 4e and wanted to find something to be insulted about.  That there are more than a few people out there who began spreading the whole "WOTC is pissing all over gamers" meme in an attempt to somehow prove they were right about how bad 4e was.

In other words, people were being overly think skinned and deliberately taking offense based on their opinion of the new edition and it had little or nothing to do with what was actually being said.

Heck, a ways back upthread Windjammer mentiones the "cloud watching" blog post.  Yet, when that post was re-examined a few months later, nothing insulting was found.  To the point where those who had originally claimed to be insulted actually accused WOTC of editing the blog post after the fact to remove any insulting elements.  Yet, that was proven 100% false.

When people are willing to flat out lie in order to "prove" that they were insulted, I'm less than willing to accept wrongdoing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 8, 2009)

carmachu said:


> Its the product too, but yes customer relations helps alot. Its why games workshop has a crappy reputation with many of its fans where as privateer press can get a pass in the miniature game world.
> 
> Customer relations always helps. Its not the only thing.....but it helps.




Games Workshop took a beating here in D/FW when they opened their store at Grapevine Mills mall.

The problem wasn't that they opened a store, it was that they undercut the prices their own stuff was selling for in other stores.

A lot of stores sold off their remaining stock of GW product in clearance sales at deep discounts _and didn't re-order._

Eventually, relations normalized, but it took a while.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> It matters because it gets to the heart of why people say they were insulted.  I am of the opinion that people were being "insulted" simply because they were pissed off about 4e and wanted to find something to be insulted about.  That there are more than a few people out there who began spreading the whole "WOTC is pissing all over gamers" meme in an attempt to somehow prove they were right about how bad 4e was.



Indeed. It boils down to:

"They said some really insulting things!"
"Like what?"
"They said my playstyle was totally lame!"
"I don't remember that. Can you show me where they said that?"
"No but they said it! I'm sure they did!"


----------



## Imban (Sep 8, 2009)

The only example of that which I really remember is one about treasure parcels which was basically completely full of nonsense. Sadly, I forget what the nonsense was, but I felt they were *actively lying* about the faults of 3e. (I seem to recall it was something about slimes not dropping treasure?)

But even disregarding how I felt they *totally invented* a flaw of 3e there, it backs up the impression of this stuff in general, though, because they definitely took pains to point out that 3e stopped being fun as soon as you... er... fought a gelatinous cube.

In retrospect they *might* have actually had a point - that numbered treasure parcels make it *easier* to tell when you're not giving out enough treasure because the party's been fighting enemies with no treasure for half of a level - but actually stating the point like I just did would have been amazingly better marketing than what they did.

And no, I don't have a link to this preview. If only those of us who didn't like the previews knew we'd be called upon to carefully document all evidence only a month or two after the preview! (Seriously, though, it was on WotC's site and about treasure or treasure parcels and I'm pretty sure it involved fighting a slime. Best I can do.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 8, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed. It boils down to:
> 
> "They said some really insulting things!"
> "Like what?"
> ...




Once again, I don't have my books on hand, but I'd be very appreciative if you didn't constantly accuse me of something I have not done.  If you really don't give two damns about what I say, do me a favor and don't be a dick to me about it.


----------



## Gimby (Sep 8, 2009)

This is probably the article you are thinking of Imban: 

4th Edition Excerpts: Economy & Reward

Note he doesn't say anything about fun, or that the 3e version was un-fun, just that randomly generated treasure makes it difficult to match the expected wealth-by-level and attempting to do so produced unneccesary bookkeeping for the DM.


----------



## Imban (Sep 8, 2009)

Gimby said:


> This is probably the article you are thinking of Imban:
> 
> 4th Edition Excerpts: Economy & Reward
> 
> Note he doesn't say anything about fun, or that the 3e version was un-fun, just that randomly generated treasure makes it difficult to match the expected wealth-by-level and attempting to do so produced unneccesary bookkeeping for the DM.




See, I kept finding that one, but I'm sure that one wasn't it because I remember being really, *really* pissed at one when it came out, and that one sticks to facts and actually provides what 4e does.

That one sure isn't offensive, though, and accurately lays out the differences. (I mean, it doesn't make 3e's case that some of us really prefer randomized treasure, but it's 4e advertising and doesn't have to and shouldn't.)


----------



## Greg K (Sep 8, 2009)

Here are two examples of designers and developers telling people that their playstyle is unfun or not playing the game correctly.

"Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun."  
   Mike Mearls  Design and Development article: Rust Monster

"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people."
    James Wyatt, Races and Classes

The above statements may be true for some D&D players.  However, for others, the challenge of adapting to having your gear destroyed is fun and "traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people" is just as much a part of D&D  (or even a more important aspect) as slaying horrible monsters .


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 8, 2009)

4th Edition Excerpts: Multiclassing



			
				Excerpts said:
			
		

> We’ve introduced the Player’s Handbook and one of its classes—the warlord. But what of multiclassing? In today’s preview, we asked Mike Mearls to explain 4th Edition’s design goals for a multiclass system.
> 
> His response:
> 
> ...




Obviously, how this article reads depends a lot on whether you prefer 3e's multiclassing system or 4e's. How would 4e's multiclassing system like it if I called it a jerk, eh?

This would be an example of one of the developers touting 4e's superiority in a way that insults other people's playstyles and preferences.


----------



## Gimby (Sep 8, 2009)

Imban said:


> See, I kept finding that one, but I'm sure that one wasn't it because I remember being really, *really* pissed at one when it came out, and that one sticks to facts and actually provides what 4e does.
> 
> That one sure isn't offensive, though, and accurately lays out the differences. (I mean, it doesn't make 3e's case that some of us really prefer randomized treasure, but it's 4e advertising and doesn't have to and shouldn't.)




I think that's Hussar/Fifth Element's point.  Perhaps, at the time, you did find that article offensive - that it mentions the one detail of content (slimes not dropping treasure) that you remember suggests that it may well be the article you were thinking of.  Reading again in retrospect can produce a different impression.

Its certainly possible to take it in a bad light as it seems to suggest that randomised treasure is inherently a net bad and was bad for dilligent (ie good) DMs.  Or that the amounts of treasure *should* be well known over a level rather than a suprise (or solely the purview of the DM's whims).

I'll agree that this is (or at least can be seen as) poor marketing as the first reading of an article should be positive, not re-reading it years later.  Just that its not, objectively, ragging on 3e.  

As an aside to anyone interested in the edition wars, check out whats happening over the 3rd edition of WHFRP - not only is it another war but its almost _the same war_.   Same complaints about the crunch (boardgame! MMO!), same complaints about the fluff (the designers don't understant WHFRP)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 8, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed. It boils down to:
> 
> "They said some really insulting things!"
> "Like what?"
> ...




You can start with this presentation (Note: some of the commentary below the videos are "rough"- read at your own discretion):
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_e5wAUwdmM]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Presentation: Part 1[/ame]

Mockery of previous editions- both playstyle & mechanics? Check.

Using subjective language like "better, faster, stronger" that the installed base might not agree with.  Check.

Quotes like "we made character advancement fun..." as if it weren't before.  Check.

The subsequent portions of the presentation are unquestionably *much *better.  By and large, its *textbook* hyping the new product without explicitly badmouthing the previous product.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slLNNbcgiSs&feature=related]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Presentation: Part 2[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aLXuMb6WWw&NR=1]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Presentation: Part 3[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-9vMYGu0Q&NR=1]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Presentation: Part 4[/ame]

Now, this is just one presentation, and on balance, its not that bad.  But by the time they stop using potentially inflammatory language- more than 8 minutes into the presentation- people are already starting to form opinions.  

Here, in another fairly decent presentation, the interviewee closes by talking about "wizards not having to make the poor choices."  Again, this is judgmental language.  (And personally, its that kind of resource management that sets D&D apart from most other FRPGs.)

Classes :

I'm sure there are other press releases- good and bad- still floating around "Teh Interweb", but I'm not going looking for them.


----------



## Imban (Sep 8, 2009)

Well, it's certainly possible, I'll admit! I'd still be a little surprised, because I remember my anger being based on a false statement rather than an accusation that I wasn't having fun, but still.



Gimby said:


> same complaints about the fluff (the designers don't understant WHFRP)




I don't play WHFRP, but there's a fairly decent chance of this from what I understand. Or at least, if they *do* understand WHFRP, they made a conscious decision that it was but bad rubbish to which good riddances are said.

While it'll be interesting how it actually shakes out, the accusations that they're gearing 3e far more towards the sort of gameplay featured in WAR (i.e. "play an Archmage, or a Swordmaster of Hoeth!" vs. "play a common man who might eventually work his way up to being a hero") seem to be a fairly reasonable indictment of the fluff.

Of course, since I don't play WHFRP, they might not be doing this at all, because I have no investment whatsoever and thus not much reason to follow the development.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 8, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Here are two examples of designers and developers telling people that their playstyle is unfun or not playing the game correctly.
> 
> "Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun."
> Mike Mearls  Design and Development article: Rust Monster
> ...






pawsplay said:


> <snip>
> This would be an example of one of the developers touting 4e's superiority in a way that insults other people's playstyles and preferences.



*
Exactly.
*


----------



## Gimby (Sep 8, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Obviously, how this article reads depends a lot on whether you prefer 3e's multiclassing system or 4e's. How would 4e's multiclassing system like it if I called it a jerk, eh?
> 
> This would be an example of one of the developers touting 4e's superiority in a way that insults other people's playstyles and preferences.




I don't think he's saying that peoples playstyles and preferences are bad there - he's saying that 3e's multiclassing system heavily informed the process of class design.  Specifically, the frontloading of features into the first level of a class.   You can see the results of this in the move from 3e to 3.5e - Ranger and Paladin in particular.  

He seems to be speaking as a designer there - its tough to make a class interesting because the multiclassing rules are dominating influence over all aspects of class design (it "bullies").  Not saying "you are a jerk if you like this" or that this system produces "jerks"


----------



## Echohawk (Sep 8, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Here are two examples of designers and developers telling people that their playstyle is unfun or not playing the game correctly.
> 
> "Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun."
> Mike Mearls  Design and Development article: Rust Monster




Wait a moment. I think it would be prudent to examine that quote with some more context:

_"Development's understanding of the game tells us that *a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun*. Simply put, it makes the next encounter prohibitively more difficult. The rust monster requires a lot more DM skill and a deeper understanding of the game than other creatures in its CR range.

However, that doesn't mean it cannot have a place in your game. A DM who understands how a rust monster works, or who builds his story to account for it, *can have a lot of fun with the critter as written*. If the PCs lose their weapons and armor, they might go into debt to a shady merchant to get replacements. That merchant can then play an important, interesting role in the campaign."_

It does not look to me as if this article is saying that anyone's play style is "unfun" or that they are "not playing the game correctly". Instead, both the fun *and* not-so-fun aspects of losing gear are pointed out. The article even makes the same point you did, which is that adapting to having your gear destroyed can indeed be fun if handled correctly by a good DM.

Rather than demonstrating that the designers were criticising anyone's gaming style, I think that providing that particular quote as an example more accurately demonstrates how easy it is to take a quote out of context and then get upset about it for reasons that don't really stand up to closer scrutiny.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 8, 2009)

Thank you for posting these examples. 

Honestly, I don't see any mocking. I see designers talking in DESIGN talk. 

Multiclassing WAS a bully in 3e since it did force changes in how a designer had to create a class. It's the same reason why Polymorph eventualy got neutered in even PAthfinder. Namely the fact that the designers hated having to worry about designing a class/monster and factoring in how a disparate part of the system (multiclassing, spells) will affect it.

How do you go from that to the designer calling "players are jerks"?


----------



## Gimby (Sep 8, 2009)

Imban said:


> Well, it's certainly possible, I'll admit! I'd still be a little surprised, because I remember my anger being based on a false statement rather than an accusation that I wasn't having fun, but still.




Its entirely possible that theres another, worse, article thats somewhere else, a blog perhaps.  You may be more justified than you think 



Imban said:


> I don't play WHFRP, but there's a fairly decent chance of this from what I understand. Or at least, if they *do* understand WHFRP, they made a conscious decision that it was but bad rubbish to which good riddances are said.
> 
> While it'll be interesting how it actually shakes out, the accusations that they're gearing 3e far more towards the sort of gameplay featured in WAR (i.e. "play an Archmage, or a Swordmaster of Hoeth!" vs. "play a common man who might eventually work his way up to being a hero") seem to be a fairly reasonable indictment of the fluff.
> 
> Of course, since I don't play WHFRP, they might not be doing this at all, because I have no investment whatsoever and thus not much reason to follow the development.




The issue is that the developers have come out and said that its still largely about the common man and that ratcatchers (and their small, but vicious dogs) are still a playable career.  It seems wholely based on them reusing some of the iconic MMO art.

Its more that its illustrative of the modern, internet based edition war, with the range from "They changed it so it sucks! Real fans will hate it!" to "Newandshiny! Funny coloured dice! I can't wait!" and "Change is good, suck it grognards!".  Its interesting to watch, in that it seems to be panning out the same way as the 3e/4e war.  Well, I find it intereting, anyway


----------



## Echohawk (Sep 8, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Here are two examples of designers and developers telling people that their playstyle is unfun or not playing the game correctly.
> 
> "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people."
> James Wyatt, Races and Classes




Now that I've tracked it down in context, I'm afraid that this second quote also does not give me the impression that James Wyatt was criticizing anyone's play style or accusing anyone of playing the game incorrectly. As with Mike Mearls's article, the excerpt on the fey and the feywild presents both the pros and cons of using the feywild. Here are the full two paragraphs from _Races and Classes_ to provide some reasonable context for your quote:

_"Fey have always been a part of D&D that has both proponents and detractors. The detractors have some good points, in my estimation -- cute pixies and leprechauns aren't fun opponents, and good-aligned creatures are hard to use in combat-heavy adventures. Yes, people recognise pixies from fairy rales. But D&D is emphatically not the game of fairy-tale fantasy. D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people.

On the positive side, though, there is something very appealing about the legends of a faerie land, a world that's an imperfect--or a more perfect--mirror of our own. There's something genuinely frightening about the idea that a traveler in dark woods at night might disappear from the world entirely and end up in a place where the fundamental rules have changed. Magic is more real there, beauty is more beautiful and ugliness more ugly, and even time flow differently in the fey realm. Books like Susannah Clarke's _Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell_ depict that world in vivid language."_

In the first paragraph -- the one you quoted from -- Mr Wyatt is clearly presenting the point of view of detractors of using fey in D&D, and that includes the claim that D&D is about slaying monsters, not chatting to fey. But the following paragraph stresses the positive aspect of the fey in D&D.

It seems just a little unfair to take half of that fairly balanced presentation of the pros and cons and use it as a demonstration of the author's bias...


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 8, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> Rather than demonstrating that the designers were criticising anyone's gaming style, I think that providing that particular quote as an example more accurately demonstrates how easy it is to take a quote out of context and then get upset about it for reasons that don't really stand up to closer scrutiny.




Bingo.  Taking a quote out of context is probably the best way to have someone misconstrue someone's else's meaning and generate an emotional response.  Its done by politicians to demonize their opponents, by news agencies to generate needless sensationalism, and in this case by people angry with WotC to make their point they were demeaned or mocked.  The full quote (and indeed all the quotes cites so far), when also shown with their proper context are not demeaning at all.

Another example, from the videos on the previous page:

"We made character advancement fun..." 

The actual, in-context and non-edited quote?

"We have made character advancement a fun and meaningful thing at every level of play.  We have made high level play as playable and fun as low-level play (much applause).  We have made the player and DM experience easier by streamling rules mechanics in places where they needed it, by improving overall presentation and layout of our books, and with the online tools we'll be talking about a little bit later.  We have simplified stat blocks...A LOT (much applause)."

I don't see anything objectionable there.  He wasn't saying 3.x was unfun, but addressing issues people had with 3.x even before the announcement of 4e.  If I'm not mistaken, these were some of the major issues a huge number of players had with 3.x.  Specifically, the "fun" comment was made due to a number of people saying there were "dead" levels in 3.x when a character gained nothing but skill points, and maybe a BAB or save bonus increase.  Isn't it more fulfilling to have your character progress and have new options every level, rather than these dead levels?  4e has addressed these problems, and Pathfinder has even tried to address several of these issues.  

Basically, a lot of this comes down to people wanting to find a reason to be angry, and using whatever is at their disposal (in many cases out-of-context quotes) to justify their arguements.  And this is understandable- as humans we tend to remember outlier events that get our attention, and hearing or seeing something which produces an emotional response resonates with people- thats why politicians and news agencies do this.  But this sort of thing also doesn't reflect reality, or the true meaning of statements by those that said them.

If you don't like the game because it doesn't appeal to your personal preferences, thats cool- I can respect that.  If you have to resort to fabrication and emotional manipulation, and then present that information as fact, then its a whole different matter.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 8, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> Bingo.  Taking a quote out of context is probably the best way to have someone misconstrue someone's else's meaning and generate an emotional response.  Its done by politicians to demonize their opponents, by news agencies to generate needless sensationalism, and in this case by people angry with WotC to make their point they were demeaned or mocked.  The full quote (and indeed all the quotes cites so far), when also shown with their proper context are not demeaning at all.
> 
> Another example, from the videos on the previous page:
> 
> ...



It seems to me - and that's not limited to 3E - is that fans take criticism against their game as criticism to them. 

Maybe it is bad marketing then to talk about the flaws of the current edition and talk about how they will be fixed in the next edition. 

But I disagree. As a player and fan of 3E, I loved hearing what they changed and was reassured that they identified flaws I had recognized too and promised to have them fixed. I didn't take it as an insult to me that I was stupid for playing 3E for so long or whatever. I did take it as a sign that they knew what they were doing and that I might like what they would be offering. 

No matter how much you love roleplaying games - your choice of game or edition does not define you. If someone criticizes your game, it doesn't mean he criticizes you. Don't feel offended by critique to your game. (And that's certainly not something limited to 3E marketing, it's a general problem in most of the edition wars on either side.)

Of course, some might try to offend you with their critique. I am pretty sure 4E marketing did not have that goal. But even if it would, it's aiming at the wrong target - you're not your game.


----------



## Maggan (Sep 8, 2009)

Gimby said:


> As an aside to anyone interested in the edition wars, check out whats happening over the 3rd edition of WHFRP - not only is it another war but its almost _the same war_.   Same complaints about the crunch (boardgame! MMO!), same complaints about the fluff (the designers don't understant WHFRP)




Yeah, it makes me very tired of RPG discussion on the Internet. It's the same thing all over again and again and again.

And to top things off, I'm a Mac user ... which has a lot of those same discussions, again and again and again.

I'm growing weary of the Internet as a place for discussions.

As a place for finding resources for my WFRP and D&D4e games, the Internet rocks!

/M


----------



## Gimby (Sep 8, 2009)

Maggan said:


> Yeah, it makes me very tired of RPG discussion on the Internet. It's the same thing all over again and again and again.
> 
> And to top things off, I'm a Mac user ... which has a lot of those same discussions, again and again and again.
> 
> ...




I have to say, its morbidly facinating.  Most bizzare place I found it was on the WoW forums where almost the exact same arguement can be found on threads demanding "Vanilla" servers.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 8, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> So that's months and months ahead or extensive playtest material eh? Uh... no. It's not. It's a thinly, very thinly disguised ad.




Man, there is no satisfying some folks. 

Since 4E started, WotC has had several weeks worth of free previews in the month leading up to every product release. Continuing from previous years, each month, at the start of the month, we have the free preview column from Bart Carroll, which includes a list of releases over the next 3 months and at least one excerpt from each. 

Within the magazine itself, subscribers get access to the significant advance previews from the PHB3 (and presumably future material once that releases), along with playtest articles that allow them direct feedback into the development of the game. In addition, in Ampersand, Bill Slavicsek often includes snippets of upcoming material, intended entirely as bonus info for subscribers. And, yes, he mentions whatever releases are coming out that month, and even with his potentially overwhelming enthusiasm, is a paragraph or two really causing any problems? 

As a subscriber, I _appreciate _this information. I'm not sure what you would expect from an editorial style column, but if he removed those previews, we wouldn't be receiving anything in their place. We aren't losing out on anything by them being there. And non-subscribers aren't getting screwed over because they still have an enormous amount of preview information being sent their way every month!

If you view the previews WotC releases as a failure of marketing opportunity, it is simply because you are looking for ways to criticize them, rather than taking an unbiased view of the situation.

And honestly, that's a lot of the issue at hand. The problem with 4E 'marketing' is that we had a lot of game designers - who aren't marketing people - who were stepping forward and earnestly discussing the game and the design decisions they made. They weren't skilled at coaching this in perfectly designed inoffensive marketing language, and their enthusiasm - and honesty about what they perceived as flaws - rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. And while it could definitely have been handled better, I think it unfortunate that there was such backlash over that level of openness and communication, and that so many people began _looking_ for ways to be offended. 

Honestly, when someone says they are boycotting 4E because of the Gnome and Tiefling cartoon - one of the funniest things out there, something clearly designed with not the slightest hostility or intended insult, and something responsible for making the gnome more popular than it has _ever_ been... I don't know how to respond. There are things WotC said that were genuinely ill-phrased or poorly thought out - that wasn't one of them, and the capability of fans to perceive it as an insult only serves as proof that there is not a single action WotC can take that won't end up offending someone. 

Which isn't even inherently anyone's fault - people are different, and you simply can't satisfy everyone. But even in light of that, I think there are some who do seem to intentionally view things in the darkest light possible, and seek to call forth criticism in areas where it is no way deserved. 

Like Joe Kushner's claim that WotC should cut off all communication with fans about upcoming products. That's a terrible idea. Yes, they said they were hoping to do a boxed set for Revenge of the Giants, and it ended up not being cost-effective to do so. That means they have committed some terrible wrong? I mean, one of the reasons they may have made that decision was based on the response received by fans - something they wouldn't even have _access_ to without discussing this material in advance!

Joe is essentially advocating they never share any information with the community, never discuss what options they are looking at or try to get any customer feedback at all. 

For myself, I'd much rather have the occasional disappointment when their plans change, and in return actually get all this preview information, actually have Wotc willing to openly communicate with their customers, actually have them make business decisions based on what is best for the game rather than over fear of disappointing a fan on the internet.


----------



## Soraios (Sep 8, 2009)

My initial impression of the marketing was that it suffered from horrible timing.

Once they announced the edition switch, there was a 6-9 month lag time until release.  During that time, they were essentially clearing out their production calendar of 3.5 stuff.  I would bet that D&D product line sales plummeted during that timeframe.  Hence the need for the teaser/fluff books that preceded the PHB.

The smarter move would have been to continue to publish 3.5 stuff right until the release of 4e, and then offer free .pdf conversion guides for everything released in the past 6-12 months.  And then release a game that was as backwards-compatible as possible with complete conversion guides.

That would have been a smoother transition.  Instead, we were offered 4e as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 8, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> _However, that doesn't mean it cannot have a place in your game. A DM who understands how a rust monster works, or who builds his story to account for it, *can have a lot of fun with the critter as written*. If the PCs lose their weapons and armor, they might go into debt to a shady merchant to get replacements. That merchant can then play an important, interesting role in the campaign."_
> 
> It does not look to me as if this article is saying that anyone's play style is "unfun" or that they are "not playing the game correctly". Instead, both the fun *and* not-so-fun aspects of losing gear are pointed out. The article even makes the same point you did, which is that adapting to having your gear destroyed can indeed be fun if handled correctly by a good DM.
> 
> Rather than demonstrating that the designers were criticising anyone's gaming style, I think that providing that particular quote as an example more accurately demonstrates how easy it is to take a quote out of context and then get upset about it for reasons that don't really stand up to closer scrutiny.



Very well said. That is one problem with proving the instulting comments - many comments could be interpreted that way if taken out of context. As you demonstrate here, this "insulting" comment was taken out of context, and the full passage shows a well-balanced commentary.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 8, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> It seems just a little unfair to take half of that fairly balanced presentation of the pros and cons and use it as a demonstration of the author's bias...




To add a little more color and context to this issue, particularly James's comment, all you need to do is look here at ENWorld. I've seen quite a few debates about D&D in which people argue that D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff. It's a pretty common meme around here, and it's often used dismissively. And it's at least partially echoed in James's comment. That's one reason, for me at least, that it stands out much farther than the rest of his commentary. 
If you want to say that chatting with creatures from the faerie realm isn't a focus of current design, say that. But don't tell me what D&D is about. DMs and players have always had tremendous leeway in what their games are about, they and take pride in that, so don't try to box it in, even rhetorically. It just comes across as dismissive, maybe even insulting, to players and DMs who don't want to just kill things and take their stuff.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 8, 2009)

billd91 said:


> It just comes across as dismissive, maybe even insulting, to players and DMs who don't want to just kill things and take their stuff.



As someone who's run his share of sessions with absolutely no combat, or even dice-rolling, for that matter, who provides all manner of oddball 'little people' for the players to interact with, including parody poetry spouting demons and immortal socialite/semi-Cenobite philosopher/art critics --Would You Like to Know More? The Lady Eve, begin w/post 199-- whose adventures, such as they are, usually stray fairly far afield from the mere 'killing things and taking their stuff, I didn't feel insulted in the slightest. 

Then again, I can take a joke. I also try to take only personal things personally.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2009)

I find it bizarre that anyone would argue that D&D isn't focused on killing stuff and taking their loot.  At least from an official products point of view.  Look at pretty much every module produced for every single edition.

While there are exceptions, they are just that... exceptions.  The overwhelming majority of modules out there can be boiled down to "Go to this place, kill most or all of every creature you find there, take everything that isn't nailed down."  Wash, rinse, repeat.

How much evidence do you need?  Twenty ish years of Dungeon magazine, hundreds of stand-alone modules, all doing pretty much the same thing of kill, loot, steal.  

Trying to argue that the focus of D&D isn't combat is pretty difficult I would think.  The rules are almost entirely focused on combat, the classes are focused on how they kill things, every monster comes with a treasure type.  And that hasn't changed in any edition.

Do you HAVE to play that way?  Nope.  You certainly don't.  Is it fair to say that D&D is a combat oriented role playing game where you are going to slay monsters and steal their loot?  I'd have to say yes.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I find it bizarre that anyone would argue that D&D isn't focused on killing stuff and taking their loot.




Uhh, ditto. Big time.

But I think perhaps the perception is that the ability and the encouragement to transcend that core gameplay was better supported in prior editions. 

You will get no argument from me that 4e has distilled the essence of that core gameplay and does it better than any edition before. It's a better tool for that purpose; it's a less useful tool for other purposes.

In my admittedly ignorant opinion.


----------



## avin (Sep 8, 2009)

4E marketing seemed bad all the way. 
Why mockering things a large parcel of fanbase like? Why trash 3E? Why trash the Great Wheel instead of saying "we'd like to make things a bit different this time"?

In my humble opinion looks like Mearls & company create a game they wanted, paying no much attention to what other people do. It's not that X element from 3E isn't fun, X element from 3E isn't fun for them and they get rid of it to build a game THEY want to play... =/

Seeing their example of "roleplaying" on DMG Skill Challenge examples, with DM and Players mixing meta elements with in game stuff I think it's not the same way me and lots of D&D players do.

It does not prevent me of like 4E, but I don't see Wotc as a cool house like in 3E era anymore.

Things could have been a LOT different on editions wars if 3.5 was treated with all due respect.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 8, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The movie did fine, to be sure, but it got a LOT of negative press.  (Ultimately, it was probably a wash, but its hard to be sure.)



 Hey if they can get a gorehound like me to watch a _bible movie_, they got to be doing something right.

And it did more than fine. It kicked the **** out of ALL other R rated movies. _Ever_.

Domestic:  	 $370,782,930
+ Foreign: 	 $241,116,490
= Worldwide: 	 $611,899,420 	



			
				R rated ALL TIME BOX OFFICE said:
			
		

> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=R&p=.htm
> 
> 1 	The Passion of the Christ 	NM 	$370,782,930 	2004
> 2 	The Matrix Reloaded 	WB 	$281,576,461 	2003
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Uhh, ditto. Big time.
> 
> But I think perhaps the perception is that the ability and the encouragement to transcend that core gameplay was better supported in prior editions.
> 
> ...




Y'know, I have no problem with that assessment at all.  I can get behind that one.



avin said:


> 4E marketing seemed bad all the way.
> Why mockering things a large parcel of fanbase like? Why trash 3E? Why trash the Great Wheel instead of saying "we'd like to make things a bit different this time"?/snip




Again, this gets to the heart of the issue.  It's been shown a couple of times that the "trashing" gets taken out of context sometimes and blown out of proportion.

I mean, is making fun of Planescape names really "trashing" the system?


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 8, 2009)

billd91 said:


> If you want to say that chatting with creatures from the faerie realm isn't a focus of current design, say that. But don't tell me what D&D is about.



The point of the context provided is that he wasn't saying that. He was providing the perspective of the detractors. He also provided the perspective of the supporters. That's the point here: taking the quote out of context, it seems he's telling you how you should play D&D. Looking at the context, it's clear he's not saying that.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 8, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> The point of the context provided is that he wasn't saying that. He was providing the perspective of the detractors. He also provided the perspective of the supporters. That's the point here: taking the quote out of context, it seems he's telling you how you should play D&D. Looking at the context, it's clear he's not saying that.




He also says that he thinks they make some good points. Sounds like an implication that that criticism of using the fey is a good point.

But keep in mind the context I was putting this in too - the meme around here about what D&D is about. It comes up again and again. Is it any wonder that people get sensitive to it or bristle at it? Sure, there are a lot of people who focus on that style of play and it's easy to publish adventures focusing on it, but it's just a subset of what D&D has been about.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 8, 2009)

billd91 said:


> He also says that he thinks they make some good points. Sounds like an implication that that criticism of using the fey is a good point.
> 
> But keep in mind the context I was putting this in too - the meme around here about what D&D is about. It comes up again and again. Is it any wonder that people get sensitive to it or bristle at it? Sure, there are a lot of people who focus on that style of play and it's easy to publish adventures focusing on it, but it's just a subset of what D&D has been about.




Um, Billd91, why are you though ALSO ignoring the fact that he points out that the propoents of the FEY have strong reasons to want to use them as presented in myth (where there's practically no combat but just social interaction).

He's saying BOTH sides are right...I mean, how can you get anymore non-confrontational than that?


----------



## Imaro (Sep 8, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> The point of the context provided is that he wasn't saying that. He was providing the perspective of the detractors. He also provided the perspective of the supporters. That's the point here: taking the quote out of context, it seems he's telling you how you should play D&D. Looking at the context, it's clear he's not saying that.






AllisterH said:


> Um, Billd91, why are you though ALSO ignoring the fact that he points out that the propoents of the FEY have strong reasons to want to use them as presented in myth (where there's practically no combat but just social interaction).
> 
> He's saying BOTH sides are right...I mean, how can you get anymore non-confrontational than that?




Uhm, I'm gonna have to disagree with both of you on this one... Let's look at that quote again...
_
"Fey have always been a part of D&D that has both proponents and detractors. The detractors have some good points, in my estimation -- cute pixies and leprechauns aren't fun opponents, and good-aligned creatures are hard to use in combat-heavy adventures. Yes, people recognise pixies from fairy rales. *But D&D is emphatically not the game of fairy-tale fantasy. D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people.*

On the positive side, though, there is something very appealing about the legends of a faerie land, a world that's an imperfect--or a more perfect--mirror of our own. There's something genuinely frightening about the idea that a traveler in dark woods at night might disappear from the world entirely and end up in a place where the fundamental rules have changed. Magic is more real there, beauty is more beautiful and ugliness more ugly, and even time flow differently in the fey realm. Books like Susannah Clarke's _Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell_ depict that world in vivid language."_


(Note the bolded portion)He clearly asserts that D&D is a particular thing that does not include... _" traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people."

_
The problem is that he never says anything positive as far as fey and D&D go, he only makes a positive reference to their place in literature not the actual game of D&D though he clearly makes a statement about what is and isn't D&D in the paragraph that is negative about the fey.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 8, 2009)

Imaro said:


> The problem is that he never says anything positive as far as fey and D&D go, he only makes a positive reference to their place in literature not the actual game of D&D though he clearly makes a statement about what is and isn't D&D in the paragraph that is negative about the fey.



Uhm, I think you're putting a pretty fine line on it. He didn't explicitly connect the positive comments about the fey with D&D, but considering he was writing about D&D, I think the connection is implicit.

From a designer POV, as noted above, D&D is traditionally and primarily a game as he describes. It can be used for more than that, of course, but its focus has never been that and will likely never be that.

To examine your posts in as much detail, you claim that he "clearly asserts that D&D is a particular thing that does not *include*.." [bold added], which is not true. He states D&D is not *about* that, not that it can't *include* that. "About" here referring to the game's primary focus.

So he's saying D&D is not focused on traipsing through fairy rings, which I think is a fair statement. Then he says traipsing through fairy rings can be awesome, which is also a fair statement.


----------



## avin (Sep 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I mean, is making fun of Planescape names really "trashing" the system?




Yes, it is. They are mockering something just because they don't like it. Haven't seen they making fun of "4E wow elementals" or concepts I find bizarrely fun nonsense such as Elemental Chaos.

They make fun of Planescape because they want people think PS was dumb and the new cosmology is perfect. 

By the way, am I the only 4E edition DM defending the point of bad 4E marketing? Where's the 3E guys defending 4E as a good marketing and 4E players thinking just like me? That way look like most people is just chosing the side they like more and finding arguments to defend it 

The "fairy" example is another aspect I'd like to point. 4E has a clear philosofy that D&D is almost a game where HEROES face EVIL MONSTERS. That probably keep a lot of 3E players away.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 8, 2009)

Imaro said:


> (Note the bolded portion)He clearly asserts that D&D is a particular thing that does not include... _" traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people."
> 
> he clearly makes a statement about what is and isn't D&D in the paragraph that is negative about the fey._



_

I have tried responding to three posts with no luck. I hope this one goes through.

Imaro, 
Exactly.  Whether he is agreeing with detratctors point or stating his own opinion in that statment, he asserts that D&D is about killing monsters and not about " traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people."   As a designer,by that statement, he is, by implication, telling several groups that I know and all those participants in a poll here that don't have combat every session and/or whose games encompass more than killing monsters that they are playing wrong_


----------



## Scribble (Sep 8, 2009)

I've always found this to be a case of: If you're looking for the insult in a statement, you will find it, no matter if it was intended or not.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Again, this gets to the heart of the issue.  It's been shown a couple of times that the "trashing" gets taken out of context sometimes and blown out of proportion.
> 
> I mean, is making fun of Planescape names really "trashing" the system?




In marketing, perception is reality.  All that matters is how your readers (viewers) perceive your message/product.  

If the message is perceived by a significant number of people as insulting, it's insulting - regardless of intent.  Annoying a significant portion of your potential buyers with marketing they perceive to be insulting is not usually a good practice.

But, hey, if 4E is as successful as WotC is claiming, maybe those that were annoyed by it is not a significant population.  *shrug*


----------



## Imaro (Sep 8, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Uhm, I think you're putting a pretty fine line on it. He didn't explicitly connect the positive comments about the fey with D&D, but considering he was writing about D&D, I think the connection is implicit.
> 
> From a designer POV, as noted above, D&D is traditionally and primarily a game as he describes. It can be used for more than that, of course, but its focus has never been that and will likely never be that.
> 
> ...




Again I have to disagree, here is the definition of about...

*a⋅bout*

–preposition
 

 /əˈbaʊt/ 

  Show Spelled Pronunciation  [uh-bout] 
1. of; concerning; in regard to: instructions about the work; a book about the Civil War. 
 2. connected or associated with: There was an air of mystery about him.
3. near; close to: a man about my height; about six o'clock. 
 4. in or somewhere near: He is about the house.  
5. on every side of; around: the railing about the excavation.  
6. on or near (one's person): They lost all they had about them.  
7. so as to be of use to: Keep your wits about you. 
 8. on the verge or point of (usually fol. by an infinitive): about to leave. 
 9. here or there; in or on: to wander about the old castle.  
10. concerned with; engaged in doing: Tell me what it's about. Bring me the other book while you're about it. 
 
I don't see ... "focused on" anywhere in the definitions,  I have to assume he either meant "connected or associated with..." or perhaps "concerned with..." either way D&D has always had Fey connected with it, associated with it, and has been a game concerned with it (Elves).

Honestly it seems  you are creating your own meaning for the word "about".


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 8, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I've always found this to be a case of: If you're looking for the insult in a statement, you will find it, no matter if it was intended or not.




True, but if someone approaches a marketing statement with neutrality and comes away insulted, the marketing has failed for that person.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 8, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> True, but if someone approaches a marketing statement with neutrality and comes away insulted, the marketing has failed for that person.




Possibly? I'm not sure if I agree though.

I work in account management, and one of the things they emphasize is what I said above. It doesn't matter what the intended message is, when someone is upset they're likely to read negativity into whatever they read.

The message could be: "Hey how are you today? I hope you're doing well!"

If you're upset, you're more then likely to read into it with something like: "Don't tell me how I should be doing! I'm friggin mad! What gives you the right to tell me I should be happy?!?!" 

It goes back to the idea that the written word lacks many of the subtle visual, and tonal cues we normally use to communicate.

Could the marketing have been done better? I don't know- maybe? I'm not a marketing guy.

Do I think a lot of the negativity was overblown because a lot of people were just upset about the edition shift to begin with? 

Definitely.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 8, 2009)

The trouble with "the marketing" is that it's accurate; the problem is the attitude expressed in the game design itself.

If Hasbro decides to slap the *Diplomacy* trademark on a quite different game with the quite different concerns of _Axis & Allies_, well -- if that's what I want, then I can just play A&A (another Hasbro product) instead.

What's offensive is people coming into "our house" as it were -- the D&D game we've been playing in some cases since before some of those people were born -- and tearing it down to build whatever the hell they happen to prefer. They're just passing through, and they're acting like _landlords_ rather than custodians.

Whatever one's appraisal of the epic fantasies of Terry Brooks, David Eddings, Dennis L. McKiernan, etc., they did not take the title _The Lord of the Rings_.

The prevailing attitude, both at the corporate level and apparently among "D&D fans", seems now to be either that D&D deserves no such respect because it's not "literary" -- or that Tolkien's and others' is due none either.

Fortunately, not only has Tolkien's work not been put out of print in favor of a "new edition" of Peter Jackson's devising, but an actual new prose edition of _The Children of Hurin_ has been released to solid sales. Nor has the Sci-Fi Channel's abomination replaced Le Guin's classic Earthsea books.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 8, 2009)

Greg K said:


> As a designer,by that statement, he is, by implication, telling several groups that I know and all those participants in a poll here that don't have combat every session and/or whose games encompass more than killing monsters that they are playing wrong



This is just nonsense. There was no value judgment involved. No 'wrong'. 

A designer noting that most people, traditionally, take a 'kill things and take their stuff' approach to D&D should be about as controversial as observing the sky is frequently blue and rain is often wet. People who play differently are exactly that; people who play differently. You have to do a lot of reading into that statement before you arrive at 'they are playing D&D wrong'. 

Look, I'm one of those people who play D&D differently (as anyone who's read the Story Hour based on the campaign I run can tell you). Stating that most people don't play the way I do is in no way an insult to me. It's simply factual.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 8, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Do I think a lot of the negativity was overblown because a lot of people were just upset about the edition shift to begin with?
> 
> Definitely.




Sure - if people are in a bad mood, they will see the bad.

But knowing that people are upset about the edition shift to begin with - shouldn't the marketing attempt to compensate for that?  (Or maybe WotC simply failed their Diplomacy check.    )


----------



## Mallus (Sep 8, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> What's offensive is people coming into "our house" as it were -- the D&D game we've been playing in some cases since before some of those people were born -- and tearing it down to build whatever the hell they happen to prefer. They're just passing through, and they're acting like _landlords_ rather than custodians.



Following your analogy...

... D&D is more like a housing development. You have a house there, which you've decorated to your liking. In fact, you and your immediate neighbors have rather similar tastes, so your house look quite a bit alike.

However, you were never the owners of the whole development. In fact, some people you don't much like, who live on the other side, decorated _their_ homes completely differently. Tastelessly, in your eyes. Why they practically defaced the whole community. But what can you do, except complain? Because while you and your like-minded neighbors might feel a great deal of ownership over the whole development, you are, truth be told, only a few owners among many. 

Over the years, new people moved in. Older houses were torn down and new ones erected. You don't much like the new designs. You feel them to be inferior to the originals. A few of them look too newfangled for your tastes. Worse, a few resembled those houses from across the way you didn't like to begin with.

Now you have every right to prefer things the way they were. But it's a fact of life things change. Neighborhoods change. But it's just not right to go around suggesting that the new folks don't belong. They paid their money same as you. The own their property same as you. They probably even _like_ the community same as you (I hear it's a good place to raise a family). They are, in fact, pretty much the same as you, except you think their new-style windows are awful and the colors painted their house are gauche.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 8, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This is just nonsense. There was no value judgment involved. No 'wrong'.




Mallus,
   Stating that he agrees with the point of  detractors that  DND is emphatically not about traipsing in fairy circles and is about killing things is agreeing with a one way view of how the game is to be played.  It may may be the way many people (probably most) play the game, but it only entails one way the game is played and is not the end all be all of how to play DND.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 8, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> But knowing that people are upset about the edition shift to begin with - shouldn't the marketing attempt to compensate for that?  (Or maybe WotC simply failed their Diplomacy check.    )




What is funny, is that, while a few instances in the marketing, irked me, there was nothing in the marketing that affected my decision regarding 4e.  I was actually looking forward to 4e even before Mearls was hired (and hoped that his being hired by WOTC meant that 4e was secretly in the works) .   I agreed with many, but not all of the complaints leveled against 3e (which I like provided  that I am, primarily, using the core along with Unearthed Arcana and select third party products).

  My decison to skip 4e had to do with the mechanical changes, other design implementations, and leaving out certain elements for later books.  I think 4e has some really good elements/changes in certain areas, but others changes/implementations are just a turn off for my own preferences. However, I don't rule out that a UA sourcebook of optional rules could bring me into 4e just UA did with 3e .


----------



## Scribble (Sep 8, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Sure - if people are in a bad mood, they will see the bad.
> 
> But knowing that people are upset about the edition shift to begin with - shouldn't the marketing attempt to compensate for that?  (Or maybe WotC simply failed their Diplomacy check.    )




Maybe?  Like I said, I'm not a marketing guy. 

I think in this case, part of the problem was that they didn't expect/predict that various elements would feed into each other as much as they did and sort of create an ouroboros of negativity.

IE people were upset about the edition change, which caused them to see the GSL in a much more negative light then it deserved (in my opinion) which caused them to be more upset about the edition change, which then caused them to be even more upset about the GSL... Combine that with the DDI?  Yeesh.

Is all that marketings fault? Again, I don't know, but isn't there only so much marketing can do?

Sometimes, there's just not much you can do about it. You have to say what you need to say, accept that they don't/won't like it, let them vent for a while (without encouraging the venting) then move on to the good things. Move past the bad and show them why your relationship is worth it.


----------



## Scribble (Sep 8, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Mallus,
> Stating that he agrees with the point of  detractors that  DND is emphatically not about traipsing in fairy circles and is about killing things is agreeing with a one way view of how the game is to be played.  It may may be the way many people (probably most) play the game, but it only entails one way the game is played and is not the end all be all of how to play DND.




What about that section says to you that he was concerned with "HOW" people play D&D, as opposed to what the rules of the game are designed to handle?

If he told you that he wasn't concerned with HOW people play the game, so much as what the rules are designed to handle, would it still be insulting? If so why?

Taken at face value it seems to indicate that D&D has never been designed with social activities being the main focus of the rules. The focus of the D&D rules has been primarily combat, with non combat activities having little to no focus.  Is this indicating you are wrong for wanting your personal games to be about social activities over combat? If so, I don't see it.

To me this is no different then when people suggest using say Call of Cuthulu for a horror game over D&D because CoC was designed around the idea of promoting horror.  Or the reverse- CoC was not designed around the idea of going toe to toe with horrible monsters from beyond...

You can certainly play the system that way, and it might be tons of fun- There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so, but the game was never designed with that intention in mind.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 8, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Sometimes, there's just not much you can do about it. You have to say what you need to say, accept that they don't/won't like it, let them vent for a while (without encouraging the venting) then move on to the good things. Move past the bad and show them why your relationship is worth it.




You certainly can't please all of the people all of the time, but the question (and point of this thread) is, did the marketing make things better or worse for the success of 4E?

IMO, it made it worse, but it doesn't really matter what I think.  In the end, all that matters is the bottom line.  If the bottom line is healthy (and better than what it was at the end of 3.5), then marketing did a good enough job.  We can debate if it could have been better (it could have in my case), but it's more of a thought exercise now, rather than anything that's relevant to 4E's success.

Now it's up to marketing to grow (or at least maintain) the success of the brand/game.  It's no longer a 3.5 vs. 4E thing.  It's really only a 4E thing (though one could argue it's a 4E vs. all other forms of group entertainment thing since WotC is in such a class by itself).

The challenge now is to keep current players interested in buying more 4E product and (hopefully) attracting new players to buy in.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 8, 2009)

Mallus, the practical fact is that the rule is simply "might makes right" and the only "person" really enfranchised is a legal fiction. Yesterday's highfalutin' designer is today's ex-employee with no ownership of his or her work.

The new folks have not "paid their money same as me". The premise of their privilege is that instead the money I pay goes into their pockets (by way of the corporation that now owns the work of others as it owns theirs).

That is as it is, and proper enough as far as it goes; Gygax and Arneson sold their legal ownership long ago and _Dungeons & Dragons_® is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast.

By the same token, each of us is a poop producer; when we were very small, that was our primary product. It does not follow that we must regard ourselves as _only_ that.


That is _not_ all there is. There is no reason that human beings cannot go further. It is fact no more incumbent on us to call whatever WotC sells "real" D&D than it is incumbent on WotC to adhere to any convention regarding the name's referent.

Of course, it is a matter of historical record what was published in 1974-76 and 1977-79, what took hobby gaming by storm and created a new field. In that regard, the scales of judgment are rather heavily weighted -- so that it would be foolish to claim that _those_ classic books are not D&D! They _made_ the name upon which TSR and WotC have counted for sales of later products.

If one's assumption is that all that matters is superficial appearances, then of course the marketing issue involves no more than the right "spin" on whatever course of action is chosen. That is misleading. All one controls is one's own deeds. Wheedle all you like, and people will still see through the Emperor's New Clothes.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 8, 2009)

Scribble said:


> What about that section says to you that he was concerned with "HOW" people play D&D, as opposed to what the rules of the game are designed to handle?
> 
> If he told you that he wasn't concerned with HOW people play the game, so much as what the rules are designed to handle, would it still be insulting? If so why?
> 
> ...




I always thought the rules of D&D (at least pre-4e, but even 4e does an ok job) covered exploration of exotic locales?  Traps, terrain, inhabitants (including non-evil one's), etc... or am I wrong?  I mean traipsing through a fairy ring (depending on the particular inspiration one draws on) can be an exotic, dangerous and beautiful place... for an example check out Changeling the Lost.


----------



## Windjammer (Sep 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I am of the opinion that people were being "insulted" simply because they were pissed off about 4e and wanted to find something to be insulted about.




That's the party line. As Scot Rouse once put it, there's some negative perceptions surrounding 4E products and their marketing. These perceptions are wrong so we (WotC) have to change them. Apparently people like Scot and yourself have never heard about the causal theory of perception, preferring instead to assume massive perceptual errors in the customer base. 



Hussar said:


> Heck, a ways back upthread Windjammer mentiones the "cloud watching" blog post.  Yet, when that post was re-examined a few months later, nothing insulting was found.




Feel free to link to the re-examination thread. As far as I recall, Dave Noonan made a blunder in that post. He came off as extremely insulting *without meaning too*, and he apologized for the post a day or two later _on these forums_. He even owned up to the fact that his blog entry was *badly expressed.*

And that's the crux, really. A lot of statements that get castigated as bad marketing in this thread boil down, not to outright insulting statements, but to a healthy mix of statements which *are expressed far too carelessly to prevent people feeling insulted. *Which equates to bad marketing, full stop. I mean, Noonan having to even post an apology reflects the fact that he had made a blunder. 4E's prerelease marketing was replete with such blunders, and that's why people remember them.

As for statements being expressed misleadingly, also take the passage on the fey which some here tell us has nothing in the least insulting about the fey. Well, the way I read it is actually Wyatt saying that fey in D&D sucked pretty hard prior to their 4E overhaul. People complain "how dare he say that about how I handled fey in my games". 4E fans say "he didn't insult fey - he just insulted how prior editions handled them". That's splitting hairs. What people felt got insulted was not fey per se but _a way of handling of fey in D&D -_ namely their own. If you think Wyatt's statement doesn't contain such an insult, I wager that's because the way of handling fey in D&D he degrades isn't your own.

Or that other statement by Perkins "we will make leveling up a meaningful choice at every level" which, 4E fans now tell us, doesn't by implication carry the statement how, prior to 4E, it wasn't a meaningful choice at every level.

The only thing I can see from this sort of rhetoric defense is that 4E fans don't feel insulted by statements which say that X sucked pretty hard, was less than "meaningful", etc. prior to how 4E handled X. What a surprise! Well of course *you* don't mind these statements, since their negativitiy doesn't effect your preferred edition's handling of these elements.


----------



## mmadsen (Sep 8, 2009)

Is it humanly possible to frankly discuss the pros and cons of various design decisions without insulting a significant number of fans?


----------



## Marius Delphus (Sep 8, 2009)

Not if you do as a designer does [EDIT: tends to do] and speak in designer-speak ("un-fun," "sub-optimal," etc., including, arguably, "bullet in the head").


----------



## Scribble (Sep 8, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I always thought the rules of D&D (at least pre-4e, but even 4e does an ok job) covered exploration of exotic locales?  Traps, terrain, inhabitants (including non-evil one's), etc... or am I wrong?  I mean traipsing through a fairy ring (depending on the particular inspiration one draws on) can be an exotic, dangerous and beautiful place... for an example check out Changeling the Lost.




Again this is where the focus is different between what the rules are about, and what you do in game. (And part of what makes TTRGS great.)

You can do anything you want in game at your table, and if it's fun, YOU WIN! For a lot of those activities though, you're not utilizing the D&D rules. (Or if you are you're modifying them to fit your situation.)


----------



## Imaro (Sep 8, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Again this is where the focus is different between what the rules are about, and what you do in game. (And part of what makes TTRGS great.)
> 
> You can do anything you want in game at your table, and if it's fun, YOU WIN! For a lot of those activities though, you're not utilizing the D&D rules. (Or if you are you're modifying them to fit your situation.)




Yes, and again you're asserting what the focus of the game is... when in fact that may not be it.  Using 3.5 as an example...There is more information in the DM Guide about locations, traps, setting, etc. than combat... it would seem then the focus is adventuring as opposed to combat... and "traipsing" through a fairy ring (again dependent upon one's influences for fairies or fey) certainly falls under adventuring


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 9, 2009)

The position that 4e's marketing failed because of people who didn't like it is a non-argument. While the marketing campaign may, overall, have been successful with many people, it also succeeded in annoying and even offending others. 

Certainly, I've never seen a VW commercial I perceived as mocking older Volkswagens.


----------



## Betote (Sep 9, 2009)

My problem with 4e's marketing wasn't so much the amount of previous editons-bashing, but the overusing of the word "cool" (heck, I'm not a native English speaker and even I know there are many other ways to say something is good).

If I had made a drinking game out of it, I'd still be drunk


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 9, 2009)

mmadsen said:


> Is it humanly possible to frankly discuss the pros and cons of various design decisions without insulting a significant number of fans?




Again, I find it weird that WOTC gets this grief.

Paizo created new grapple rules because the old rules were too hard. How is this not considered insulting to people who actually didn't have problems with the grapple rules before?

Pretty much every designer that comes up with a modification of the base rule is saying "The original rule sucked...here's a better method".


----------



## an_idol_mind (Sep 9, 2009)

From my perspective, I was open to the idea of 4th edition and interested in it. The marketing largely annoyed me because so much of it seemed to be focused on, "3rd edition is a bad system," which I disagreed with. From that angle, it made me wonder whether 4th edition would be my thing, since it seemed built by people who had very different perspectives on what a good RPG was than I did.

A few previews flat out said that the way I was playing D&D was not fun. Those were fortunately few and far between, but that's terrible marketing, in my opinion.

Ultimately, though, the marketing didn't make a lick of difference. The game mechanics of 4th edition differ from what I enjoy in an RPG, so I don't play it. Had the marketing been great and the mechanics the same, I still wouldn't play it. Had the marketing been even worse and the system amazing, I would have picked it up. Overall, I think the people who were following the game in the first place probably gave it what they consider to be a fair try, regardless of what they thought about the marketing.


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 9, 2009)

Betote said:


> My problem with 4e's marketing wasn't so much the amount of previous editons-bashing, but the overusing of the word "cool" (heck, I'm not a native English speaker and even I know there are many other ways to say something is good).
> 
> If I had made a drinking game out of it, I'd still be drunk




Yeah, you have a point there.  That was the major thing I found obnoxious about the 4e marketing: using the same terminology over and over (mostly "cool" and "fun"), until it just became a parody of itself.  There are definitely better ways to excite people towards a new product than by using the same catchphrases over and over.  In that regard, some of the 4e marketing was clearly subpar.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 9, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> While the circumstances you cite certainly happened, so too did the  aforementioned "Selling by criticism" by WotC developers.  Too often in the Edition Wars, both sides choose to turn a blind eye to the mistakes made by their respective sides.
> 
> Even though 4e isn't my cup of tea, I can objectively state that it's a well-developed fantasy RPG.
> 
> Objectively speaking, the list of WotC marketing blunders for 4e is pretty damn remarkable.




I this is because we were actually hearing from the designers, without a marketing filter.

It's hard to blame game designers for not being slick and polished marketers. 

As for criticizing, I think you're dealing with guys who worked with 3e more than anyone else, and who weren't fans. It wasn't their hobby to write for that system, it was their JOB.


----------



## Imban (Sep 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again, I find it weird that WOTC gets this grief.
> 
> Paizo created new grapple rules because the old rules were too hard. How is this not considered insulting to people who actually didn't have problems with the grapple rules before?




Did Paizo ever actually advertise its grapple rules? I have to ask this because I never actually saw any of the ad copy for Pathfinder because I didn't care.

If not, then who cares? With certain exceptions (countless White Wolf products, The Window, the 4e PHB on Evil characters, etc.), games usually present the rules of the game to you and do not editorialize on whether or not you're playing the game wrong. If I open a book and am presented with a block of rules for how to grapple someone, I'm going to just review them on their merits.

If you say, a month in advance of my seeing the actual rules, that the rules for grappling in (this game) are terrible and you provide reasons why, I'll either agree with you or not, but your presentation of the rules will be in the context of a debate rather than "here's some rules we wrote". If you don't provide any reasons OR rules, I'll just assume you're a jerk.

Like, I don't feel *insulted* just because Green Ronin presented new grappling rules in Mutants & Masterminds. I'm *dismayed* because they're worse than 3.5e's in every way. I don't feel insulted just because Paizo presented new grappling rules in Pathfinder. I'm waiting on the bestiary, but slightly saddened because an early (i.e. pre-Bestiary) math analysis seems to show that grappling people is now rather unlikely to succeed at any level. I'm not really even insulted about Wizards of the Coast's new grappling rules, but the fact that they started a debate with their ad copy - 3.5e's grappling rules SUCK and STOP THE GAME whenever they come up - and then presented a set of grappling rules that don't allow you to actually restrain someone annoys me, because I end up thinking "Well, at least 3.5e's *worked*, you jerks!"

EDIT: For example, if I somehow wiped all memory of the pre-4e flame wars and 4e from my mind, then picked up and read the 4e PHB, I'd still think that 4e's grapple rules were lame because they omit what I feel is the actual point of grappling, but I wouldn't have the idea in my head that they were designed because 3.5e's sucked most foully, just that they apparently tried to streamline things and failed.



> Pretty much every designer that comes up with a modification of the base rule is saying "The original rule sucked...here's a better method".



For some version of "sucked", sure. But if you just present the rules and what you believe to be their advantages, you tend to get more of a neutral analysis of the rules. Difference between "4e is *three times faster* because we painted it red!" and "4e is *three times faster* than 3e, which was often so slow our playtesters fell asleep at the gaming table!" and all.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 9, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> As for criticizing, I think you're dealing with guys who worked with 3e more than anyone else, and who weren't fans.



I think they all were fans, at some level or another.  That doesn't mean they believed the system was perfect.  Their job is to improve the areas they either feel need improvement, or that they find others feel need improvement.

In fact, I will argue the feeling that D&D needs improvement goes back to the beginning.  Just about every D&D campaign I ever played in wasn't played "by the letter of the rules" completely.  Some had lists of house rules, some just ignored and fudged rules without a hard and fast list of changes.  None of them played D&D or AD&D with by every rule in the book, or without additions.  They all felt D&D needed "improvement."  It doesn't mean they weren't fans of D&D.

I think it's perfectly clear that 4E carries a lot over from 3rd edition.  If the designers weren't fans of 3E, I think you'd have seen even less carried over.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 9, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I work in account management, and one of the things they emphasize is what I said above. It doesn't matter what the intended message is, when someone is upset they're likely to read negativity into whatever they read.
> 
> The message could be: "Hey how are you today? I hope you're doing well!"
> 
> If you're upset, you're more then likely to read into it with something like: "Don't tell me how I should be doing! I'm friggin mad! What gives you the right to tell me I should be happy?!?!"




The better example is when you tell your girlfriend that she looks great in that dress. If she hears "You think I'm fat and this dress hides it" you're absolutely out of luck, no matter what you intended with your complement. You fail at girlfriend relations.  

If 4e says "This edition makes your game look great" and the customer hears "You hate my game style" the company's out of luck.  You fail at customer relations.

Any act of communication includes three parts: the intention, the message, and the reception. Ignore an element at your peril.


----------



## Betote (Sep 9, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> I this is because we were actually hearing from the designers, without a marketing filter.
> 
> It's hard to blame game designers for not being slick and polished marketers.




But you can blame the marketers for letting the game designers open their mouths. I mean, it's great to have the creator of something tell you about that something, but they should have a PR guy read their texts beforehand in case they had to edit a poorly thought of commentary ("Gnomes are Commies!" "Sorcerers are emo suicide kids!" "Shifters are furries!" "Too much work and no fun make Mearls a dull boy!").


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again, I find it weird that WOTC gets this grief.
> 
> Paizo created new grapple rules because the old rules were too hard. How is this not considered insulting to people who actually didn't have problems with the grapple rules before?
> 
> Pretty much every designer that comes up with a modification of the base rule is saying "The original rule sucked...here's a better method".




Because they always said that their primary reason for writing PfRPG was to keep 3E in print so that they could keep telling the stories that they and their customers wanted. Every step of the way on their web site and in the design process, they encouraged people to house rule whatever they wanted and that you could play their PfRPG modules with the old rule sets with little problem. Contrast that with the lack of the 3-4E conversion guide and the implicit message that sent.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Sep 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again, I find it weird that WOTC gets this grief.
> 
> Paizo created new grapple rules because the old rules were too hard. How is this not considered insulting to people who actually didn't have problems with the grapple rules before?



I didn't have any problems with the 3.x grapple rules. I'm about to start using the pathfinder grapple rules. I don't feel like I'm being insulted.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Pretty much every designer that comes up with a modification of the base rule is saying "The original rule sucked...here's a better method".



I think you're really inflating the divide here - something perhaps symptomatic and indicative of the edition-wars-mentality. What's wrong with saying "The original rule was OK... but here's a different angle on that rule that is more streamlined/elegant/robust/clearer/flavourful/indicative." It's kind of like all the people criticizing 3E because they found the rules too cumbersome at higher levels (even though the majority of these player's game experiences are with low to mid-level play and which played/plays fine). It's like the people criticizing 4E because it does not encourage role-playing. Never let a decent point get in the way of overstated hyperbole.

Sorry AllisterH to single you out here but this type of thing just gets my dander up.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 9, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Uhh, ditto. Big time.
> 
> But I think perhaps the perception is that the ability and the encouragement to transcend that core gameplay was better supported in prior editions.
> 
> ...




I agree with this statement, with the controversial addition that I am of the opinion that prior editions ability and encouragement to transcend the core gameplay made the games less effective at that core gameplay to a modest but noticable degree.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 9, 2009)

One was _supposed_ to make up house rules in the old days; not doing so would not quite be getting into the spirit of things. The original D&D supplements offered a buffet of options (compiled, along with magazine material, in the "core" AD&D books). The 1e _Unearthed Arcana_ included not one but two alternatives to the unarmed combat procedures in the _DMG_.

_Tunnels & Trolls_ has gone through notable changes in detail from edition to edition; I personally like to mix bits from several. Ken St Andre has remained in charge of design for all 34 years (except for the two fan-produced 6th editions). I really don't see any attempt to change T&T officially into something at odds with its original spirit, to redefine what it's "about" or what's "fun".


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> True, but if someone approaches a marketing statement with neutrality and comes away insulted, the marketing has failed for that person.




Therein lies the crux.  I don't believe that people came to the table from a position of neutrality.  I think people came to the table openly hostile (particularly after the debacle of the Dragon/Dungeon thing) and made finding offense their primary goal.

Not everyone mind you.  But a significant and more importantly, very loud number.



Ariosto said:


> /snip
> 
> Whatever one's appraisal of the epic fantasies of Terry Brooks, David Eddings, Dennis L. McKiernan, etc., they did not take the title _The Lord of the Rings_.
> /snip




Funny you would mention Terry Brooks in there considering his best selling novel is simply a pastiche of LotR.  He may not have taken the title of Lord of the Rings, but, he certainly nicked the plot, characters and setting.  



			
				rougerogue said:
			
		

> The better example is when you tell your girlfriend that she looks great in that dress. If she hears "You think I'm fat and this dress hides it" you're absolutely out of luck, no matter what you intended with your complement. You fail at girlfriend relations.
> 
> If 4e says "This edition makes your game look great" and the customer hears "You hate my game style" the company's out of luck. You fail at customer relations.
> 
> Any act of communication includes three parts: the intention, the message, and the reception. Ignore an element at your peril.




Again, at the end of the day though, who's fault is it?  You're NEVER going to win when the girlfriend asks you "does this make me look fat?"  In the same way, I think WOTC could have groveled at the feet of every earlier edtion, debasing themselves frequently, and people would still have been saying, "You are hating on my playstyle".

Windjammer - tell you what.  Go back and READ that blog post.  Actually take the time to read it and then take the time to search the forums to find the commentary on it.  And then come back and tell us how insulted you were.

There's nothing there.  Really.  There isn't.  People were so eager to be pissed off at anything that it didn't matter what WOTC said.  They could say the sky was blue and people would be pissed that they didn't say cerulean.  "How dare you mock my color choices!"


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 9, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> I think it's perfectly clear that 4E carries a lot over from 3rd edition.  If the designers weren't fans of 3E, I think you'd have seen even less carried over.




When I say they weren't fans, I don't mean they didn't like 3e. Maybe a better way to put it would be to say that they weren't fanboys. 

Or maybe I could say they were in like with 3e but not in love.

Many people who have read the critical comments made about 3e by the 4e design team act wounded, like they were with this girl that they LOVED, and that love had blinded them to her faults.

Then they introduce her to a friend who tells them she dresses weird, has an ugly overbite and a bad laugh.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 9, 2009)

Betote said:


> But you can blame the marketers for letting the game designers open their mouths. I mean, it's great to have the creator of something tell you about that something, but they should have a PR guy read their texts beforehand in case they had to edit a poorly thought of commentary ("Gnomes are Commies!" "Sorcerers are emo suicide kids!" "Shifters are furries!" "Too much work and no fun make Mearls a dull boy!").




You can't blame the marketers. I'm sure they would have loved to vet and approve every word uttered. 

Clearly in this case, the goal was to NOT have that happen. I for one liked that we were actually hearing from the designers, warts and all, rather than some marketer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2009)

> True, but if someone approaches a marketing statement with neutrality and comes away insulted, the marketing has failed for that person.



and


> an_idol_mind
> From my perspective, I was open to the idea of 4th edition and interested in it. The marketing largely annoyed me because so much of it seemed to be focused on, "3rd edition is a bad system," which I disagreed with. From that angle, it made me wonder whether 4th edition would be my thing, since it seemed built by people who had very different perspectives on what a good RPG was than I did.




That would have been me.

I was looking forward to 4Ed (not that I had problems with 3.5, mind you- I just thought it would be a further refinement, not an overhaul).  I preordered it the first day I could, just like I did when 3Ed and 3.5 were announced.

However, the more press releases I saw, the more ticked off I got.  In order to be able to judge the game on its own merits, I consciously stopped reading the 4Ed previews, leaks and threads after the first month.  (Which is part of the reason why I have no idea where to look for that stuff now.)

By the time 4Ed was actually released, I had _almost_ forgotten all the stuff that had come out, so I was able to approach 4Ed with a relatively open mind.

Which led to...


> Azgulor
> Even though 4e isn't my cup of tea, I can objectively state that it's a well-developed fantasy RPG.




Agreed, 100%.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2009)

> Funny you would mention Terry Brooks in there considering his best selling novel is simply a pastiche of LotR. He may not have taken the title of Lord of the Rings, but, he certainly nicked the plot, characters and setting.




Bad Hussar!  Naughty Hussar!

While there are similarities, and Shanarra does have a resemblance to LotR, let us not forget that _JRRT's_ most famous work was a skillful reworking of a variety of tropes from the folklore, legends and mythology of Europe (with which he'd be intimately familiar).  I'm not saying it was a copy, by any stretch of the imagination, just that like others who followed in his wake, he, too, was inspired by storytellers past.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 9, 2009)

Greg K said:


> <SNIP>
> "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people."
> James Wyatt, Races and Classes
> <SNIP>



Thank you for that, I have been trying to remember where the heck I had read that, and I have been misattributing it to Mr. Mearls for a while now.

That one line is where I started disliking 4e, as opposed to not liking what they were doing with the licenses and the marketing. It took 23 words to make me decide that the game was not for me, even before details of the GSL locked that decision in stone.

The Auld Grump, I _ like_ games where the PCs traipse through faerie rings and interact with the little folk. Heck, I do that with Spycraft, which is hardly less combat centered than 4e.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 9, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Therein lies the crux.  I don't believe that people came to the table from a position of neutrality.  I think people came to the table openly hostile (particularly after the debacle of the Dragon/Dungeon thing) and made finding offense their primary goal.
> 
> Not everyone mind you.  But a significant and more importantly, very loud number.




The problem people ont his thread are having, is that you're accusing them of this.

I'm not doubting that people came in with hostility pre-present, but people on this thread have stated "I walked in neutral and got offended," and you and Fifth Element have both responded with "No, you're lying.  You walked in openly hostile.  Go ahead and prove me wrong."

That gets under peoples' skins.

_A lot._


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 9, 2009)

For what it is worth, pointing out that the WotC folks who managed to be offensive were not marketing but rather the game designers does make a certain amount of sense. It does not make me feel less offended, but it does become more understandable. The new game was their baby, not some stray that they adopted.

And the preview books were just plain a bad idea in my estimation - charging just as much for an advertisement as had been charged for the each of the actual books for 3.0.

My own opinion started as neutral, and kept sliding downwards as the months went by. By comparison, my opinion of 3e started as neutral, and rose as the previews came out.

And the OGL was a thing of beauty to me. Had the GSL come out before the OGL I would not be offended, and would likely laud it as a good idea. Instead it replaced the OGL, which I still think was a wonderful idea.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 9, 2009)

TheAuldGrump said:


> For what it is worth, pointing out that the WotC folks who managed to be offensive were not marketing but rather the game designers does make a certain amount of sense. It does not make me feel less offended, but it does become more understandable. The new game was their baby, not some stray that they adopted.
> 
> And the preview books were just plain a bad idea in my estimation - charging just as much for an advertisement as had been charged for the each of the actual books for 3.0.
> 
> ...




Yeah, there are issues, and the GSL is a big one for me, something I am sure is shocking.

4e isn't for me, I'm running OSRIC at the moment. But I don't understand people who are still blaming the marketing for their dislike of the game.

If folks are still refusing to play 4e 2 years in because of its marketing plan, I would find that... odd.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 9, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> If folks are still refusing to play 4e 2 years in because of its marketing plan, I would find that... odd.



Really? I find your finding that odd. . . odd.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 9, 2009)

I could take from this thread that people prefer to be lied to professionally by marketing then hearing designers honest thoughts. 

If a designer tells you an old rule didn't work well and was "un-fun" and he has created a new rule that works better and is more fun, is that really an insult to you? Or is it not more a promise: "I think I found a flaw and found a way to fix it."


But maybe it's just that marketing can't succeed for everyone. 
Pathfinders goal - according to marketing and designer speech - was not an overhaul of the system. It was not there to fix all the various problems I found with the game (despite liking it a lot at the same time.) It is "just" there to keep 3E in print. Maybe a little to create a fresh breeze making it interesting again. But nothing that addresses my issues with the system. 
If I wanted to be offended, I could say they are just trying to sell me the same old and don't really bother with innovation, believing I was stupid enough to fall for that trick.

Of course, that's selling them short and putting a negative spin on what they did. 

In fact, I think they are doing pretty good work for what the set out to do and there is a significant market that wants what they do. I am not part of that market. Their marketing is not aimed at me. That's fine with me. 

I think 4E marketing succeeded pretty well, overall. It attracted the audience it targetted. It got me interested and excited. It motiviated fans to create their own adventures based on preview materials and Gameday material. Some people felt offended, but I didn't gain the impression so far they liked the rules, either. If that's true, it's only failure is that it didn't dupe people that wouldn't care for the system to buy it.  (But I think it even got that covered.)


----------



## bouncyhead (Sep 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> ...I think 4E marketing succeeded pretty well, overall. It attracted the audience it targetted. It got me interested and excited. It motiviated fans to create their own adventures based on preview materials and Gameday material. Some people felt offended, but I didn't gain the impression so far they liked the rules, either. If that's true, it's only failure is that it didn't dupe people that wouldn't care for the system to buy it.  (But I think it even got that covered.)




4E marketing certainly worked for me. The chaps in my group pretty much raced each other to get the core books first and we were playing KotS with the preview rules (and a bit of the Red Hand of Doom fan conversion) before release.

It turned out that 4E wasn't for us in the end but I don't recall feeling that WotC had misrepresented the system.

I do however remember reading the core books and thinking 'this doesn't look like my cup of tea' but remembering the non-WotC generated buzz (on AICN and elsewhere) of 'it reads bad but plays great' that had been pushing me through moments of doubt when playing the preview rules. This kept me (and our group) persisting with the system (despite not 'feeling' it) for a lot longer than we otherwise would have.

As for 'insulting' designer talk. I didn't pick up on this myself. I think there's a big difference between highlighting shortcomings in rule _mechanics_ as opposed to rule _intent_. I'm not bothered when someone tells me that they have put together a slicker way of doing X. It might bother me (I think 'insulted' would be putting it way too strongly for me!) if was told that the old rule didn't support playstyle Y, playstyle Y is better, the new rule supports playstyle Y, the new rule is better.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 9, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Again, at the end of the day though, who's fault is it?  You're NEVER going to win when the girlfriend asks you "does this make me look fat?"  In the same way, I think WOTC could have groveled at the feet of every earlier edtion, debasing themselves frequently, and people would still have been saying, "You are hating on my playstyle".




Don't be silly. "You look great" means that it's not the dress that makes her look attractive; she is already. Sometimes a leer and elevator eyes works. Sometimes criticizing the dress works. Of course there are ways to win at that game; they just vary by circumstance, environment and acting ability. Just like in marketing. And, of course, who's fault it is is entirely irrelevant, since you bear the consequences. 

Just because it's hard and there's no magic bullet doesn't make the task hopeless.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 9, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Bad Hussar!  Naughty Hussar!
> 
> While there are similarities, and Shanarra does have a resemblance to LotR, let us not forget that _JRRT's_ most famous work was a skillful reworking of a variety of tropes from the folklore, legends and mythology of Europe (with which he'd be intimately familiar).  I'm not saying it was a copy, by any stretch of the imagination, just that like others who followed in his wake, he, too, was inspired by storytellers past.




Indeed, I was recently reading William Morris' _*The House of the Wolflings*_, published prior to LOTR and The Hobbit, and was startled to find not only the Mirkwood, but another form of the Theoden story.  Tolkein, of course, had read and enjoyed Morris (as had Lewis).  He also borrows quite a bit from Shakespeare and other sources.



RC


----------



## Shazman (Sep 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again, I find it weird that WOTC gets this grief.
> 
> Paizo created new grapple rules because the old rules were too hard. How is this not considered insulting to people who actually didn't have problems with the grapple rules before?
> 
> Pretty much every designer that comes up with a modification of the base rule is saying "The original rule sucked...here's a better method".




Probably because they never said that the old grapple rules were horrible or unfun, and that if you used them regularly in your games, your games weren't much fun.  In other words, they did exactly the opposite of WotC. They didn't go on and on about how much grappling was a soul killing unfun experience, and that their fix was so cool and awesome, but they couldn't tell you why.  You just have to trust them. They said that they were merging the special combat options, with all of their differing subsystems, into a more streamlined and unified mechanic.  That is exactly what they did.  I wonder if the real problem is that there was little to no official marketing of 4E.  It was mostly designer blogs, messageboard posts, etc.  Of course, the few official pieces of marketing I am aware of (the horrible youtube video and the preview books) did have some of the more inflammatory statments.  I guess the 4E marketing was just too amateurish to do anything but come accross as either insulting or pathetic.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Sep 9, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While there are similarities, and Shanarra does have a resemblance to LotR, let us not forget that _JRRT's_ most famous work was a skillful reworking of a variety of tropes from the folklore, legends and mythology of Europe (with which he'd be intimately familiar).  I'm not saying it was a copy, by any stretch of the imagination, just that like others who followed in his wake, he, too, was inspired by storytellers past.



As they say in academia, stealing from one source is plagiarism. Two or more and it's research.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 9, 2009)

Cyronax said:


> On that line though, what is the effect of people just going into Borders or B&N and just page-flipping? That catches a lot of casual interest. That's the sole reason I picked up a lot of game-related books over the last few years. The 4e original core books are especially attractive to the casual reader, IMO, despite any perceived flaws of homogeneity, etc. All the books are really professional looking and really are designed for quick and easy reference ... which lends itself to be visually appealing.




Really? Huh. I pick up a 4E book and flip through it and see page after page of statblocks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a 4E player and think 4E has a lot of good stuff (though I have been growing increasingly dissatisfied with some elements), but as far as I'm concerned, 4E books give very bad flip-through.


----------



## mmadsen (Sep 9, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Indeed, I was recently reading William Morris' _*The House of the Wolflings*_, published prior to LOTR and The Hobbit, and was startled to find not only the Mirkwood, but another form of the Theoden story.  Tolkein, of course, had read and enjoyed Morris (as had Lewis).  He also borrows quite a bit from Shakespeare and other sources.



I will now have to read The House of the Wolflings: Morris' Goths inhabit an area called the Mark on a river in the forest of Mirkwood, divided according into the Upper-mark, the Mid-mark and the Nether-mark. They worship their gods Odin and Tyr by sacrificing horses and rely on seers who foretell the future and serve as psychic news-gatherers.

The men of the Mark choose two War Dukes to lead them against their enemies, one each from the House of the Wolfings and the House of the Laxings. The Wolfing war leader is Thiodolf, a man of mysterious and perhaps divine antecedents whose ability to lead is threatened by his possession of a magnificent dwarf-made mail-shirt which, unknown to him, is cursed. He is supported by his lover the Wood Sun and their daughter the Hall Sun, who are related to the gods.​


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 9, 2009)

mmadsen said:


> I will now have to read The House of the Wolflings:





Then my work here is done.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 9, 2009)

TheAuldGrump said:


> That one line is where I started disliking 4e, as opposed to not liking what they were doing with the licenses and the marketing. It took 23 words to make me decide that the game was not for me, even before details of the GSL locked that decision in stone.
> 
> The Auld Grump, I _ like_ games where the PCs traipse through faerie rings and interact with the little folk. Heck, I do that with Spycraft, which is hardly less combat centered than 4e.



This is evidence for Hussar's point. You based your decision on just these 23 words, while apparently ignoring the other words around them, which when taken as a whole provide a pretty balanced viewpoint and include some words that explicitly agree with your likes.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Sep 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I could take from this thread that people prefer to be lied to professionally by marketing then hearing designers honest thoughts.
> 
> If a designer tells you an old rule didn't work well and was "un-fun" and he has created a new rule that works better and is more fun, is that really an insult to you? Or is it not more a promise: "I think I found a flaw and found a way to fix it."



I don't mind being told a designer's honest thoughts. I'm afraid I do expect it soft-pedaled just a bit though. Being considerate of your audience is _always_ cool. Saying things that sound "edgy" and "controversial"... not so much.

Just a bit is all I ask. Being told some rules element is categorically "not fun" makes my hackles tingle. "Fun" is a loaded word; it's too subjective. Some things that are "fun" for me are "snoozeworthy" to others. So being told, on the other hand, that that same rules element presents a problem at a lot of tables, that it could stand improvement, that it needs streamlining, that extensive research shows players overwhelmingly try to work around this rules element instead of using it (which _is_ objectively bad in this context)... something like that can still be totally honest and, at the same time, sound better.

Same goes for story elements. Being told that certain critters were being mercilessly yanked because they were objectively pointless makes me grind my teeth a bit. Being told, on the other hand, that the new edition is re-racking the Outer Planes in a way that makes them vastly more flexible and that, while there certainly is room for these critters, they're not appearing right away in the new source material... again, could easily be totally honest that way without sounding like somebody's got a chip on a shoulder.

So not marketing-speak per se ("New! Improved! Use Less to Do More! Gets Out Your Toughest Stains!"), but maybe kid gloves.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Sep 9, 2009)

I think what could have worked better from a marketing standpoint is if the changes in 4th edition had been emphasized as an evolution of the game's elements rather than a complete reinvention. The planar setup of 4th edition, for example, is pretty cool and succeeds in keeping a lot of elements that the old cosmology had. The way it was first previewed, though, was a designer saying that the Great Wheel was not enjoyable and this new thing was much better. Stuff like that gets taken as a loaded statement. Sure, some people would have complained either way, but they would have been fewer in number.

WotC did a lot of, "This part of 3rd edition was just bad, 4th edition has something new to replace it," when I think they could have used more, "4th edition takes this part of 3rd edition and improves it in this way." I don't think the developers ever meant to tear down 3rd edition to build up 4th, but that's the way they made it seem by using terms like "broken," "badly designed," and the dreaded "unfun."


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I could take from this thread that people prefer to be lied to professionally by marketing then hearing designers honest thoughts.
> 
> If a designer tells you an old rule didn't work well and was "un-fun" and he has created a new rule that works better and is more fun, is that really an insult to you? Or is it not more a promise: "I think I found a flaw and found a way to fix it."




I would take this thought one step further. 

If someone was working on 4e who did NOT think they were going to make a significantly better game and that they could identify and fix numerous weaknesses in the old system, I would not want them anywhere NEAR a new edition.

The worst thing you can get in a new edition is timidity.


----------



## Wicht (Sep 9, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> The worst thing you can get in a new edition is timidity.




Really?  i would think the worst thing that you could get in a new edition is a set of rules nobody understands or wants.

Personally, as one left behind by 4e, I would have preferred a little more respect for some of the history of the game.


----------



## avin (Sep 9, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> This is evidence for Hussar's point. You based your decision on just these 23 words, while apparently ignoring the other words around them, which when taken as a whole provide a pretty balanced viewpoint and include some words that explicitly agree with your likes.




Maybe, but 4E killed good creatures on Monster Manual and lived to be true to that words: you can't find such kind of adventures on official 4E products. 

Check Dungeon adventures. Nothing there reminds of fairies and rings. It's all about PEW PEW PEW kill & loot.

Everything that isn't combat is pushed to DMs, like, "we only want combat, if you want silly RP games figure out yourself." Fantastic system, horrible fluff, IMHO.

BTW, I never used page 42 and I'll never will.

As always: not a 4E basher, check sig, my problem remains with 4E fluff and ideas.


----------



## Wicht (Sep 9, 2009)

While I think, in retrospect, that I would have eventually not converted fully to 4e, even with better marketing, the marketing of 4e more or less led to a series of events that insured I did not even buy a set of the rulebooks.  

When 4e was announced I was in the market for a new set of books.  Not because I disliked 3e but because my 3.0 books were finally looking pretty used.  I had purchased every set of rules from 1983 on and fully expected to like the new rules.  When I heard about 4e I was optimistic and fully expected it to be my new edition of choice.  About the same time I was looking to restart a subscription to Dungeon Magazine.  But when I went to get a subscription I found that the magazine had been discontinued.  So I subscribed to Rise of the Runelords instead as it looked to be a good product.  

Meanwhile, the more I read about 4e, the less I found I was looking forward to it.  The tone of the marketing struck me not so much as insulting as it was *disrespectful* to the history of the game I had made my primary hobby in life.  When Paizo announced that they were going to forgo 4e and stick with the OGL, it was an easy decision to go with them.  Thus the tone of the marketing, the GSL debacle and the cancelation of Dungeon all worked together to mean that not only did I not switch, I never even bothered trying 4e.


----------



## Toben the Many (Sep 9, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Therein lies the crux.  I don't believe that people came to the table from a position of neutrality.  I think people came to the table openly hostile (particularly after the debacle of the Dragon/Dungeon thing) and made finding offense their primary goal.




This is an interesting proposition, and I don't necessarily _entirely_ disagree - but it begs the question: Why didn't people come to the table openly hostile during the advent of 3rd Edition? 

Speaking only for myself, 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons marketing was fairly disastrous. Especially because it failed to deliver on the electronic front. I, along with many others, was there at GenCon when they rolled out the 4th Edition announcement. Part of the biggest push for 4th Edition at rollout was the Virtual Tabletop. It has since become vaporware. 

Simply put, WotC has failed to deliver what was promised at launch. It would have been one thing if the Virtual Tabletop was only a side benefit or a little something extra for the fans. But there it was, front and center, as a large component of what they were pushing. 

That, to me, is a fairly noticeable failure in terms of marketing. Promising something really big, but failing to deliver on it. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZ2WdeTo1M&feature=related]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Part 2[/ame]



> Again, at the end of the day though, who's fault is it?  You're NEVER going to win when the girlfriend asks you "does this make me look fat?"  In the same way, I think WOTC could have groveled at the feet of every earlier edtion, debasing themselves frequently, and people would still have been saying, "You are hating on my playstyle".




Again, how did WotC pull off this magificent feat during the change from 1st to 2nd? From 2nd to 3rd?


----------



## an_idol_mind (Sep 9, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> I would take this thought one step further.
> 
> If someone was working on 4e who did NOT think they were going to make a significantly better game and that they could identify and fix numerous weaknesses in the old system, I would not want them anywhere NEAR a new edition.
> 
> The worst thing you can get in a new edition is timidity.




There's a huge line between not wanting to be told that the current edition sucks and wanting marketing people to lie to you. There are a lot of ways to say, "we improved upon X" without also saying, "X was no good from the beginning," or worse, going as far as saying, "people who like X don't know what fun is."

From my own point of view, I was fully expecting the 4th edition designers to believe they had created a superior product. Honestly, for the type of game they wanted, they totally did improve upon 3rd edition. The slip-up marketing-wise was not that they said 4th edition was a better game, but rather that they called out key aspects of 3rd edition as being objectively bad. The end result is that people who liked those aspects got turned off not because the designers thought that 4th edition was a better game but because they felt the need to slam the edition people were currently playing and enjoying.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Sep 9, 2009)

Toben the Many said:


> Again, how did WotC pull off this magificent feat during the change from 1st to 2nd? From 2nd to 3rd?




To be fair, the transition between 1st and 2nd edition drew a lot of hate. Not as much for the transition from 2nd to 3rd, but I think that's more because 2nd edition had been floundering for years before the announcement.


----------



## Toben the Many (Sep 9, 2009)

an_idol_mind said:


> To be fair, the transition between 1st and 2nd edition drew a lot of hate. Not as much for the transition from 2nd to 3rd, but I think that's more because 2nd edition had been floundering for years before the announcement.




Okay, well that brings up another point of discussion. Why the hate for 2nd Edition when it first came out? Was it timing? And, more importantly, was the time right for 4th Edition? Timing and choosing the right time for an edition change is part of marketing.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 9, 2009)

Toben the Many said:


> Okay, well that brings up another point of discussion. Why the hate for 2nd Edition when it first came out? Was it timing? And, more importantly, was the time right for 4th Edition? Timing and choosing the right time for an edition change is part of marketing.




You're missing the point. _All_ new editions inspire hate. 2E, 3.5E, 4E... heck, I'll bet AD&D honked off a whole lot of OD&D fans. 3E was the exception because 2E was so obviously moribund.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 9, 2009)

Toben the Many said:


> Okay, well that brings up another point of discussion. Why the hate for 2nd Edition when it first came out?




No half-orcs, no demons, no devils, no assassins.  (Giving in to the criticism from certain groups.)

Take away a part of a game that was important to some players and those players will be angry.  Hmmm......that sounds familiar.


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 9, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> No half-orcs, no demons, no devils, no assassins.  (Giving in to the criticism from certain groups.)




Admittedly the hate there was rather misplaced, since that edition provided more material for demons and devils than had existed prior (and by page count quite possibly more than all other editions before or since combined). It just took them what, a year and a half or two years to have them in a book (MC: Outer Planes Appendix) rather than being in the first 2e monster books?


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 10, 2009)

avin said:


> Maybe, but 4E killed good creatures on Monster Manual and lived to be true to that words: you can't find such kind of adventures on official 4E products.



That's true, though I doubt in fairy-traipsing adventures you really need to know how many hit points that little fairy person has. 4E is definitely geared towards the slay-the-evil-monster type of play, the designers were never shy about that.

And focusing on that style of play does not mean the designers consider other styles silly. Just that they didn't focus on them.


----------



## DaveMage (Sep 10, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> Admittedly the hate there was rather misplaced, since that edition provided more material for demons and devils than had existed prior (and by page count quite possibly more than all other editions before or since combined). It just took them what, a year and a half or two years to have them in a book (MC: Outer Planes Appendix) rather than being in the first 2e monster books?




Oh, absolutely - in time it was fine.

But at the beginning - they were out - and that was very disappointing.


----------



## Toben the Many (Sep 10, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> You're missing the point. _All_ new editions inspire hate. 2E, 3.5E, 4E... heck, I'll bet AD&D honked off a whole lot of OD&D fans. 3E was the exception because 2E was so obviously moribund.




With respect, I don't buy that argument. 

First of all, we can look at other games and their iterative editions. New editions of RPGs are sometimes looked upon favorably, but sometimes not. There is no overwhelming tendency to _hate_ all new editions upon release. One might say, "Ah, yes. But Shadowrun fans are not like D&D fans." To which I would say, but the same people who play Shadowrun are the same people who play D&D! 

And you also seem to contradict yourself as well. You claim that 3rd Edition is the exception to the rule - meaning that the rule of New-Editions-Are-Hated can be, in fact, broken. To add to that, as I recall it, AD&D was another welcome edition into the fold. I remember getting AD&D and becoming excited. "Wait. Elf isn't a _class_? Whoa. I can be an Elven Fighter, Elven Wizard, etc? Whoa! No way!" 

I think it's too apologist to simply say, "All new D&D editions are hated. Nothing anyone can do about it." If that were true, why bother with any kind of marketing campaign at all, since all of them will be doomed to failure?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 10, 2009)

Toben the Many said:


> With respect, I don't buy that argument.
> 
> First of all, we can look at other games and their iterative editions. New editions of RPGs are sometimes looked upon favorably, but sometimes not. There is no overwhelming tendency to _hate_ all new editions upon release. One might say, "Ah, yes. But Shadowrun fans are not like D&D fans." To which I would say, but the same people who play Shadowrun are the same people who play D&D!
> 
> ...




There also isn't necessarily a correlation between the size and intensity of the debate. A small group of intensly angry people can seem a lot bigger than they actually are.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 10, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> There also isn't necessarily a correlation between the size and intensity of the debate. A small group of intensly angry people can seem a lot bigger than they actually are.




   True. And there is _always_ new edition hate--it happened with 3E (oh, I remember the flamewars of 1999--and there was some 2E-'bashing' in the marketing then), it happened with 2E (some people on rgfd back in the mid-90s still held a grudge), and it will happen with 5E. The question generally becomes, how large and/or intense is the dissatisfaction?

  The 2E-3E conversion didn't seem to evoke as much, IMO, for a variety of reasons:
  1. The game hadn't undergone a major overhaul since AD&D was created in 1977, and most everyone was ready for some of the underlying problems to be fixed.
  2. The changes to playstyle didn't _feel_ as dramatic as the 3E-4E changeover. I'm not saying that they weren't, but it was generally framed as opening up options and making the rules more coherent, not the near-total rebuild of the system that 4E comes across as. Likewise, there was a greater sense of setting continuity--the two settings that made the transition in the first year (the Realms and Ravenloft) actually had minimal world-shaking events going on to accomodate the new rules.  Indeed, Ravenloft's only dramatic change for the start of the 3E era was a restoration. 

   IMO, most of the ways 3E changed the style of the game were 'emergent' features that were discovered in play over the course of the next few years (I think this was part of the reason for Revised 3rd--and we can blame ourselves for the '3.5' label, lest we forget). 4E, by contrast, makes them clearer up front.


----------



## Imban (Sep 10, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> True. And there is _always_ new edition hate--it happened with 3E (oh, I remember the flamewars of 1999--and there was some 2E-'bashing' in the marketing then)




You know, I only remember two pieces of 2e-bashing in the marketing.

"What the heck is a 'baatezu', anyway?", out of context, and "Back to the Dungeon", in context. I mean, out of context, the first line sounds like it's insulting baatezu in the same way 4e designers talked about aasimar, but in context, they still retained the "baatezu" name in some places and only changed the name *back* to "devil".

The other one doesn't sound very insulting, except it was a catchphrase for how 2e's "story" modules sucked, which is legitimately insulting if you liked those. (Of course, it's possibly that very few people did, because a lot of them came down with a lethal case of the metaplot due to the competition with White Wolf that pretty much killed any chance of their being good.)


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 10, 2009)

Imban said:


> You know, I only remember two pieces of 2e-bashing in the marketing.
> 
> "What the heck is a 'baatezu', anyway?", out of context, and "Back to the Dungeon", in context. I mean, out of context, the first line sounds like it's insulting baatezu in the same way 4e designers talked about aasimar, but in context, they still retained the "baatezu" name in some places and only changed the name *back* to "devil".




   Actually, I think those come from the Greyhawk marketing campaign. I was actually thinking of some of the stuff like the 3E T-shirts they gave out at GenCon '99, where things like "Rules nobody uses" and "Exceptional Strength" were marketed as "Not in 3E", along with a bunch of stuff that _was_ in 3E. 

   I'm using a very broad brush for '2E-bashing' and '3E-bashing' here just to point out that there was some of that at each changeover; I do think it was more pervasive in 4E, in only as a corrolary to the greater changes, including much greater changes to setting elements.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 10, 2009)

Toben the Many said:


> Okay, well that brings up another point of discussion. Why the hate for 2nd Edition when it first came out? Was it timing?



2E got it from both sides.  There were the "grognards" who disliked many of the changes, especially things that were eliminated.  That's pretty standard.

However, you also got a lot heat from those who felt there weren't enough changes. For example, they kept racial level limits.

Indeed, I think you saw more of the second than the first.  After all, AD&D was kept in print well after 2nd edition was released.  Also, the adventures converted pretty easily.



> And, more importantly, was the time right for 4th Edition? Timing and choosing the right time for an edition change is part of marketing.



In my opinion, 4E had three things going against it before anyone saw anything about it.

There was the dancing around an edition release.  Statements from WotC clearly indicated that 4E was still a ways off.  They may not have technically stated that, but the statements were clearly intended to give that impression.  The obvious clues that 4E would be announced at that GenCon hurt the trust some had in WotC.

More importantly, I think 3.5 hurt the release of 4E.  In my opinion, the time was right for a new edition that was a wide break from 3E (like 3E was to 2nd edition).  However, the debacle of the release of 3.5 was still in everyone's minds.  3.5 was a new edition that wasn't really a new edition.  It was too close to 3E to really give D&D a new direction, but it was different enough that using 3E materials in 3.5 was a significant headache.  It was so close to 3E that everyone was still getting used to 3E.

Finally, 3.5 had something pretty unique about it that other editions didn't.  Those of you who have collected all the editions heavily, take a look at your collections of official D&D material.  Almost every major release of 3.5 was a *hardback* book.  

OD&D was pamphlets.  AD&D had some hardbacks, but was mostly modules.  2nd edtion also had some hardbacks, but a lot more trade paperbacks mixed with box sets.  3E was also largely trade paperbacks.  3.5 had a huge number of hardbacks.  

Hardbacks take up a lot of space.  It was especially noticeable given the number of hardbacks that were released.  They even dwarf the box sets of the 2nd edition era in amount of space.

A lot of people looked at the amount of space their 3.5 books took up, realized how much they had spent, and decided they weren't interested in changing to a new edition.  They were already against the new edition, and some probably even hoped it was something they wouldn't miss.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem people ont his thread are having, is that you're accusing them of this.
> 
> I'm not doubting that people came in with hostility pre-present, but people on this thread have stated "I walked in neutral and got offended," and you and Fifth Element have both responded with "No, you're lying.  You walked in openly hostile.  Go ahead and prove me wrong."
> 
> ...




I'm not saying people are lying.  I am however, saying that the reader filters people have are perhaps coloring their memories.  Again, I've asked twice for actual quotes from blogs or books that were insulting.  We've gotten two quotes, both of which, when placed within their proper context, aren't all that insulting at all.

I'm sorry if providing both sides of a discussion, and then taking one side is insulting to you, but, again, from any sort of objective standpoint, they really aren't.

It's become this oft repeated point that WOTC was constantly bashing 3e.  Yet, when I ask for proof of this, all I get are cricket sounds.  Sure, one single presentation at Gen Con?  That's your entire proof?

Heck, it's like the terms of use at Gleemax.  People were up in arms that WOTC was trying to steal their work.  Yet, when it was pointed out that pretty much every corporate online forum, like say, Science Fiction Book Club, that features lots of ties to published works, have almost word for word exactly the same terms of use, it didn't matter.  WOTC was still a bunch of evil bastards trying to steal hard working fans work.





avin said:


> Maybe, but 4E killed good creatures on Monster Manual and lived to be true to that words: you can't find such kind of adventures on official 4E products.
> 
> Check Dungeon adventures. Nothing there reminds of fairies and rings. It's all about PEW PEW PEW kill & loot.
> 
> ...




Look at print Dungeon adventures.  Find me five adventures that are not almost solely focused on killing/looting.  I've got most of the last two years of print Dungeon, plus a smattering of earlier magazines.  Yet, surprisingly, almost every single adventure is kill and loot.

But, for some reason, it's WRONG when WOTC does it.  Find me a fairy rings, RP heavy module from, say, Goodman Games.  Or anyone else for that matter.

It absolutely blows my mind that anyone would argue that official, or at least published, D&D is not combat heavy kill and loot.  Compare the number of splat books that are pretty much nothing but power ups (or at least power sideways) for characters to the number of crunch-less supplements.  If the ratio is not at least 10:1, I'll eat my hat.

But, when James Wyatt points out this very obvious fact, he's trashing people's play styles?  He's just supposed to close his eyes to the truth?  Come on.  Saying that D&D is about combat and killing monsters is not trashing anyone's playstyles, it's bloody basic fact.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> This is evidence for Hussar's point. You based your decision on just these 23 words, while apparently ignoring the other words around them, which when taken as a whole provide a pretty balanced viewpoint and include some words that explicitly agree with your likes.



 It would be rude of me to just shrug and say 'so?' But really, that is what I feel, in a nutshell. It took Wyatt twenty three words to tell me that something that I like a good deal more than frikkin' combat was not what the game was about.

So I took him at his word, and stuck with games that did not have designers that told me what I want to play is not what the game is about.

I did not ignore the words around them, but those words did not in any way, shape, or form make 4e sound like a game that I wanted to play, and certainly not one that I wanted to pay $20 for what amounted to an advertisement. He convinced me that the game was all about combat, which was what he was trying to do. He felt that it was a good thing, I felt otherwise. While those twenty three words were what touched the spark the rest of that book just fanned the flames.

He did a very good job of convincing me not to spend money on his game, and later to spend money on the competition. (Okay, that's a lie - the Pathfinder adventure paths, in particular Curse of the Crimson Throne, convinced me that Paizo was producing a game that was much closer to what I wanted to play, even if it didn't involve traipsing through faerie rings to interact with the little people. Yet.  )

Taken in context they _were_ insulting, and I _was_ insulted. No coloring of memories needed - I am still as angry about it now as I was then.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 10, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Really?  i would think the worst thing that you could get in a new edition is a set of rules nobody understands or wants.
> 
> Personally, as one left behind by 4e, I would have preferred a little more respect for some of the history of the game.




Look, 4e isn't for me either. As I stated before, I'm running OSRIC right now.

But I also don't think 4e is doing anything different from previous editions. In fact, I have a hard time even wrapping my head around the statement "respect for the history of the game". 

OD&D had three classes. 

AD&D increased that number several fold and radically altered how combat worked, as well as tripling the number of alignments, changing how multi-classing worked, etc etc.

BD&D had a completely different class structure, with race as class. 

2e added a skill system, specialist wizards, specialist priests, a weird pseudo-PrC (kits) and went even weirder in its final days (skills and powers, tome of magic).

3e changed how the classes worked on almost every level, added a completely NEW skill system (totally different from the totally different system 2e had), fundamentally changed how divine magic worked (remember- 3e completely restructured the cleric and druid spell list into 9 level lists).

And so 4e is a huge break from the past. Like every edition of D&D. 

So really, I don't see 4e as doing anything all that new. It's a radical change. Just like every edition of D&D.


----------



## Imban (Sep 10, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> Look, 4e isn't for me either. As I stated before, I'm running OSRIC right now.
> 
> But I also don't think 4e is doing anything different from previous editions. In fact, I have a hard time even wrapping my head around the statement "respect for the history of the game".
> 
> ...




This always gets my goat, because it's not like *all of those classes* weren't in the very first splatbooks for D&D ever. Yes, the VERY FIRST RELEASE was very different, but by the time you got to AD&D you had every class represented. Also multiclassing worked the same as of Greyhawk, etc. etc.

Alignments are kind of weird, because even from the OD&D corebooks it's impossible to argue LG, LE, NG, NE, CG, and CE didn't exist, it's just that the players were assumed to be playing good guys. See, for instance, how the spell list specifically calls out "evil" priests.

So changes between (OD&D + the print supplements) to AD&D were rather minor. Changes between AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e, on the other hand...



> 2e added a skill system, specialist wizards, specialist priests, a weird pseudo-PrC (kits) and went even weirder in its final days (skills and powers, tome of magic).




...were all basically minor additions or subtractions, rather than a complete reworking of the game from basic principles. Oh, and the Illusionist had existed since OD&D, too, when it was in the Strategic Review.



> 3e changed how the classes worked on almost every level, added a completely NEW skill system (totally different from the totally different system 2e had), fundamentally changed how divine magic worked (remember- 3e completely restructured the cleric and druid spell list into 9 level lists).
> 
> And so 4e is a huge break from the past. Like every edition of D&D.
> 
> So really, I don't see 4e as doing anything all that new. It's a radical change. Just like every edition of D&D.




Nope. Only 2e -> 3e and 3e -> 4e have been radical changes. With the notable exception of the Immortals rules for Basic D&D, I will look at you like a lunatic if you tell me you're playing a pre-3e version by the book and it's radically different from any other pre-3e version by the book.


----------



## Vigilance (Sep 10, 2009)

Imban said:


> Nope. Only 2e -> 3e and 3e -> 4e have been radical changes. With the notable exception of the Immortals rules for Basic D&D, I will look at you like a lunatic if you tell me you're playing a pre-3e version by the book and it's radically different from any other pre-3e version by the book.




I guess. 

Yes, you had the supplements for OD&D, but many people didn't use them.

AD&D made those additions core, plus a bunch of other stuff, and left a significant portion of its audience behind, trading it for a new audience. 

I also don't see the changes between 1e and 2e minor at all. Completely changing how the Illusionist and Bard worked, getting rid of classes and races wholesale (something 4e is frequently criticized for) etc.

Also, I have literally heard every complaint made about 4e before in previous edition changes. Too video gamey? check. Not backwards compatible? check. Not consistent with the game's history and traditions? double check. 

So for 4e to be this completely unprecedented thing, you have to believe that people have said this about every new edition and been wrong every time.

Except now. 

But let's just assume I am willing to cede all your points about OD&D-2e.

Even if that's true, it's really hard to argue 4e dumped the "traditions" or "history" of D&D, when 3e had already done that.


----------



## Imban (Sep 10, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> Even if that's true, it's really hard to argue 4e dumped the "traditions" or "history" of D&D, when 3e had already done that.




Personally the only bit about it I found "unprecedented" was that 4e dumped the "story" traditions wholesale too, whereas it was to a minimum between other editions.

I mean, if you want me to tell you that 3e is a completely different game from 2e, I'll gladly do that. Because it is.


----------



## Erik Mona (Sep 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I think it's funny, though Bytopia is obviously the Elemental Plane of Rush Fans. To each is own, but the profusion of _stuff_ in the Great Wheel --at the intersection the Para-elemental Planes of Salt, Smoke, and Tasty Peppers lies the Para-Elemental Demi-Plane of Paprika-- always struck me as a cosmology designed by a group of undergraduate engineering students sharing their first joint, which is to say, LIKE ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE ORIGINAL AD&D RULES.




There, fixed that for you. 

--Erik


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Again, I've asked twice for actual quotes from blogs or books that were insulting.  We've gotten two quotes, both of which, when placed within their proper context, aren't all that insulting at all.




I dropped a quote and a quoted conversation earlier in the thread, so either you missed them, or you've got me on your ignore list, either of which is possible I suppose.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 10, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> There, fixed that for you.
> 
> --Erik



Now, now Mr. Mona - play nice. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 10, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Oh, absolutely - in time it was fine.
> 
> But at the beginning - they were out - and that was very disappointing.




Even as a fairly young child at the time, the term Baatezu and the removal of the half-orc and the assassin made me snicker. It was like those Fall Carnival things some schools would try to pull off when the loca PTA freaked out over Satanic Halloween rituals.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> I dropped a quote and a quoted conversation earlier in the thread, so either you missed them, or you've got me on your ignore list, either of which is possible I suppose.




Quite possible I missed it Shemeska.  It's a long thread.  

I did catch the bit about making fun of Planescape names, but, I missed the other one.

Looking at TheAuldGrump, I gotta wonder, really?  That's how thin your skin is?  Note, nowhere did he say that you couldn't do "through the fairy ring" campaigns.  What he said was that D&D wasn't designed for that.

Again, considering the vast majority of supplements and whatnot for any edition of D&D are very strongly centered on combat and loot, is that really a far off thing to say?

Heck, I see Erik Mona here.  How often did Dungeon print a non-combat module?  We've got what, 200 ish modules in Dungeon for 3e?  I dunno how many for 2e.  Out of those hundreds of modules, how many featured little to no combat?


----------



## Echohawk (Sep 10, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> Hardbacks take up a lot of space.  It was especially noticeable given the number of hardbacks that were released.  They even dwarf the box sets of the 2nd edition era in amount of space.



I'm afraid that this is not true. I just measured, and the 3.X hardcovers make a pile about 155cm high when stacked, while the 2nd Edition boxed sets make a pile 290cm high.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist checking! )


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2009)

@ Hussar,

While I do believe that the marketing failed, I will certainly admit that a "best reading" of what WotC was putting out was not nearly as insulting as the initial reading that I was doing at that time.  There were a couple of threads in the past where, when I re-examined the quotes, I have admitted as much.

IMHO, the boondoggle with WotC was caused by an intersection of what they did with what they said.

*  When 4e was outed prior to the announcement, they denied it, making for a great "...the huh?" moment when, not long after, they announced it......Especially since they were bringing out new 3.5 books in the gap between denial and announcement, it makes it seem as though the denial was to sucker people into buying those books.  (Keeping in mind the expectation at that time, which I also held until I began to read the snippets of 4e they were showing, that most people would switch to 4e.)

*  The early marketing video on YouTube with grappling, which was overtly insulting both to prior editions, and to the players of prior editions (via portrayal).

*  Pulling Dungeon & Dragon Magazines in order to create their own subscription service DDI cheesed a lot of people off.

*  Statements that 4e would be OGL followed by retraction of same cheesed a lot of people off.

These things, and things like them, made it difficult to give a "best reading" to the comments that WotC was making.  It very much felt like WotC had been given the benefit of the doubt already, and had taken royal advantage of it.

IMHO, and IME, anyway.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 10, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I'm not doubting that people came in with hostility pre-present, but people on this thread have stated "I walked in neutral and got offended," and you and Fifth Element have both responded with "No, you're lying.  You walked in openly hostile.  Go ahead and prove me wrong."
> 
> That gets under peoples' skins.
> 
> _A lot._



I said no such thing.

Putting words in other peoples mouths: That gets under peoples' skin. _A lot_.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> *  Pulling Dungeon & Dragon Magazines in order to create their own subscription service DDI cheesed a lot of people off.
> 
> *  Statements that 4e would be OGL followed by retraction of same cheesed a lot of people off.



I can understand people getting annoyed by these. The second one certainly annoyed me. But it's a big step from this to "they insulted me and the way I play my game." If you're proposing it's an irrational reaction due to the other factors you mentioned, I'd accept that.


----------



## Roman (Sep 10, 2009)

Marketing played a role in my decision not to switch to 4E, but only to the extent that it previewed and highlighted changes and direction of game design that I did not like rather than due to the ineptitude of the marketing campaign. By the time 4E came out, I was sure I was not going to buy it and merely skimmed the books just to see whether my opinion would be confirmed (it was). Had the marketing campaign been absent, I would have reached the same conclusions, but later - I would have been forced to scrutinize the final product more carefully. 

Even a 'perfect' marketing campaign would have been unlikely to persuade me to purchase 4E. I prefer the legacy D&D flavor and although I do not necessarily cling to specific mechanics, the new game identifies and 'corrects' mechanical problems where I didn't have them (e.g. statting out NPCs, save or die effects, etc.), but ignores or makes worse problems I did have (e.g. hit points poorly representing actual injuries, auto-success/auto-failure), so it was an easy decision to stick with 3.5E or switch to Pathfinder RPG.


----------



## Dausuul (Sep 10, 2009)

Toben the Many said:


> First of all, we can look at other games and their iterative editions. New editions of RPGs are sometimes looked upon favorably, but sometimes not. There is no overwhelming tendency to _hate_ all new editions upon release. One might say, "Ah, yes. But Shadowrun fans are not like D&D fans." To which I would say, but the same people who play Shadowrun are the same people who play D&D!




While I'm not a Shadowrun player and not involved in the Shadowrun community, my impression was that the latest edition of Shadowrun had caused much gnashing of teeth.



Toben the Many said:


> And you also seem to contradict yourself as well. You claim that 3rd Edition is the exception to the rule - meaning that the rule of New-Editions-Are-Hated can be, in fact, broken. To add to that, as I recall it, AD&D was another welcome edition into the fold. I remember getting AD&D and becoming excited. "Wait. Elf isn't a _class_? Whoa. I can be an Elven Fighter, Elven Wizard, etc? Whoa! No way!"




And I and my entire group, along with a lot of other people, were excited about 4E. Doesn't mean 4E wasn't hated.



Toben the Many said:


> I think it's too apologist to simply say, "All new D&D editions are hated. Nothing anyone can do about it." If that were true, why bother with any kind of marketing campaign at all, since all of them will be doomed to failure?




I said all new editions inspire hate. I never said they inspired _universal_ hate, or that any effort to win over the fans was doomed. But there will always be a very angry, very vocal section of the fanbase that absolutely despises the new edition.

A well-designed marketing campaign would minimize the size of that group, but if your goal is to not inspire any hate at all... well, it just ain't gonna happen. And thanks to the wonders of modern communications, even a tiny fraction of the fanbase can make one whole hell of a lot of noise.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 10, 2009)

Vigilance said:


> I also don't see the changes between 1e and 2e minor at all. Completely changing how the Illusionist and Bard worked, getting rid of classes and races wholesale (something 4e is frequently criticized for) etc.




One major difference: the 1e illusionist and bard still worked just fine within the slightly changed framework of 2e, as did the half-orc, monk, and assassin. Backward compatibility was extensive.




Vigilance said:


> Even if that's true, it's really hard to argue 4e dumped the "traditions" or "history" of D&D, when 3e had already done that.




On that, I disagree. 3e may have overturned some traditions and history, but it still holds much closer to them than 4e.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> There, fixed that for you.
> 
> --Erik



Thanks! I stand corrected .

Two things though...

1) 2e has its share of cosmological silliness, cf. Ravenloft being expanded into the 'Demi-Plane of Dread'. 

2) I'd describe the original AD&D rules as sounding like they were written by someone with Jack Vance's passion for, if not quite his facility with, the English language.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2009)

billd91 said:


> On that, I disagree. 3e may have overturned some traditions and history, but it still holds much closer to them than 4e.



I'd describe both 3e and 4e as radical breaks, just in different directions. My first impression of 3e was "this doesn't sound like D&D at all", particularly the approach to character creation (the 'build' mentality).

However, the more I played 3e, the more I realized that it was just a different set of tools for building the same role-playing game experience I always did. In that way, 3e really helped me refine my idea that the Kingdom of D&D lies within us, not between the pages of a rule book.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Sep 10, 2009)

*On the subject of breaking tradition...*

Not to get too off-topic: 

It's not the rules changes that bug me so much, its the fluff changes. 

Vastly different changes in fluff in 4E vs. previous changeovers. Unfortunately, sometimes those fluff changes influence the rules. 

Teleporting Elves, Dwarves that no longer live underground and see in the dark, evil storm giants, non-good metallic dragons, etc., etc. 

True, those are minor things that can be hand-waved away, but in the long run, its easier and more comfortable for me to just stick with 3E and move to Pathfinder.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> If you're proposing it's an irrational reaction due to the other factors you mentioned, I'd accept that.





That is exactly what I am proposing, with the caveat that "best reading" is based upon trust, and it is not irrational to look for hidden meanings in the statements of people you believe have violated your trust (whether they, in fact, have or have not).


RC


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> That is exactly what I am proposing, with the caveat that "best reading" is based upon trust, and it is not irrational to look for hidden meanings in the statements of people you believe have violated your trust (whether they, in fact, have or have not).
> 
> 
> RC




If people have "violated your trust", you are likely going to be looking for fault in their words before you even start reading. I'm not sure there's much WotC could have said to people who felt that way, given the substance and business decisions of 4E.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 10, 2009)

billd91 said:


> One major difference: the 1e illusionist and bard still worked just fine within the slightly changed framework of 2e, as did the half-orc, monk, and assassin. Backward compatibility was extensive.




  If I recall some of the design columns from DRAGON correctly, backwards compatability is _the_ reason we didn't have ascending Armor Classes in 2E. 



Mallus said:


> I'd describe both 3e and 4e as radical breaks, just in different directions. My first impression of 3e was "this doesn't sound like D&D at all", particularly the approach to character creation (the 'build' mentality).




Serious question--did you follow the game during the lead-up and on-release, or were you a later arrival? Because the 'build' mentality, while an early arrival, is something that I seem to remember arising from the community around 3E rather than being highlighted in the books themselves. (Granted, there are 'builds' in the _Hero Builder's Guidebook_, but even those were designed for concept rather than charop, and were of a type that soon became superseded by Prestige Classes and, as of 3.5, new base classes.)

This is part of a hypothesis I'm developing: For those who were following the 2E/3E changeover and got our first impressions of it that way, there's a greater subjective sense of continuity due to the strong apparent similarities in the texts. Those who joined later or otherwise weren't part of the 'changeover/early adopter' crowd, who came to know the game embedded in a community that had developed new approaches based on the 'emergent properties' of the rules, may have a greater sense of the discontinuity.


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 10, 2009)

Mallus said:


> 1) 2e has its share of cosmological silliness, cf. Ravenloft being expanded into the 'Demi-Plane of Dread'.




And Ravenloft as hungry, demiplanar sinkhole of evil was so very much more awesome than generic vampire-land module. YMMV.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> If people have "violated your trust", you are likely going to be looking for fault in their words before you even start reading. I'm not sure there's much WotC could have said to people who felt that way, given the substance and business decisions of 4E.




There is certainly some truth in what you are saying, but, were I WotC, I would have started with "I know it really sucks that we did X, and I'm sorry", followed by "Here's what we're doing to make it up to you....", followed by actually doing whatever you then said.

I think it would work wonders, even at this late date.


RC


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Looking at TheAuldGrump, I gotta wonder, really?  That's how thin your skin is?  Note, nowhere did he say that you couldn't do "through the fairy ring" campaigns.  What he said was that D&D wasn't designed for that.



*Shrug* That was the moment when I became predisposed to dislike 4e.

This was followed by plenty of concrete reasons - with the replacement of the OGL (which I consider a wonderful thing - the smörgåsbord created by the OGL was the best thing I had seen for gaming in many years) with the GSL (which I might use to line the bottom of a bird cage). At no point was I given any good reason to change my mind.

From that point on I _was_ looking for more reasons to dislike 4e, and I found them. Mind you, while those words were what crystallized my dislike, I suspect that I would have eventually decided that the game was not for me in any event, most likely when they announced that the D20 trademark license was being ended. Mr. Wyatt simply pushed me to that decision a trifle sooner. (And I still think that those preview books were an astoundingly bad idea.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 11, 2009)

IMHO, I think the "build mentality" crept into D&D via Kits & the 2Ed's Player's Option Rules, not 3Ed.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 11, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IMHO, I think the "build mentality" crept into D&D via Kits & the 2Ed's Player's Option Rules, not 3Ed.




I'd have to disagree with this. The "build mentality" comes from emergent synergies and 3E style multiclassing, which didn't really exist in 2E to any real extent.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 11, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I'd have to disagree with this. The "build mentality" comes from emergent synergies and 3E style multiclassing, which didn't really exist in 2E to any real extent.




Not true. 2E had multiclassing and dual classing rules. It also had expanded proficiency systems, kits, and, of course, Player's Option (shudder). Plus specialty priests and expanded rules for specialist casters. I remember AD&D 2e... I remember demonstrating that a strong Fighter specialized in darts could outperform almost any other combination in terms of damage output (darts had a high rate of fire, but were eligible for weapon specialization per dart). 

In fact, if you want to be technical, builds go back to AD&D, where the bard was the original archetype of "building." How soon do I go rogue? How soon do I get druid? And with wizards, there was definitely a divide between the "fireball mage" and the more utility-oriented variety. 

You don't get rid of builds until you go back far enough to get rid of most choices.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 11, 2009)

3Ed definitely bore the full fruit of "build mentality," but if you've ever run a campaign in which 75% of the players were considering running a Priest because you were using the Player's Option rules, you might have a different perspective on it.

The rules for Priest builds were a touch out of whack with the rest of the reworked classes in that set of books.  You could essentially build a "gestalt PC" (to use a 3Ed term) as a single-classed Priest.  You literally could fill any role with a PO Priest.

Kits just put the cherry on top.



> In fact, if you want to be technical, builds go back to AD&D, where the bard was the original archetype of "building." How soon do I go rogue? How soon do I get druid? And with wizards, there was definitely a divide between the "fireball mage" and the more utility-oriented variety.




And an AD&D Bard could be a KILLER!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 11, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I'd have to disagree with this. The "build mentality" comes from emergent synergies and 3E style multiclassing, which didn't really exist in 2E to any real extent.



I think "builds" only really got become popular with the advent of online communities where you could share your tricks with lots of people. 

A lot of "new" terminology is probably also coined in that process. There is no need to talk about "builds" if it is a character you are creating at your home. Even if it is just for fun. It's for your eyes only, basically. You probably even do more than just create the mechanical parts - you weave a story around it, because you might consider it as a potential character in a running campaign. 

But on the internet, character story and character build can be easily seperated. And most people are probably not all that interested in a character story, since it is typically campaign and group specific. But the "build" is just based on rules that are more or less universal and everyone could reuse. (Of course, during AD&D times, even that might not have been true, consider how much people have houseruled their games and to what extend they did it.)


----------



## billd91 (Sep 11, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think "builds" only really got become popular with the advent of online communities where you could share your tricks with lots of people.




I remember them being discussed in letter or forum sections of Dragon magazine. But, with respect to volume, the discussion then was like throwing a bullet while the internet is like shooting it out of a gun. 

3e does offer more tools, but the "build" idea has been around since 1e introduced bards and significantly strengthened when they introduced specialization. The "obsession" with builds in 3e has a lot to do with internet communication.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 11, 2009)

billd91 said:


> 3e does offer more tools, but the "build" idea has been around since 1e introduced bards and significantly strengthened when they introduced specialization. The "obsession" with builds in 3e has a lot to do with internet communication.




I agree, although it was a combination of factors.  The more options you have, the more discussion will be around what the "best" choices are.

In early 2e(like just the PHB), there just weren't that many choices.  If you were a fighter, your choices were pretty much: "What weapon do I want to use?".  There were no builds because there were no options.

Near the end of 2e, with all of the kits, PO books, specialization options, and so on, you could actually have a little bit of leeway with your characters and that's when the discussion on "builds" started.

Given, the number of options you had in 3e compared to even late 2e were so great as to overwhelm most people.  So, you had a lot of players staring at the book and saying "I'm used to 2e where I decide I want to be a fighter and pick a long sword.  Now you're telling me I have to pick feats, and the feats are part of chains of feats that I need certain stats to qualify for?  And then at a higher level I'm going to want to choose a PrC which also has prerequisites.  Also, I can buy magic items now, so I can pick ones that help me do certain things better than others.  I'm not sure what I should do!  Internet!  Please help me figure out what to do!"

Some people who would have just built characters one level at a time, choosing their options based on role playing reasons saw the discussions and changed their approach to character creation, I'm sure.  But 3e does encourage the idea of "builds" by giving you a lot of options.  4e actually pulls back on this a bit by pretty much choosing your build options for you with a little bit of wiggle room.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 11, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Serious question--did you follow the game during the lead-up and on-release, or were you a later arrival?



I followed 3e from pre-release. 



> This is part of a hypothesis I'm developing: For those who were following the 2E/3E changeover and got our first impressions of it that way, there's a greater subjective sense of continuity due to the strong apparent similarities in the texts.



My initial impression, as someone who DM'ed 2e for years, was 3e seemed pretty different. The more I played and discussed it online, 'pretty' morphed into 'very', at least in terms of the mechanics and their influence on play. Of course, I later came round to the idea that, despite mechanical differences, all D&D is of a kind.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 11, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> ...generic vampire-land module...



Generic... vampire-land...module!!??! You take that back!


----------



## JohnRTroy (Sep 11, 2009)

One thing to also remember too is that 3e was a sudden shift from the 2e mindset.  

In 2e, kits and other customizations existed, but they were suggested for concepts from the role-playing perspective, or the "story" side of things.  In fact, I forget if its the PHB or DMG, but the 2nd Edition book there's a section saying that people SHOULD NOT Min/Max because it's not what the game is about.  They discouraged people from playing that way.  People who played that way were dismissed as "munchkin".  About the biggest "build" was specialty priests, and that was more based on character and deity not tactics.

In 3e, Min/Maxing, multiclassing, prestige classes, all of that was encouraged.  Part of the design of 3e was to make sure people remembered it was a game, rolling dice, hack and slash, etc.  So you now shifted from de-emphasizing that to whole "min/max" articles in Dragon.  (I believe WoTC recognized that many people played CRPGs that way and many table-top players played that way).

So, while customization started a long time ago, it became a bit more common in 3e based on the new paradigm.


----------



## Henry (Sep 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Generic... vampire-land...module!!??! You take that back!




Forgive him, he's a D&D youngling. 

I kid Shemeska 'cause I know him, but I had a lot of affinity for the great ideas that came out of the 2E years, also; unfortunately, there was more "idea factory" going on than "business savvy" and TSR paid the price. For anyone who came to 3E but was faimliar with the 2E flavorful settings, the 3E settings and ideas seem pretty sparse by comparison. For me, though, I've been exposed to 'em for so long they were worn out to me by the time 3E came along, and I was looking for something new. Now, a lot of the 4E stuff seems to be tapping back into some ideas from the earlier editions that I wouldn't mind seeing again.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 11, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> In 2e, kits and other customizations existed, but they were suggested for concepts from the role-playing perspective, or the "story" side of things.  In fact, I forget if its the PHB or DMG, but the 2nd Edition book there's a section saying that people SHOULD NOT Min/Max because it's not what the game is about.




  DMG, Chapter 5: Proficiencies, I believe. But yes, in 2E's day, there was a serious sense that trying to 'min/max' or break the game was bad form.

  Anoter difference is that in 2E, nearly all choices had to be made at character creation, meaning that what builds there were focused more on 'what to pick at startup' rather than 'here's a 20-level plan that must be followed rigidly to ensure Ultimate Power." 



> In 3e, Min/Maxing, multiclassing, prestige classes, all of that was encouraged.  Part of the design of 3e was to make sure people remembered it was a game, rolling dice, hack and slash, etc.  So you now shifted from de-emphasizing that to whole "min/max" articles in Dragon.  (I believe WoTC recognized that many people played CRPGs that way and many table-top players played that way).




   I have distinct memories of one of the designers saying online in the run-up to 3E: "Go ahead and min/max if you like. The game won't break." Unfortunately, it was in an ephemeral medium, so I can't cite and may be misremembering.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 11, 2009)

Mallus said:


> My initial impression, as someone who DM'ed 2e for years, was 3e seemed pretty different. The more I played and discussed it online, 'pretty' morphed into 'very', at least in terms of the mechanics and their influence on play. Of course, I later came round to the idea that, despite mechanical differences, all D&D is of a kind.




   Very well, then; you saw it sooner and more clearly than I did. (Actual play makes a difference.  ) I still think the differences between the two, while profound, are less overt than the 3E-4E changeover.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2009)

Here's a quick question someone might be able to answer:  How is it that it is okay to sell Dungeon and Dragon only in PDFs, but not older materials in PDF form because of piracy?


----------



## an_idol_mind (Sep 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Here's a quick question someone might be able to answer: How is it that it is okay to sell Dungeon and Dragon only in PDFs, but not older materials in PDF form because of piracy?




Since Paizo published the magazines for several years, I think they have the rights to distribute the PDFs as they see fit.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2009)

an_idol_mind said:


> Since Paizo published the magazines for several years, I think they have the rights to distribute the PDFs as they see fit.




Um....I refer to electronic format DDI articles, not Paizo.  It seems like a marketing bit to claim that older editions are pulled because electronic copy is unsafe, but the mags are only published electronically, and that's okay.


RC


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 11, 2009)

Because that whole piracy debacle was a pathetically clumsy and half-assed smokescreen, basically.

Not the first one from them, either.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 11, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> If we assume the release of the 4E rules as they have come to be, that they were released with a delayed and later revised GSL and not the OGL, discontinued support for previous editions(including the removal of PDFs) and the release of DDI as it came to be(including online Dungeon and Dragon magazines), could WotC have marketed or promoted 4E in a way that would have led to a different perception/opinion than what has come to pass?
> 
> I hear a lot of criticism of the marketing of 4E, but given the substance of 4E as it has come to pass, would it really have made a difference?




Free online rules such as was done with the OGL SRD would have helped so that people could examine the rules for free easily.

Releasing the free quickstart and shadowfell stuff was a move in the right direction, but a small step significantly after launch. Same for the MM online art gallery.

I know I haven't been motivated enough to spend $25 on a 4e PH (or a pdf of it when they were available for that price) to try out the new system. I haven't even had the interest yet to read fully through the quickstart rules at this point now that they are released. 

I would have read the rules early on but I didn't want to spend $20 on Shadowfell or $75 on core books sight unseen. Listening to the dribs and drabs of teaser information hints did not interest me in following those obsessively to get a smattering of out of context rules that might be correct or might not for the final product.

The continued lessening of what they offered as time of release came closer also soured me on WotC 4e. 

"PDFs for the price of a cup of coffee." -> 
"Actually that won't work so we'll come out with pdfs late and sell them for $25 each." -> 
"Actually our books are pirated online and we decided we won't sell you legal pdf copies of them at all. If you want legal pdfs sorry you are out of luck unless you scan your own." 

"We like 3rd party support and open gaming will continue with 4e D&D, we invited top 3PP's to talk about 4e and how they can get early access to rules and have stuff ready at launch." ->
"Actually we are going to make it different with a new license so there will be a little delay, but expect stuff soon from your favorite 3PPs." ->
"Here's the long delayed GSL, be grateful that even this unattractive restricted license exists. A couple people will go with it and make a few products."

Pomising things then disapointing those expectations seems like a marketing failure to me that leads to ill feelings.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 11, 2009)

an_idol_mind said:


> Since Paizo published the magazines for several years, I think they have the rights to distribute the PDFs as they see fit.




Currently WotC publishes 4e Dragon and Dungeon magazines as pdfs only.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Here's a quick question someone might be able to answer:  How is it that it is okay to sell Dungeon and Dragon only in PDFs, but not older materials in PDF form because of piracy?




I'm sure WotC considers it an unfortunate necessity as they want to provide Dungeon and Dragon 4e D&D support material and adventures but don't want to print the magazines or license it out to a company like Paizo to do so. Since they only exist as pdfs they unfortunately can't be pulled without denying total access to the Dragon and Dungeon material they want to put out there in support of their current game line. Therefore WotC will face the terrible costs of piracy so as to allow these pdfs to be sold and the 4e support material to go to the DDI subscribers.

I think WotC considers older edition electronic sales support is not a big deal for them and can wait until/if they find a new format they are happy with. Old edition ones after all exist in hardcopy same as current 4e books so they are out there. Also old edition ones don't really support the current edition being published the way current Dungeon and Dragon articles do so it is not a necessity for WotC to actively get them out there themselves.

I'm sure WotC thinks it will happily switch Dungeon and Dragon over to a new electronic format along with possibly old edition ones if their explorations of options finds anything they consider acceptable.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Um....I refer to electronic format DDI articles, not Paizo.  It seems like a marketing bit to claim that older editions are pulled because electronic copy is unsafe, but the mags are only published electronically, and that's okay.



Cost/benefit, I would guess. They're willing to risk the piracy with the magazines because they're supporting the current game line. The old products stand on their own, and don't promote the sales of 4E material. The greater benefit makes the risk more bearable.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Sep 11, 2009)

Voadam said:


> Currently WotC publishes 4e Dragon and Dungeon magazines as pdfs only.




I guess one could argue that this is an example of marketing that didn't work on me, since the mention of the magazines immediately makes me think of the out of print physical copies rather than the online versions now tucked away in DDI.


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 11, 2009)

Henry said:


> Forgive him, he's a D&D youngling.
> 
> I kid Shemeska 'cause I know him, but I had a lot of affinity for the great ideas that came out of the 2E years, also; unfortunately, there was more "idea factory" going on than "business savvy" and TSR paid the price. For anyone who came to 3E but was faimliar with the 2E flavorful settings, the 3E settings and ideas seem pretty sparse by comparison.




That I am. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I started in 3e, but I'm heavily, heavily inspired by mid and late 2e material, especially the settings. In my opinion that stretch of years produced some of the most creative material in the history of the game. In my opinion, 3e was often sparse by comparison, especially having culled many of the 2e settings, and 4e went even further down that road (especially with the vacuous lack of setting support). It's too bad that during the same period with 2e, management didn't make very good moves on the business end of things.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 12, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> It's too bad that during the same period with 2e, management didn't make very good moves on the business end of things.



Don't overlook the possibility that the type of products being produced in the 2E era was in itself not a very good move on the business end of things.


----------



## Primal (Sep 12, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Not true. 2E had multiclassing and dual classing rules. It also had expanded proficiency systems, kits, and, of course, Player's Option (shudder). Plus specialty priests and expanded rules for specialist casters. I remember AD&D 2e... I remember demonstrating that a strong Fighter specialized in darts could outperform almost any other combination in terms of damage output (darts had a high rate of fire, but were eligible for weapon specialization per dart).
> 
> In fact, if you want to be technical, builds go back to AD&D, where the bard was the original archetype of "building." How soon do I go rogue? How soon do I get druid? And with wizards, there was definitely a divide between the "fireball mage" and the more utility-oriented variety.
> 
> You don't get rid of builds until you go back far enough to get rid of most choices.




I played such a fighter (who managed to eventually get 'Gauntlets of Ogre Power', to boot), and back in the day it *was* one of the cheesiest fighter builds possible (IIRC, you added bonuses to hit from both Dex and Str with thrown weapons). Also, Haste *doubled* your attacks in AD&D, so I remember flinging 10 darts per round and each of them inflicted 1D3+13 points of damage (with Darts +5, I think) -- it was absolute MURDER when you consider very few critters or NPCs had 100+ Hit Points back then, and you used the same THAC0 score for every attack. More often than not, I killed anything the DM throwed at us in one round. Oh, fun times...


----------



## Hussar (Sep 12, 2009)

On RC's PDF question.

IANAL and this is pure speculation on my part, but, mightn't the reason the pdf's got pulled is part of the ongoing legal process prosecuting the piracy case?  I honestly have no idea, but, this could possibly explain things, and also explain why WOTC is so closed lipped about it, since discussing ongoing legal proceedures is a very big no no.

Or it could be they just don't want to support older editions of the game.  That's possible too.

But, a question though, what does that have to do with marketing?

Oh, and the online SRD was mentioned.  I would point out that it was a number of years before the online SRD's were created, and, with the GSL, you can't actually do it with 4e.  The GSL doesn't allow you to reprint the rules for free.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Sep 12, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> One thing to also remember too is that 3e was a sudden shift from the 2e mindset.
> 
> In 2e, kits and other customizations existed, but they were suggested for concepts from the role-playing perspective, or the "story" side of things.  In fact, I forget if its the PHB or DMG, but the 2nd Edition book there's a section saying that people SHOULD NOT Min/Max because it's not what the game is about.  They discouraged people from playing that way.  People who played that way were dismissed as "munchkin".  About the biggest "build" was specialty priests, and that was more based on character and deity not tactics.
> 
> ...




You have just described the core problem of 2e: giving players the necessary tools to heavily minmax their chars and unbalance the game (not just by kits but also by the constant stream of add-on spells for the spellcasting classes) and then counter that by writing in the books "but please don´t do it."


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> You have just described the core problem of 2e: giving players the necessary tools to heavily minmax their chars and unbalance the game (not just by kits but also by the constant stream of add-on spells for the spellcasting classes) and then counter that by writing in the books "but please don´t do it."




As much as I hate to say "me too", this is precisely my experience.  The main reason I welcomed 3e with open arms didn't have anything to due with customization, detail or anything like that.  It was instead that the entire design philosophy appeared to be "don't balance a combat advantage with a roleplaying disadvantage".

2e "balanced" the game using one of two methods: Giving you way more power in exchange for a "disadvantage" like "if you try to fight more than X battles in a day, you'll run out of spells" or something like "You are a thief who gets to fight with the THAC0 of a fighter, but in exchange 'trouble finds you'".

At that point in 2e, I was plain tired of everyone creating characters who were extremely powerful and then, as the DM, being responsible for having "trouble find them" in order to balance it out.  Ironically enough, when trouble did find them, they were so powerful, they defeated it without much of a problem.

I felt that if the adventure didn't involve them fighting 8+ battles in a single day, I wasn't given the fighters enough of a fair shake.  If I didn't hand out enough magic items, I also wasn't giving them a fair shake.  And they had to be magic items they could use.  I had to throw in enough traps for the thief to feel useful, but not too many of them or I'd bore the rest of the group.

The idea that the game would balance itself without work on my part was the thing that won me over to the new edition.  I wanted to be able to sit back and tell my players, "Yes, be anything you want from the options available" and I wouldn't have to carefully watch over the character creation to make sure they weren't abusing it.  I'd have to examine the reasons for everything.  One player may want to take the Swashbuckler kit for thieves in 2e....but were they taking it because they wanted to play a Swashbuckler or because they got the THAC0 of a fighter?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 12, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> It seems like a marketing bit to claim that older editions are pulled because electronic copy is unsafe, but the mags are only published electronically, and that's okay.




Not all content is the same, so why should we expect all content to fit under the same policy?  An issue of current Dragon (or even several issues) is in no meaningful way equivalent to, say, an older edition PHB or DMG.  There's no reason to expect them to take the same risks with Dragon content and older edition content.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 12, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Not all content is the same, so why should we expect all content to fit under the same policy?  An issue of current Dragon (or even several issues) is in no meaningful way equivalent to, say, an older edition PHB or DMG.  There's no reason to expect them to take the same risks with Dragon content and older edition content.




Wouldn't current magazine content be worth more that older edition content, from a commercial point of view? If anything, you would assume that they wold take less risks with it...


----------



## Imaro (Sep 12, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Wouldn't current magazine content be worth more that older edition content, from a commercial point of view? If anything, you would assume that they wold take less risks with it...





Yeah, I was thinking the same thing...


----------



## billd91 (Sep 12, 2009)

Hussar said:


> On RC's PDF question.
> 
> IANAL and this is pure speculation on my part, but, mightn't the reason the pdf's got pulled is part of the ongoing legal process prosecuting the piracy case?  I honestly have no idea, but, this could possibly explain things, and also explain why WOTC is so closed lipped about it, since discussing ongoing legal proceedures is a very big no no.




No. I think that's highly unlikely. If this were normal for such cases, then all someone would have to do to get their competitor's products out of circulation would be to find a patsy to pirate it and get sued. 



Hussar said:


> Or it could be they just don't want to support older editions of the game.  That's possible too.




Probably true, but I would hesitate to call selling PDFs of old products as providing "support". It's more akin to selling off back inventory as is.



Hussar said:


> But, a question though, what does that have to do with marketing?




Everything. Everything that affects how the customers see you involves marketing.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 12, 2009)

I think maybe WotC's biggest marketing failure with 4e was not realizing that 3e fans were like the cool ex you didn't want to piss off because you have a lot of mutual friends. When it's over, it's over, but nobody likes to be made fun of.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 12, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Wouldn't current magazine content be worth more that older edition content, from a commercial point of view? If anything, you would assume that they wold take less risks with it...




Yes, and no.  "Worth" is an odd thing in business, and therein lies the heart of the matter - business strategy.  

While Dragon content is new, it can haul in some money.  But, it is only new for a very short while, after which its value drops off precipitously.  And there's this thing in business called "loss leading" - where I allow some of my value to leak away, or even run at a loss, in the hopes of it drawing in new business.

I would expect Dragon to be viewed that way.  It's purpose isn't to have lots of value itself, but to maintain current customers and draw in new business.  If a few Dragon pdfs make it into the wild, it is a small loss, but may draw in new customers that see the cool stuff, and thus overall be a win.

Content from old editions, however, is not a loss leader.  It does not draw in much new business, and may even compete with current production lines (some argue this possibility - proving it to each other means nothing, and WotC is not listening to our points on the matter here, so I won't get into it, other than to state that WotC might well consider this possible). 

Risk is a combination of the probability of an event occurring, and the loss that event represents.  The probabilty that some pdf content from any line being pirated is near 100%.  

Dragon content getting into the wild is a loss, mitigated by drawing in some new business and/or maintianing customers who might buy new books.  Old edition content getting into the wild is loss - unmitigated by other factors.  Thus, old content getting pirated may well be "higher risk", than Dragon content.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Sep 12, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I think maybe WotC's biggest marketing failure with 4e was not realizing that 3e fans were like the cool ex you didn't want to piss off because you have a lot of mutual friends. When it's over, it's over, but nobody likes to be made fun of.




Actually, I begin to think the marketing was deliberately designed at least in part to be divisive like that because of the following.

They were changing the game radically.  While there's a lot of argument back and forth about this, from an objective standard things changed radically.  You could take a 1e AD&D player, drop him into 3e, and while he'd have to adjust there is a lot of familiar stuff.  Your Fireball is still a 3rd level spell, does Lvl-d6 damage, etc, your fighter is still a fighter, etc, your monsters are still monsters.  

They also knew that people had options this time.  They were fully aware of the OGL and that it can't be revoked by them, and that other companies could make a substitute game if they screwed up.  Ryan Dancey actually stated he didn't believe D&D would change because if they tried to change it too radically the people would revolt.

So, I think in part to make people want the changes, they have to make fun of the old game.  I don't see you saw as much of this last time because they were trying to win old fans who had strayed back, keep existing fans, and they really were streamlining existing systems.  This time, I think they were trying to aim for new players who thought D&D was "uncool", as well as get fans to accept "radical reboot" as being a natural evolution for the good of the game.   (I think WoTC could have changed the game in ways to streamline it without doing the things that it did.)


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 12, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Dragon content getting into the wild is a loss, mitigated by drawing in some new business and/or maintianing customers who might buy new books.  Old edition content getting into the wild is loss - unmitigated by other factors.  Thus, old content getting pirated may well be "higher risk", than Dragon content.




By now, all the old content is available for illegal download. I'm much more willing to buy that either they don't want competition and brand dilution or that, once they got rid of the 4e stuff, they didn't want to bother with material that gave them marginal profits.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> This time, I think they were trying to aim for new players who thought D&D was "uncool", as well as get fans to accept "radical reboot" as being a natural evolution for the good of the game.   (I think WoTC could have changed the game in ways to streamline it without doing the things that it did.)




And this is the major difference between people who like 4e and agreed with the marketing of it and those who didn't.

By the end of 3.5e, I was aware that there was NO way to fix it without a radical reboot.  At least, not the deep seeded issues.  You could fix the issue with save or dies by changing them to doing damage.  You could fix some imbalances in the classes with some tweaks.  But to fix the real issues (the ones that mostly involved the difference between d20 rolls, the modifiers placed on the rolls and the DCs you were rolling against) you needed to hollow out the entire system and recreate it from scratch with new math.  And it was evident that in order to entirely fix the imbalance between casters and non casters, you needed to implement some sort of spell-like system for non-casters.  I saw Bo9S and realized how awesome this could be if done right.

Which is why I had no problem with the marketing.  All they ever said was "Those things that didn't work in 3e, we're going to fix them."  It seems all the uproar I ever hear was when someone says "But none of those things were broken!  How dare you insult our near perfect game by saying it doesn't work?"  It's all a matter of opinion.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Sep 13, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> And it was evident that in order to entirely fix the imbalance between casters and non casters, you needed to implement some sort of spell-like system for non-casters.
> 
> Which is why I had no problem with the marketing.  All they ever said was "Those things that didn't work in 3e, we're going to fix them."  It seems all the uproar I ever hear was when someone says "But none of those things were broken!  How dare you insult our near perfect game by saying it doesn't work?"  It's all a matter of opinion.




Well, all I can say is that D&D was able to last for 30 years without a Radical Reboot.  They were able to do it in the past with the 2e/3e mix.  Considering all the effort that went into building 3e, I don't think there was any reason to make fighters equal to spellcasters in terms of options other than opinion.    You're stating that there is an "imbalance", yet fighters had more hitpoints, more feats, and worked within the system.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Sep 13, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Well, all I can say is that D&D was able to last for 30 years without a Radical Reboot.  They were able to do it in the past with the 2e/3e mix.  Considering all the effort that went into building 3e, I don't think there was any reason to make fighters equal to spellcasters in terms of options other than opinion.    You're stating that there is an "imbalance", yet fighters had more hitpoints, more feats, and worked within the system.




The "imbalance to the degree it becomes a problem" part of D&D was a 3E creation. In AD&D, dealing damage(the main activity of nonspellcasters) was more efficient against enemies with less hp(compared to 3E, pretty much all of them), save or die/suck became universally less effective as you gained levels, and spellcasters had a large number of handicaps that were removed for 3E. The Radical Reboot(in the case of balance) was a response purely to 3E, not 30+ years of D&D.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 13, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Well, all I can say is that D&D was able to last for 30 years without a Radical Reboot.  They were able to do it in the past with the 2e/3e mix.  Considering all the effort that went into building 3e, I don't think there was any reason to make fighters equal to spellcasters in terms of options other than opinion.    You're stating that there is an "imbalance", yet fighters had more hitpoints, more feats, and worked within the system.




Eh, you do realize 3e spellcasters made out like BANDITS with the changeover from 2e to 3e.

I have a HUGE list of all the "little" changes that were made that all combined made the spellcasters such a force.(Hint: the term Batman wizard is purely a 3e creation)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 13, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Well, all I can say is that D&D was able to last for 30 years without a Radical Reboot.  They were able to do it in the past with the 2e/3e mix.  Considering all the effort that went into building 3e, I don't think there was any reason to make fighters equal to spellcasters in terms of options other than opinion.    You're stating that there is an "imbalance", yet fighters had more hitpoints, more feats, and worked within the system.




Hang on a tick here.  What?

You're going to tell me that the switch from OD&D to AD&D wasn't radical?  Really?

OD&D weighs in at what, a hundred or so pages?  AD&D core weights in at almost a thousand.  Ten times as much material wasn't a radical change?

But, moving forward a bit.  3e is far and away mechanically closer to 4e than it is to 2e.  I mean, you can go through the list and, other than the powers and a few odds and sods, 4e IS 3e for the most part.  Everything from character creation, the meaning of the stats, on and on.  4e is very much a d20 derivitative.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 13, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, moving forward a bit.  3e is far and away mechanically closer to 4e than it is to 2e.  I mean, you can go through the list and, other than the powers and a few odds and sods, 4e IS 3e for the most part.  Everything from character creation, the meaning of the stats, on and on.  4e is very much a d20 derivitative.




To a large extent you are correct. Indeed, the shift in the damage/hit points relationship is very similar to what happened with AD&D 2e -> D&D 3e. I would agree as far as character abilities and underlying mechanics. However, in terms of subsystems, 4e is a wholly new creature. The 3e fireball is remarkably similar to to the same spell in AD&D, and quite different from the 4e version. Craft (blacksmithing) is similar to AD&D's non-weapon proficiencies, but dissimilar from any equivalent (if there is one... blacksmithing ritual?) in 4e. 

And, as pointed out, 4e is the largest shift in assumed world in any edition. And in an RPG, the world is to a great extent the game. You can take any D&D character from OD&D going forward and convert him into an equivalent 3.5 character (allowing for differences between assumed subraces). Converting a 3.5 character, however, often involves changing classes as well as changing the available abilities. The gnome illusionist is the easiest example, but the half-elf fighter-thief-magic-user is another casualty, and many wizards just cannot be easily replicated, even spiritually.


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 13, 2009)

I agree that 3e in many ways botches the kind of balance that was in the old game. Someone at WotC (Monte Cook?) seemed to "like" spell-casters in a bad way. I suspect (not having tried it) that some of the problems reported at higher levels are really due more, though, to fundamental shifts in approach that would also play significant hob with AD&D or OD&D.

Hussar's "AD&D core" must be something that did not exist in 1979. The MM, PHB and DMG together come to about 480 pages (half in the DMG). The original set plus supplements I-III come to about 300 (half sized) pages. The Advanced books include material from magazines (bards, rangers, illusionists, various monsters and magic items, expanded alignment, planes of existence, random generation tables, etc.) and even from _Swords & Spells_. They also include a *lot* more explanatory and descriptive text.

The additional material (apart from some new spells) is mainly in the DMG, and mainly the sort of miscellany and advice of equal utility with Holmes or Moldvay, Mentzer or Cook & Marsh (Expert or 2nd Advanced). Want a table for Potion Miscibility, Reputed Magical Properties of Gems, Intoxication, Insanity, Parasitic Infestation, NPC Facts and Traits, Height and Weight, Aging, Machicolations & Merlons (and Siege Weapons to attack them), Mining, Torture Chamber Furnishings, or Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Vegetables, or ...? It's in there!

NO, the switch from OD&D to AD&D was not (and is not) in my experience "radical"! It is not even necessarily a switch at all.

The really radical change with 4e is in the basic concept of the game. There was a trend through 2e and 3e, but now the complaints the "old school" levied against those seem to me pretty thin gruel. A lot of the "broken" things 4e "fixes" are so only in the sense that, for instance, blue cheese tastes "inedible" to me (whereas it's _supposed_ to be veined with mold and coated with bacteria).


----------



## lutecius (Sep 13, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The "imbalance to the degree it becomes a problem" part of D&D was a 3E creation.





AllisterH said:


> Eh, you do realize 3e spellcasters made out like BANDITS with the changeover from 2e to 3e.



Then it should have been possible to rebalance things without breaking the mold, don't you think?



Hussar said:


> OD&D weighs in at what, a hundred or so pages?  AD&D core weights in at almost a thousand.  Ten times as much material wasn't a radical change?



Fleshing out doesn't necessarily mean changing radically (just saying. I'm not very familiar with 0D&D but the argument seems flawed)



> But, moving forward a bit.  3e is far and away mechanically closer to 4e than it is to 2e.  I mean, you can go through the list and, other than the powers and a few odds and sods, 4e IS 3e for the most part.  Everything from character creation, the meaning of the stats, on and on.  4e is very much a d20 derivitative.



Uhm... no.
I do think 3e was a huge step forward but 4e is just as much a departure.
First, the power system is an essential part of 4e. Ability scores also work differently. Specific power lists for every class and restrictions on multiclassing make character building quite different. NPCs and monsters now work under completely different assumptions. The nerfing of save-or-die effects and the "extended sweet spot" over 30 levels certainly changed the gaming experience, for good or ill. Those are not "a few odds and sods".


On topic,

I did find the marketing and publishing strategy off-putting. With a different approach I might have bought the first core books but ultimately I don't like 4e's design philosophy (more abstract, less flexible) so it probably wouldn't have made a difference for me (I doubt many are going to admit otherwise anyway, most people like to think of themselves as logical.)

Unlike others here, I didn't expect backward compatibility and really wanted significant changes (that's the point of a new edition.) For me 3e definitely had balance issue, I was never a fan of Vancian casting, I found the old alignment and cosmology awkward and couldn't care less about the gnome. Actually, many of the announced changes sounded good to me (at first)

And yet, even before I realised I wouldn't like the "fixes", I found WotC's attitude really arrogant (peremptory statements about what is fun/cool and what isn't, unnecessarily aggravating cartoons, designer jokes that could be funny for those who like a particular change but come off as rubbing it in to those who don't, imprudent ddi announcements, overpriced previews…)


----------



## Ariosto (Sep 13, 2009)

> I was never a fan of Vancian casting, I found the old alignment and cosmology awkward and couldn't care less about the gnome. Actually, many of the announced changes sounded good to me (at first)



Someone else was never a fan of character classes and levels, finds armor classes and hit points awkward, and couldn't care less about experience points for treasure. _Every_ change sounds good to _someone_. "D&D would be so much better if it were so much less like D&D and more like [fill in the blank]!"

Me, I'll just play [fill in the blank] instead. WotC is like the guy who advertises a D&D game -- but when you show up to play it turns out actually to be _Rob's and Jim's Arcane House-rules_ (*RAJAH*tm).


----------



## lutecius (Sep 13, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Someone else was never a fan of character classes and levels, finds armor classes and hit points awkward, and couldn't care less about experience points for treasure. _Every_ change sounds good to _someone_. "D&D would be so much better if it were so much less like D&D and more like [fill in the blank]!"
> 
> Me, I'll just play [fill in the blank] instead. WotC is like the guy who advertises a D&D game -- but when you show up to play it turns out actually to be _Rob's and Jim's Arcane House-rules_ (*RAJAH*tm).



err... experience points for treasure? I'm afraid it's a bit too late for them. 

I see your point? though. The flipside of your argument is that if you don't want anything to change, you don't really need a new edition. Many thing have changed since OD&D. The alignments, cosmology and gnomes didn't exist to begin with and others things were probably quite different. The trick is to implement changes a majority of players like without alienating too many others.

Whether 4e did that is another debate. My point was that even though I didn't mind these changes in principle, I found the way they were advertised arrogant.


----------



## Azgulor (Sep 13, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> Hey if they can get a gorehound like me to watch a _bible movie_, they got to be doing something right.
> 
> And it did more than fine. It kicked the **** out of ALL other R rated movies. _Ever_.
> 
> ...




Psst.  You posted stats on _The Passion of the Christ_, not _The Last Temptation of Christ_...

...which I can't help but notice isn't in that top 10 list.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 14, 2009)

lutecius said:


> Then it should have been possible to rebalance things without breaking the mold, don't you think?



The thing is, the mold was causing the imbalance.  So, no, it couldn't have been.

In a game using just the 2e PHB, the difference between any two fighters was: The weapon they were using, their stats(of which only really strength and con mattered at all), their magic items, and whether they were specialized or not.

This meant that the difference in damage between 2 fighters was, at most, 16 points(25 if you count hit percentage).  The difference between 1d4 and 1d12+12.  And that's assuming a fighter using a +5 weapon of the biggest kind he can find with an 18/00 strength who is specialized in it vs a fighter with 10 strength who uses a dagger.  Most enemies, even at high levels didn't have much more than 60 or 70 hitpoints.  Even with a 10 strength fighter with a +5 dagger was going to kill any any they fought, solo, in about 10 rounds.

In 3e, the difference between a 10 strength fighter who avoids any feats that increase his damage or hit percentage, doesn't find any magic items, and doesn't put any points into his strength vs the one that started with a 20 strength, gets every magic item and feat he can to increase his strength, hit chance, and damage is approximately 51(102 if you factor in hit percentage).  This means the difference between killing a 200 hitpoint dragon in 2 rounds vs 100 rounds.

And that is just a comparison of fighters.  If you take something like a weak Rogue vs a power Cleric or Druid and the numbers skyrocket to 200 or 300 points of damage different between them.

The mold of 3e was a design of customization.  It was "You can choose how powerful you want to be".  More customization = more imbalance.  It's just the way things work.  The ONLY way to reign in imbalance is to reign in customization.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2009)

Ariosto, appologies about the page count.  Got a bit carried away there.

Although, the point still stands.  There are pretty significant differences between AD&D and OD&D.  Three classes to ten (twelve, my memory is hazy here), race and class changes, thief abilities, armor class changes, combat rule changes, spell changes, on and on.  These were pretty different games.  Heck, we even went from using d6 for all weapons to individual damages.

I will agree with lutecius about the flavor changes though.  4e is a big departure from the flavor of earlier editions.  No argument from me on that.  But mechanically?  3e and 4e are very, very close.  Ability stats (Strength and whatnot) use the same mechanics.  Unified xp tables.  Any race/class combo with no limitations.  Skills work pretty much exactly the same between 3e and 4e.  Unified d20 mechanics.  On and on.


----------



## lutecius (Sep 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The thing is, the mold was causing the imbalance.  So, no, it couldn't have been.
> 
> In a game using just the 2e PHB, the difference between any two fighters was [...]
> 
> The mold of 3e was a design of customization.  It was "You can choose how powerful you want to be".  More customization = more imbalance.  It's just the way things work.  The ONLY way to reign in imbalance is to reign in customization.



I think you missed the point.

I was specifically asking those who felt the imbalance _between spellcasters and non-casters_ only appeared with 3e, whether they thought breaking the mold (i.e. a radical departure from the way these classes worked in all the previous editions, not just 3e) was necessary.

I was referring to 4e's power system, not the customization or lack thereof.


----------



## Wicht (Sep 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The thing is, the mold was causing the imbalance.  So, no, it couldn't have been.
> 
> In a game using just the 2e PHB, the difference between any two fighters was: The weapon they were using, their stats(of which only really strength and con mattered at all), their magic items, and whether they were specialized or not.
> 
> ...





Even if I agreed that this was a problem, which I would not, it does not explain the need to get rid of the nine alignments, vancian casting, and rewrite the entire demon/devil cosmology.  

But this is getting a bit off track from the mistakes in marketing that were made.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 14, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> In 3e, the difference between a 10 strength fighter who avoids any feats that increase his damage or hit percentage, doesn't find any magic items, and doesn't put any points into his strength vs the one that started with a 20 strength, gets every magic item and feat he can to increase his strength, hit chance, and damage is approximately 51(102 if you factor in hit percentage).  This means the difference between killing a 200 hitpoint dragon in 2 rounds vs 100 rounds.




Of course, such the 10 Strength fighter does not exist. Indeed, cannot, without deliberately shunting his feats into so many other areas that he is bound to be good at something. Standard ability score generation requires that he have a 14 ability score, and if he didn't use it on Strength, he still must have used it on something. 

Mainly, what you have discovered is that in 3e, things have more hit points and do more damage.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 14, 2009)

Wicht said:


> Even if I agreed that this was a problem, which I would not, it does not explain the need to get rid of the nine alignments, vancian casting, and rewrite the entire demon/devil cosmology.
> 
> But this is getting a bit off track from the mistakes in marketing that were made.



A single cause doesn't explain everything. 

Aligment? Look at the problems people have in trying to distinguishing the different alignments? Is this still lawful good? Is Chaotic Evil just an excuse for Evil? Can someone be lawful evil if he is bending the law? Or does he become chaotic? 

4E system avoids that. 


Vancian Magic? The way it worked easily lead to unbalanced results unless you put very specific on designing your adventure and encounter pacing. 

Why keep the demon/devil cosmology? It provides one possibly campaign background. But it's far from the only one, and considering that D&D is often seen as a quasi-generic type of fantasy, the system doesn't have to be nailed down for one concept for all editions. The new cosmology provides a strong conflict between Gods and Demons and Gods and Evils that can be traced back to the creation myths. It doesn't rely purely on D&D concepts, but actually on some real world creation myths - the idea that the "Titans" (Primordials and Elementals and actual Titans and Giants) stood against the Gods is a very strong theme. 
The idea that Devils betrayed the gods (or in fact one god - the human good) is a strong theme resonating witht real world mythology, too. 
These changes bring D&D closer to us, because they allow us to tell and experience stories that exist in common (Western at least) myths. Of course, this becomes even more apparant if we look at other cosmoloy aspects, namely the Feywild. The idea of feys lurking just behind our perception, coming from hiding, weak spots connecting our worlds to there. I can't think of a new theme that I like more than that. 



> Of course, such the 10 Strength fighter does not exist. Indeed, cannot, without deliberately shunting his feats into so many other areas that he is bound to be good at something. Standard ability score generation requires that he have a 14 ability score, and if he didn't use it on Strength, he still must have used it on something.
> 
> Mainly, what you have discovered is that in 3e, things have more hit points and do more damage.



He's talking about extremes, sure. But there is still a lot of space in between that is _still_ problematic. If you come up with someone with some strength enhancing item, a weak magic weapon, and a little more strength like a 16 after having rolled only a 14 and picking Half-Orc for exampe), you can still get half of that value, and that is still higher than what your d20 can roll.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Aligment? Look at the problems people have in trying to distinguishing the different alignments? Is this still lawful good? Is Chaotic Evil just an excuse for Evil? Can someone be lawful evil if he is bending the law? Or does he become chaotic?
> 
> 4E system avoids that.




How so? Lawful evil is gone but there is still Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil which are different from Good and Evil. Two out of your three example questions still seem to apply in 4e.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> He's talking about extremes, sure. But there is still a lot of space in between that is _still_ problematic. If you come up with someone with some strength enhancing item, a weak magic weapon, and a little more strength like a 16 after having rolled only a 14 and picking Half-Orc for exampe), you can still get half of that value, and that is still higher than what your d20 can roll.




I'm fine with comparing an optimized character to an unoptimized one, but I don't see the point of comparing an optimized character to one that has no feats or equipment. Perhaps for comparison, we can look at a 4e character with no weapon talents or powers using a normal weapon versus an optimized character with powers and a magical weapon. 3e invites the logical possibility of nerfing your character, but there is only so much you can not do with a bunch of fighter feats unless you simply don't take them. I am reluctant to use this phrase because it is so often overused or misued, but nonetheless this is a classic strawman argument. I won't belabor why it's annoying and offensive to misrepresent things in discussion, because I feel that should be obvious.

Going back to 4e marketing... without 4e, would the Wizards staff have stopped playing D&D? If so, I think they forfeit the prerogative of being fan-creators. While I can understand the business reality that WotC owns the brand their staff can do with it as they please, I don't like the idea of non-fans taking control of a product I like and pushing it in other directions. If they would not have stopped playing D&D... then the marketing campaign suggests the D&D staff were making false comparisons. While I would not suggest they were being deceptive, they would in that scenario seem to be Kool-Aid drinkers. I don't think a little hyperbole is going to hurt anyone, but things can get out of hand. 

So to draw a line between the dots... I feel that when fans compared Joe the Poor, nonexistent, possibly rules-breaking fighter with no feats or decent gear, with Sir Max of Blingland, optimized fighter with an expense budget, I feel a similar slip of logic has occured to that which infected a lot of the 4e marketing. It's certainly true that Joe does a fraction of Max's damage, but so what? It's the wrong comparison. There's also a huge realm of difference between dashing out stats for a 7th level goblin warrior versus agonizing over Nancy the Baker's feats, yet the commentary focused on the latter while ignoring how essentially similar a mid-level warrior is to a 4e creature with a handful of simple powers. 4e's multiclassing rules solved a number of problems, but to many many 3e fans, the problems were relatively minor while the loss of functionality in 4e was nearly fatal. Et cetera.

The extent to which you would notice and react to this distortion relates to the degree to which you agree with the less distorted versions of the same ideas. 

If you say, "Bob is evil," and I don't like Bob, I may not agree, but, hey, I don't like Bob, so what's it to me?
If you say, "Bob is evil," and Bob is my best friend and roommate, that may get my hackles up. If you can't come up with a reasonable argument for why you think Bob is evil, I am going to conclude that to some degree, we don't live in the same reality. 

"4e multiclassing totally rules compared to 3e multiclassing, which was terrible and broken" produces less cognitive dissonance in someone who prefers the 4e system than in one who prefers the 3e system. But the statement is, nonetheless, wrong. You can choose to believe it, you can muster arguments why it's true, but at the end of the day, many, many people found the 3e rules workable and the 4e rules dissatisfying. So the opinion becomes one of stated preference. If the 4e developers and the 4e cans claim the matter is one of general consensus, it turns out they are wrong. Their preference is only shared with some, perhaps even a majority of players, but certainly not everyone or even most everyone. And, perhaps, not even a majority. I think many 4e fans would say they tolerate the quirks of the 4e system because the system works within a class framework they otherwise prefer.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Sep 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A single cause doesn't explain everything.




Forgive me for sipping the large post, but I think the big problem is this question: _Why?_

All the things you mentioned save alignment, which really WASN'T fixed, could've been better done in an alternate setting rather then forcing them to be core.  It was, as someone else around here says, a problem of saying "Can we?" instead of "Should we?"  Yes, they could completely alter alignment (Well, _kinda_ alter it), change the way demons and devils work, alter the entire way the cosmology worked, completely change some of the races, force all other settings to apply by all of this...

..._But why?_  How many people were honestly saying "You know, I like the Tiefling, but I want the race to be more homogenious and with completely altered fluff."

This is what pissed people off.  Chane isn't inherently bad, but it's not inherently good either.  When you make the sequel to something, change done _only for the sake of change_ is a stupid move.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 14, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> When you make the sequel to something, change done _only for the sake of change_ is a stupid move.




There's no such thing, in a creative endeavor.

No, really.

Every change made in 4E--or 3E, or 2E, or the new World of Darkness, or Rob Zombie's version of _Halloween_, or _Batman Begins_--was made because someone in the creative team thought it was _better_ this way. It wasn't "Let's change X because we can." It was "Let's change X because Y is better/cooler/more interesting."

Now, there's no reason you--"you" being "anyone"--has to _agree_ that Y was better/cooler/more interesting. There's no reason to assume that the majority of the audience will agree. And that's fine. But agree or disagree, I guarantee you that these changes were made because _someone_ involved thought they were making an improvement, not because they felt like changing things for the heck of it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 14, 2009)

> There's no such thing, in a creative endeavor.
> 
> No, really.
> 
> Every change made in 4E--or 3E, or 2E, or the new World of Darkness, or Rob Zombie's version of Halloween, or Batman Begins--was made because someone in the creative team thought it was better this way. It wasn't "Let's change X because we can." It was "Let's change X because Y is better/cooler/more interesting."




Dude...

I don't know how the creative endeavors you've had the pleasure of enduring are like, but I've often seen stuff changed just because it wants to be different, or on a whim, or for a reason that doesn't hold up under scrutiny but they want to try it anyway.

A lot of these get weeded out in the editing/re-writing process (thank the gods for good editors!), but some stay in for a variety of reasons.

The creative process is usually not that focused. IMXP, it's more exploratory, organic, tinkering, about twisting and tweaking the world to communicate a distinct thought. This is true for the music, visual art, writing, and performance that I've been parts of. Indeed, one of the big messages of creative "serious play" is that you're free to experiment without a deliberate goal in mind -- no need to enhance, just to toy with, tinker with, adjust, mess with, screw with, try something different with, and maybe find something new and cool with. It's generally the managers, suits, editors, and other organizational types that figure out what it's about and how to market it and what it's better or worse at. It's the creator's job usually to just create it, for the sake of creating it. 

Not that this invalidates your broader point at all, of course. People are going to think some changes are better and some are worse, and only where there is clear consensus is it any sort of progress, and even then, it's not without loss (THAC0 still has sympathizers). I'm sure that a product like D&D had each change seriously considered and applied, though I'm not so sure a "we need change!" dogma wasn't in place at some point. The idea that change itself was going to fix the problems seems misguided, if it was in place. If not, well, it certainly seems that it was in certain areas.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 15, 2009)

Voadam said:


> How so? Lawful evil is gone but there is still Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil which are different from Good and Evil. Two out of your three example questions still seem to apply in 4e.




I think personally for me the big issue was the difference between

Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil 

AND

Chaotic Good and Neutral Good

AND

Lawful Neutral - Neutral - Chaotic Neutral

D&D always had no problem explaining/showing the difference between LG and regular Good, but it was the Chaotic and Netral good that always seemed hazy.

Similarly, the difference between neutral and lawful evil never really seemed important. Chaotic evil and the rest of evil made sense...


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> D&D always had no problem explaining/showing the difference between LG and regular Good, but it was the Chaotic and Netral good that always seemed hazy.




You do realize that when you compare LG to "regular Good," that's Neutral Good by definition, right?

And it seemed to do just fine with Chaotic Good - I've never had a problem with a character concept of "screw the law! I know what's right and I'm doing it!" Robin Hood always seemed like a classic example of this, at least to me.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 15, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I think you missed the point.
> 
> I was specifically asking those who felt the imbalance _between spellcasters and non-casters_ only appeared with 3e, whether they thought breaking the mold (i.e. a radical departure from the way these classes worked in all the previous editions, not just 3e) was necessary.
> 
> I was referring to 4e's power system, not the customization or lack thereof.




Needless to say, the following is only my opinion.

AS someone who believes 3e broke spellcasting, I think 4e's system makes more sense for what modern gamers want.

Two of the restrictions on spellcasting was simply that a) wizards didn't get to choose their spells and b) magic items were not something that a player could easily control.

The DMG in previous editions hammered the point that magic items AND (something many people forget) spells were supposed to be carefully controlled by the DM.

Players nowadays expect control not just over their items but their spells. IT's the latter I think which is the biggest problem in rebalancing 3rd. A spell like KNOCK is balanced in 1e/2e due to rarity but not so much in 3e with it not only being common but also easily slottable via wands/scrolls.

re: 3e muliticlassing

Can't see how 3e multiclassing is considered an essential part of D&D. It basically turned D&D into a point buy system basically (every level purchase this amount of abilities)


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 15, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> You do realize that when you compare LG to "regular Good," that's Neutral Good by definition, right?
> 
> And it seemed to do just fine with Chaotic Good - I've never had a problem with a character concept of "screw the law! I know what's right and I'm doing it!" Robin Hood always seemed like a classic example of this, at least to me.




You miss my point. To me, Neutral Good can say "screw the law! I know what's right and I'm doing it" just as easily as Chaotic Good (notice, you're basically saying that the law is evil which a NG character should have no trouble ignoring either)

LG characters I expect to work within the law system to either change it or find a precedent in ignoring the law.


----------



## gribble (Sep 15, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Of course, such the 10 Strength fighter does not exist.



[DIGRESSION]
Actually, my longest lived 3e character (got up to around lvl 24), was a "fighter" (actually a samurai) with 10 Str. In 3e, not only was it possible, but it was actually a feasible and very effective build. This was in a party that consisted of him, an epic level wizard and an epic level cleric. Never once did he feel like a suboptimal character, or like he wasn't doing his job in the team.

And that's why I just don't get posts that say that fighters above level 10 sit around watching the wizards and clerics do everything when playing 3e... it just wasn't my experience.
[/DIGRESSION]

I now return you to your regularly scheduled edition skirmish...


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 15, 2009)

gribble said:


> [DIGRESSION]
> Actually, my longest lived 3e character (got up to around lvl 24), was a "fighter" (actually a samurai) with 10 Str. In 3e, not only was it possible, but it was actually a feasible and very effective build. This was in a party that consisted of him, an epic level wizard and an epic level cleric. Never once did he feel like a suboptimal character, or like he wasn't doing his job in the team.
> 
> And that's why I just don't get posts that say that fighters above level 10 sit around watching the wizards and clerics do everything when playing 3e... it just wasn't my experience.
> ...




Ok, I'll bite.

How is this possible?

Unless you're getting massive buffs from the other classes via either spells or magic items, you're not even going to HIT an epic level monster


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> You miss my point. To me, Neutral Good can say "screw the law! I know what's right and I'm doing it" just as easily as Chaotic Good (notice, you're basically saying that the law is evil which a NG character should have no trouble ignoring either)




It really just sounds to me like you're fuzzy on what the Neutral in Neutral Good means. I can understand that, but that doesn't mean that it was a problem with the game itself that needed to be fixed.

It's also erroneous to say that a Chaotic Good character thinks the law is evil - he just doesn't care about it in his personal interpretation of doing good.



> LG characters I expect to work within the law system to either change it or find a precedent in ignoring the law.




That's a fair summary of a LG character - I just think there are also equally fair and easily-understood summaries for the other eight alignments also. That really didn't seem like it was broken in any real regard (that said, I admit some people didn't like having an alignment system at all...but changing it from a nine-point grid to a five-point scale didn't satisfy that particular complaint).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 15, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ...but I've often seen stuff changed just because it wants to be different, or on a whim, or for a reason that doesn't hold up under scrutiny but they want to try it anyway.




In such cases--IME and IMO, of course--even such changes made on whim or without a goal in mind are still suggested because the person suggesting them thinks they at least have the potential to be better than what came before. Again, they may be wrong, and sometimes one can even point to _objective _reasons they shouldn't have been made--not often, but sometimes--but I've never heard of such a change being made or suggested without _some_ motivation beyond just "I feel like making this different," even if that motivation is something as simple (and potentially false) as "I think it'll sell better this way."


----------



## gribble (Sep 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Ok, I'll bite.
> 
> How is this possible?



High Dexterity and weapon finesse. At later levels he picked up the Iaijitsu Master PrC. Throughout his career his MO was never to deal massive damage to the opponent, but rather to outlast them (in combination with the Cleric's healing). He concentrated on buffing his saves and AC up the wazoo and had the style feat that meant that power attacking enemies didn't add any bonus to damage. So usually the enemies would have about a 25% chance of hitting with their primary attack and needed 20s to hit with any iterative attacks, and that one hit (if it landed) wouldn't be doing any PA damage.

The enemies couldn't just ignore him either, because if they turned their back on them he'd Iaijitsu strike them into oblivion.

It worked very well, and kept the "squishy" magic/cleric alive. Essentially he was a defender in the days before 4e.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I think personally for me the big issue was the difference between
> 
> Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil
> 
> ...





I never had a problem with Chaotic Good and Neutral Good... IMO, NG means you are willing to use chaotic measures or lawful measures to expedite the greatest amount of good in the quickest fashion.  Basically in the end only the achievement of good was important, not whether law or chaos was used to accomplish it.  It's funny but I always felt like Paladins should have been this alignment as it would have made them a more flexible class but still kept the "purity" idea.

Chaotic Good, IMO, was a person who felt the greatest good could usually only come about through the circumventing of the inevitable bureaucracy, politicking, and traditions that law brings with it.

LN is someone whose code, whether good or evil, is the most important thing in their life... think Roland from The Gunslinger.

Neutral would be someone like Two Face from Batman comics or a character who actually strives to maintain balance in his own actions as well as in the world along the spectrum of good& evil/law & chaos... think Karla the Grey Witch from Record of Lodoss War or the Circle of Eight (as a whole) in Greyhawk.

CN, hmmm... IMO, the Joker from the recent Dark Knight movie... though he definitely spans the good/evil axis from neutral to evil dependin on what Joker one is talking about.  More to the point I think CN is the self serving without regard to good or evil concerns type


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> There's no such thing, in a creative endeavor.
> 
> No, really.




I disagree.

From my own personal experience as a musician, artist and jewelry designer, along with the experiences noted in Piers Anthony's annotated _But What of Earth_ and many of the inexplicable changes in things like the movie/TV adaptations of _The Scarlet Letter_, _Silence of the Lambs_ or _Earthsea_, I'd have to say that change for the sake of change, while sometimes thinly rationalized ("This sounds cooler!"), does exist.

I suppose, though, it depends upon how one defines "change for the sake of change"- a phrase that IMO is used more in an idiomatic than literal sense.

One literal example, though, may be the casting/recasting of the role of Harvey Dent in the original Batman movie and subsequent ones.  Originally, Billy Dee Williams was cast- giving the role of a Caucasian comic book character to a black actor may have been such a change- but when Two-Face (the villain whom Dent would become) showed up in a subsequent role, Tommy Lee Jones- a white actor- was cast.

Acting abilities and scheduling conflicts aside, why the 2 race changes?

All that said, though, I'm with KM on this in regards to 4Ed.  Many of the changes seemed arbitrary to me, and offered no obvious improvement to the original rules.

I love the old, 9 alignment system, and feel its one of the things that made D&D D&D.  That said, I know its not for everyone.

However, the 4Ed 5 position system is..._flawed._  Despite my preference for the 9 point system, I feel that a 3 point system (G-U-E) or ditching alignment entirely would have been superior to what 4Ed gave us.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 15, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I suppose, though, it depends upon how one defines "change for the sake of change"- a phrase that IMO is used more in an idiomatic than literal sense.
> 
> One literal example, though, may be the casting/recasting of the role of Harvey Dent in the original Batman movie and subsequent ones.  Originally, Billy Dee Williams was cast- giving the role of a Caucasian comic book character to a black actor may have been such a change- but when Two-Face (the villain whom Dent would become) showed up in a subsequent role, Tommy Lee Jones- a white actor- was cast.
> 
> Acting abilities and scheduling conflicts aside, why the 2 race changes?




That's just it, though. "Acting abilities and scheduling conflicts" _aren't_ "aside." Burton chose Williams because he felt he was right for the role; the studio replaced him with Jones because they thought he'd be a bigger box-office draw.

The former is a very personal, subjective opinion; the latter is a financial one. But they're both _reasons_.

And that's what I'm getting at. "This sounds cooler!" may seem a thin rationale to you, but it's absolutely the reason for a lot of these changes.

Again, often times, they're wrong. Sometimes it makes the product worse, at least in the eyes of the bulk of the audience. But it's still a reason that the person who made the decision believed.

Obviously, I can't _swear_ that nobody has _ever_ said "I want to change X just because." But it's so rare as to be a statistical non-factor. No matter how thin, or even how _wrong_, other motivations for change might be, those motivations exist, even if only in the minds of one individual involved.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 15, 2009)

Williams also played Harvey Dent in the '89 Batman movie.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 15, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Williams also played Harvey Dent in the '89 Batman movie.




I know. And he was supposed to play Two-Face originally, until the studio bought out his contract.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> That's just it, though. "Acting abilities and scheduling conflicts" _aren't_ "aside." Burton chose Williams because he felt he was right for the role; the studio replaced him with Jones because they thought he'd be a bigger box-office draw.
> 
> The former is a very personal, subjective opinion; the latter is a financial one. But they're both _reasons_.




Acting abilities and scheduling conflicts_ are_ legitimate concerns, but Mouse, you missed my point.

I'm saying they didn't have to change the character's race, either the first time or the second.  At least one of those race changes was unnecessary.

Or are you telling me

1) they couldn't find a good white actor(s) to play Harvey Dent/Two-Face from movie #1 on...

or

2) they couldn't find another quality black actor to fill Billy Dee Williams' shoes, thus at least maintaining the character's _new_ racial identity?

Instead, we get a discontinuity.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> That's just it, though. "Acting abilities and scheduling conflicts" _aren't_ "aside." Burton chose Williams because he felt he was right for the role; the studio replaced him with Jones because they thought he'd be a bigger box-office draw.
> 
> The former is a very personal, subjective opinion; the latter is a financial one. But they're both _reasons_.




Acting abilities and scheduling conflicts are legitimate concerns, but Mouse, you missed my point.

I'm saying they didn't have to change the character's race, either the first time or the second.  At least one of those race changes was unnecessary.

Or are you telling me

1) they couldn't find a good white actor(s) to play Harvey Dent/Two-Face from movie #1 on...

or

2) they couldn't find another quality black actor to fill Billy Dee Williams' shoes, thus at least maintaining the character's _new_ racial identity?

Instead, we get a discontinuity.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 15, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Acting abilities and scheduling conflicts are legitimate concerns, but Mouse, you missed my point.
> 
> I'm saying they didn't have to change the character's race, either the first time or the second.  At least one of those race changes was unnecessary.
> 
> ...




Ah. I see what you're saying now, but I don't think it's an example of "change for change's sake." For it to be, the race of the actor would have to have been a deciding factor to the studio one way or the other, and frankly, I just don't think it was. I think it more likely that they just didn't _care_. (Much like the character of Felix Lighter in the Bond films, who has been white and black.)

True, they (probably) didn't say "Let's make this character Race X for Reason Y." But for me, when I hear "change for change's sake," it means that someone has to have consciously decided to make said change for no other reason than because it was different from what came before. And I don't think that's likely what happened here, because I don't think there was any conscious decision at all in that regard. I think the studio probably _also_ didn't say "Let's make this character Race X just for the hell of it." I believe what they probably said was, "Let's cast Person X," and when someone pointed out that it would change the race, they said, "So?"

In other words, that particular change doesn't fall into _either_ the "motivated change" or the "change for change's sake" category. I think it falls into the "repercussions of some other decision that nobody cared about one way or the other" category.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Burton _did_ specifically want a black Dent. Maybe the studio specifically wanted a white Dent. I'm obviously not privy to that. But if so, I'd wager some real money that each had his reasons--even if they were bad ones.

But what I'm getting at is, not every single change needs to be one or the other, "motivated" or "for change's sake." Sometimes they're just the natural results of a prior decision, and nobody felt them important enough to remain consistent.

So yes, they could have found a white actor for the first one, or a black actor for the third. I just don't think, once they had their first choice, that they could be bothered to worry about it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 15, 2009)

To open the topic a little broader, I think the disconnect is in how people use the phrase "change for change's sake."

For a change to be "for change's sake," _change_ must be the motivation--and the _only_ motivation--behind a tweak to what's come before. (That's what the words _mean_. )

Other people, however, seem to be using it to mean "A change for which the given explanation is insufficient" or "a change with which I disagree" or even " a change resulting from carelessness."

And while those are perfectly valid reasons to dislike a change or to question the reasons for it, they're _not_ "change for change's sake."


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2009)

Possibly they could have DannyA, we'll never know.  Then again, could they find a black actor of the level  and draw of Jones at the time they needed one?  That's a much, much more narrow field.  The answer could quite well have been no.  You're talking about A list celebrities.  Narrow that down to A list, well established black actors and your list is down to a pretty short page.

Narrow that down further by schedule and other movies that may want those actors as well, and it could easily be that the answer was no, they really couldn't get another black actor.

Or, it could have been they did not feel that the character included any particular racial leanings, so, changing from a black to a white actor wasn't going to be a big deal.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 15, 2009)

gribble said:


> [DIGRESSION]
> Actually, my longest lived 3e character (got up to around lvl 24), was a "fighter" (actually a samurai) with 10 Str. In 3e, not only was it possible, but it was actually a feasible and very effective build. This was in a party that consisted of him, an epic level wizard and an epic level cleric. Never once did he feel like a suboptimal character, or like he wasn't doing his job in the team.
> 
> And that's why I just don't get posts that say that fighters above level 10 sit around watching the wizards and clerics do everything when playing 3e... it just wasn't my experience.
> ...




I wasn't saying that no Str 10 fighters exist, just that the hypothetical character in this example does not exist. If he doesn't have high Str, he has high something else or he would be eligible for a reroll, and as a fighter he can't escape having combat feats of some kind. 

I have seen a Str 11 halfling paladin who was actually quite formidable, for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> For a change to be "for change's sake," _change_ must be the motivation--and the _only_ motivation--behind a tweak to what's come before. (That's what the words _mean_. )




I agree as to the meaning of the words.



> Other people, however, seem to be using it to mean "A change for which the given explanation is insufficient" or "a change with which I disagree" or even " a change resulting from carelessness."




In the post in which I challenged you, I pointed out that this is how I've always seen people use the phrase- idiomatically rather than literally.

Kind of like the phrase "head over heels" (in love).  Normally, my head *IS* over my heels, but the phrase is used to indicate someone who is out of kilter from their normal mental state.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2009)

TBH DannyA, I'm with Mouse on this.  I always took, "Change for Change sake" to mean that the primary motivation for change was simply to make something not the same.

Although, thinking about it, your version does probably make a lot of sense.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2009)

The reason I believe its most properly an idiomatic phrase is that if you looked closely enough at anything that could be called "change for change's sake," you'd probably find a "reason."

It may only be due to someone's ego or out of spite, but there will almost always be some kind of rationalization for the act unless the actor isn't sane.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> In such cases--IME and IMO, of course--even such changes made on whim or without a goal in mind are still suggested because the person suggesting them thinks they at least have the potential to be better than what came before. Again, they may be wrong, and sometimes one can even point to _objective _reasons they shouldn't have been made--not often, but sometimes--but I've never heard of such a change being made or suggested without _some_ motivation beyond just "I feel like making this different," even if that motivation is something as simple (and potentially false) as "I think it'll sell better this way."






You do realize that you are begging comparisons to George Lucas, don't you?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 15, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In the post in which I challenged you, I pointed out that this is how I've always seen people use the phrase- idiomatically rather than literally.




Sure, but it's an idiom to which I strongly object. Not only does it not mean what it says, but it's intellectually dishonest and/or lazy (even though I don't think people are usually _conscious_ of that fact).

What it _actually_ means when used idiomatically is "a change that I dislike, and I'm going to try to give that dislike a stronger, more objective basis by insinuating that it's not just a matter of opinion, but one of _fact_." It's just a more politely phrased way of replacing "I dislike X" with "X sucks and it's their fault." It tries to shift the onus of discussion/argument.

If people mean "I dislike X," there's a perfectly good and accurate phrase for that: I dislike X.



Raven Crowking said:


> You do realize that you are begging comparisons to George Lucas, don't you?




Quite possibly.  But that's actually a perfect example of what I mean. Lucas thought he was making things better. He was, according to most of us, flat-out wrong--but it's what he believed.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 15, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The reason I believe its most properly an idiomatic phrase is that if you looked closely enough at anything that could be called "change for change's sake," you'd probably find a "reason."
> 
> It may only be due to someone's ego or out of spite, but there will almost always be some kind of rationalization for the act unless the actor isn't sane.




I think it's fine to poke holes in the logic of common idioms. Just because a lot of people say it does not mean it gets a pass on making sense and being respectful. "Shut your tortilla trap" is an idiom, too, but the problem with the phrase is not that not everyone eats tortillas (which not everyone does) but that when used in non-joking way it's not very respectful.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Sure, but it's an idiom to which I strongly object. Not only does it not mean what it says, but it's intellectually dishonest and/or lazy (even though I don't think people are usually _conscious_ of that fact).
> 
> What it _actually_ means when used idiomatically is "a change that I dislike, and I'm going to try to give that dislike a stronger, more objective basis by insinuating that it's not just a matter of opinion, but one of _fact_." It's just a more politely phrased way of replacing "I dislike X" with "X sucks and it's their fault." It tries to shift the onus of discussion/argument.
> 
> If people mean "I dislike X," there's a perfectly good and accurate phrase for that: I dislike X.




But Mouse, idomatic phrases usually are somehow dishonest or lazy or facially wrong-  "The exception proves the rule"; "Head over heels in love"; "I could care less"...the list goes on.

Well, lets examine alignment.

As stated, I love the 9 point system, but I know its not for everyone.

But in what way is the 4Ed system better than either the legacy system or a G-U-E or elimination of alignment altogether?

For those who strongly like alignments & all that they imply, the 4Ed system is oddly _partially_ truncated, with the missing branches just begging questions.

For those who dislike alignment or only like them in a minimalist sense, a G-U-E system is straightforward and intuitive in a way 4Eds system will never be, and elimination of alignment would probably be preferred.

Instead, we get the "change for change's sake" chimaera of a system- neither as robust as the 9 point system, nor as straightforward or simple as G-U-E or alignment elimination.

The reason for the change?  Presumably to satisfy the vocal horde (percentage unknown) who disliked the 9 point system.  But as stated, there were at least 2 other more intuitive and satisfying options out there...and they're pretty obvious ones, at that.


----------



## gribble (Sep 15, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I wasn't saying that no Str 10 fighters exist, just that the hypothetical character in this example does not exist.



Apologies for misquoting you then - I must have missed the hypothetical example.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 16, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But Mouse, idomatic phrases usually are somehow dishonest or lazy or facially wrong-  "The exception proves the rule"; "Head over heels in love"; "I could care less"...the list goes on.
> 
> Well, lets examine alignment.
> 
> ...




Because the designers felt there was insufficient actual distinction between Neutral Good and Chaotic Good, as well as between Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil. They felt the new system was a more accurate representation of genuine viewpoints while still covering a full spectrum of behaviors. 

I mean, I _disagree_. I prefer the 9 point system, even as I applaud them for making the truly phenomenal decision to largely divorce alignment from the mechanics of the rules themselves. It means I can ignore their new system and stick with my old one - or I can create my own blend of the two, adding 'unaligned' to the 9 point system, or any other changes I want. 

But even as I fundamentally disagree with them, and feel the 5 point system is not as robust as the 9 point system... I can acknowledge the logic behind it. They've given their reasoning - they released entire books based around explaining some of these changes - and I think there is a certain level of intellectual dishonesty to try and paint the situation as 'change for the sake of change', and thus dismiss their work in that fashion. 

They had a reason for the change they made, and they genuinely believed the new system was an improvement on the old. You feel differently, and it is entirely reasonably to do so. It is _not_ reasonable, however, to not just disagree with their opinion, but to pretend it doesn't exist... and to then use that very claim as evidence for a flaw in the design process. 

Find another example, and maybe I'll agree with your underlying premise. But as it is, I think a lot of what you claim to be 'change for the sake of change' are simply decisions they made that you disagree with, and are either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge the reasons they had for those decisions.


----------



## Betote (Sep 16, 2009)

I think 90% of the changes that have been labeled here as being "for the sake of change" are just "for the sake of sales".

I mean, if the Great Wheel was still in place, there'd be no need for a 4e Manual of the Planes when we already have the 3.x Planar Handbook. Same thing for Forgotten Realms. Without a Spellplague that changed everything, who'd boy a new campaign setting book when the 3e one was (and I say it as a FR hater) absolutely awesome?

If you want to sell something, you have to make it different enough from the exact same thing you were selling the year before.

And that's a god thing for us, the gamers. The 3.x Planar Handbook and FRCS haven't spontaneously combusted, so you get to choose your favourite flavour and stick to it, or try a different one each time


----------



## Imban (Sep 16, 2009)

I think the changes to carrying capacity fell under, if not "change for the sake of change", then "change we didn't even think about for a minute".

I mean, I assume they didn't change carrying capacity from sense to nonsense *just* because it would be different, but it's the only change in 4e that I absolutely can't defend from any standpoint - it needed either less text (say, just its first line, where it says "You can carry whatever you want as long as the GM doesn't think it's stupid") or less change (you know, just using the version from 3e), but instead they went and supplemented "well you can carry anything within reasonable limits" with rules that technically prevent dragonborn from riding on any kind of mount ever.


----------



## drothgery (Sep 16, 2009)

Betote said:


> Same thing for Forgotten Realms. Without a Spellplague that changed everything, who'd boy a new campaign setting book when the 3e one was (and I say it as a FR hater) absolutely awesome?




There were no Eberron-shattering events, and the 3.5 ECS was pretty awesome. Nonetheless, a lot of people (including me) purchased a 4e Eberron Campaign Guide, and rather more picked up an Eberron Player's Guide. Becuase the 4e book was also awesome, and introduced just enough new and interesting stuff and 4e stats for old stuff to keep things interesting.


----------



## Betote (Sep 17, 2009)

drothgery said:


> There were no Eberron-shattering events, and the 3.5 ECS was pretty awesome. Nonetheless, a lot of people (including me) purchased a 4e Eberron Campaign Guide, and rather more picked up an Eberron Player's Guide. Becuase the 4e book was also awesome, and introduced just enough new and interesting stuff and 4e stats for old stuff to keep things interesting.




For Eberron, I can understand people buying the 4e Player's Guide, as it has all the crunchy stuff. The Campaign Guide is maybe a bit more streamlined, but of less use to someone who already has the 3.x Campaign Setting.

Nevertheless, it's a very good idea from WotC having their Campaign Guides mostly crunch-free. I can see myself buying the Dark Sun one to use it with Pathfinder or Labyrinth Lord.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 17, 2009)

Imban said:


> I think the changes to carrying capacity fell under, if not "change for the sake of change", then "change we didn't even think about for a minute".
> 
> I mean, I assume they didn't change carrying capacity from sense to nonsense *just* because it would be different, but it's the only change in 4e that I absolutely can't defend from any standpoint - it needed either less text (say, just its first line, where it says "You can carry whatever you want as long as the GM doesn't think it's stupid") or less change (you know, just using the version from 3e), but instead they went and supplemented "well you can carry anything within reasonable limits" with rules that technically prevent dragonborn from riding on any kind of mount ever.




From my viewpoint, they changed it from a terribly complex system to a simple and intuitive one. The 3rd Edition version was just difficult to deal with, and required constant looking up to keep track of how burdened a character was. The 4E version is easy to handle and calculate, and lets you preserve the concept of a carrying capacity without having it completely bog down the game. 

I mean, I'm rather amazed to see this called out as an example of 'pointless change', given that my friends and I viewed it as one of the most pleasing surprises of 4E. I can certainly accept it if you disagree with that - but to, again, simply dismiss my viewpoint (and that of the designers who felt this was an improvement) as nonexistent... well, it bothers me. 

Rather than address the opposing viewpoint, this entire argument attacking 'change for the sake of change' is simply an excuse to dismiss the other side without conceding them a right to their own opinion. It is almost worse than the 'bad-wrong-fun' approach: you aren't just saying that my opinions on gaming are wrong, you are trying to claim they don't even exist. 

Now, that might not be your goal - you might genuinely be unaware that there is an opposing viewpoint on these matters. And that is the very problem with this argument. "Change for the sake of change" gets thrown around constantly, and the majority of the time, it just isn't true. People have _reasons_ for what they do - as has been pointed out, when the designers made the decisions they made, they genuinely felt they were making good decisions. You can disagree with them and feel they made mistakes, but there really is no basis in reality to simply assume they were just randomly altering things without reason. And until one does put aside the 'change for the sake of change' viewpoint, and acknowledges that the designers may have had reasons for what they did, it makes it impossible to have a genuine discussion about those changes themselves.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 17, 2009)

Double post, my apologies...


----------



## Imban (Sep 17, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> From my viewpoint, they changed it from a terribly complex system to a simple and intuitive one. The 3rd Edition version was just difficult to deal with, and required constant looking up to keep track of how burdened a character was. The 4E version is easy to handle and calculate, and lets you preserve the concept of a carrying capacity without having it completely bog down the game.




Um, the 4e one also doesn't make any sense. Yeah, it's easy to calculate, but the numbers you get are pretty much actively ridiculous for anything but a human, which defeats the point of being easy to calculate.

Seriously, "you can carry whatever you want within reason" is actually a pretty good rule. It's the one I use in my games, even!

...but it's backed up by the 3e carrying capacity rules if we really have an argument about what's within reason, and would be even in 4e, because in 4e whenever the numbers for it actually come up, the game is worse off for it.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 17, 2009)

Imban said:


> Um, the 4e one also doesn't make any sense. Yeah, it's easy to calculate, but the numbers you get are pretty much actively ridiculous for anything but a human, which defeats the point of being easy to calculate.
> 
> Seriously, "you can carry whatever you want within reason" is actually a pretty good rule. It's the one I use in my games, even!
> 
> ...but it's backed up by the 3e carrying capacity rules if we really have an argument about what's within reason, and would be even in 4e, because in 4e whenever the numbers for it actually come up, the game is worse off for it.




"Whenever the numbers come up"? I've never run into _any _issues with the 4E version, and find it a vast improvement over the 3rd Edition rules. I rather like the fact that average/low Strength characters aren't automatically burdened by carrying basic gear, but while having high Strength still feels like a benefit, allowing you to carry extra items and a variety of gear. Looking it over, it seems like the issue is that it works great for PCs but doesn't work well for dealing with mounts. That's a fair enough complaint - though I still prefer it over the previous version, which was a problem for the characters themselves. 

...but, the thing is, the fact that each of us have reasons to like one system over the other is _exactly my point_. There are reasons the changes were made, and there are people that find it a better system than the previous one. Dismissing those viewpoints as nonexistent by claiming it was 'mindless change' just doesn't fly. It's a cheap tactic to try and wave away the opposing viewpoint, and I'm reasonably certain the same is true on every other topic people are claiming were simply 'changes made for the sake of change.'


----------



## Imban (Sep 17, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> "Whenever the numbers come up"? I've never run into _any _issues with the 4E version, and find it a vast improvement over the 3rd Edition rules. I rather like the fact that average/low Strength characters aren't automatically burdened by carrying basic gear, but while having high Strength still feels like a benefit, allowing you to carry extra items and a variety of gear. Looking it over, it seems like the issue is that it works great for PCs but doesn't work well for dealing with mounts. That's a fair enough complaint - though I still prefer it over the previous version, which was a problem for the characters themselves.




Well, it's a basically a problem whenever you're carrying anything other than basic gear. For the same reason that dragonborn can't ride horses, carrying the corpse of your dragonborn comrade requires a wagon, while even a wimpy halfling can pretty much just fold another halfling up and stick him in his pack.

And, well, if all you're going to be doing is carrying basic gear plus or minus a few extra swords, "whatever your GM thinks is fine" is really all the rules you need.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 18, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, lets examine alignment.
> 
> As stated, I love the 9 point system, but I know its not for everyone.
> 
> For those who dislike alignment or only like them in a minimalist sense, a G-U-E system is straightforward and intuitive in a way 4Eds system will never be, and elimination of alignment would probably be preferred.




And if this thread is at all indicative, it seems as if alignment has been functionally eliminated in actual play.

I don't know how much time, effort and ink went into the 4Ed alignment redesign, but it seems as if they could have saved it all by simply saying "Let's ditch it!"


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 18, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And if this thread is at all indicative, it seems as if alignment has been functionally eliminated in actual play.
> 
> I don't know how much time, effort and ink went into the 4Ed alignment redesign, but it seems as if they could have saved it all by simply saying "Let's ditch it!"




Well... that is basically what they did. They divorced alignment from the game mechanics, which was simply a great idea. Most gaming groups I knew already largely handled alignment in their own way - now they could do so without having to worry about how that affected actual alignment-based spells/classes/etc. 

4E then _also_ presented a different base alignment system than before... but that really strikes me as almost an afterthought. Some people use it, some people stick with the 9 point system, some people toss it out entirely - just like things were before, but without any impact for each group on the mechanics of the system itself. 

The 4E alignment spectrum... I could take it or leave it. But the real change, the separation of alignment from mechanics - that was an effort _well spent_ by the design time, and one I'm definitely grateful for.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 19, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> Well... that is basically what they did. They divorced alignment from the game mechanics, which was simply a great idea.




You forgot the "IMHO."

But that does support my point: if it has no game effect, _why is it even a part of the game?_


----------



## Imban (Sep 19, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You forgot the "IMHO."
> 
> But that does support my point: if it has no game effect, _why is it even a part of the game?_




I think it's a bit of White Wolf game theory, actually - by putting alignment in there and having it explicitly do nothing, you reinforce that alignment should not exist in any meaningful form in 4e more than if you just removed it, because then there's a clear objection to houseruling it back in.


----------



## Tallifer (Sep 20, 2009)

"Change for the sake of change" means that someone changes something because they think new is always better, because he is bored with the old way. Like someone who changes the living room decor each year. While some few people may admit to such frivolity, almost everyone else will defend themselves, inventing spurious reasons for the change.

It is customary for people to use this idiom when they think that the other person did not have a sufficient reason for change. Again, very few will use this charge of change for the sake of change honestly, prefering to ignore any arguments in favour of change.

In short, the idiom is evocative and rhetorical, but it has little value in debate.


----------



## MrMyth (Sep 21, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You forgot the "IMHO."
> 
> But that does support my point: if it has no game effect, _why is it even a part of the game?_




Because this game involves something called roleplaying, and Alignment provides guidance on a character's principles and how they interact with the rest of the world? 

4E has a default alignment for those that want to use it, but the removal of the mechanical connections means that groups can go with the default or use their own as they see fit. It is two pages in the 'Roleplaying' section of the character creation chapter, and I think that is a perfectly fine amount of focus to devote to it. Note that there are then 2-3 pages on deities - which not every group will use, and countless home campaigns will throw out entirely. 

That doesn't mean it isn't useful to have those ideas and basic elements there for those who do want to use them, or simply want to have a default to work from.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 21, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But that does support my point: if it has no game effect, _why is it even a part of the game?_



I think it's as simple as this: some folks find alignment to be a handy tool when it comes to thinking about/defining the moral disposition of their characters (note: I'm not one of those people. Alignment offers me, well, zilch. I don't have trouble cooking up interesting characters and conflicts without it, but if some people find alignment helpful, cool.)

Frankly, so long as the official D&D alignment rules aren't as god-awful as the ones found in AD&D, which penalized _character development_ --want a play out a redemption arc for your PC? It'll cost you XP!-- I'm a happy camper. I still can't quite figure out what the old alignment change rules where meant to accomplish.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 21, 2009)

Tallifer said:


> "Change for the sake of change" means that someone changes something because they think new is always better, because he is bored with the old way. Like someone who changes the living room decor each year. While some few people may admit to such frivolity, almost everyone else will defend themselves, inventing spurious reasons for the change.
> 
> It is customary for people to use this idiom when they think that the other person did not have a sufficient reason for change. Again, very few will use this charge of change for the sake of change honestly, prefering to ignore any arguments in favour of change.
> 
> In short, the idiom is evocative and rhetorical, but it has little value in debate.



I wonder if your use of font is also a change for the sake of change, e.g. there is insufficient reason for it? 


Spoiler



No disagreements with the content of your post.


----------

