# Are people still mad about . . .



## evildmguy (Feb 1, 2010)

I am curious about whether ENWorlders are still "fired up" about things from the past or if they laugh about it and don't care anymore?  I am talking about threads, not edition wars, about something that they cared a lot to post about it when it first came out.  

For example, before 4E was released, White Wolf started a "Graduate your game" idea that would give free Exalted books for 3.X DND PHs.  There were people who weren't happy about it.  Are you still unhappy?  What is your reaction to it now?  

With regards to the Graduate Your Game, I found it amusing then but am glad I didn't do it.  I like the concepts and fluff of Exalted but think it would play better under DND 4E than it's rules because I find the system too complex.  I have casual gamers and the thought of trying to get them to read all of the Charms as well as explain the combat system frightens me!  Even I think it's a lot but I also haven't played it much.  I'm sure if I did, I would get to know the names of the Charms and how they work better.  

Anything else people remember?  What is your reaction to it now?  

edg


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 1, 2010)

I wouldn't say I'm mad, but I remain bewildered and exasperated that WotC stopped selling the PDFs of the TSR-era material.


----------



## havard (Feb 1, 2010)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> I wouldn't say I'm mad, but I remain bewildered and exasperated that WotC stopped selling the PDFs of the TSR-era material.




Seconded. This is my biggest frustration with the RPG industry to this day. 

I also used to be frustrate about edition wars, but I guess those days are over 

Havard


----------



## Caerin (Feb 1, 2010)

havard said:


> Seconded. This is my biggest frustration with the RPG industry to this day.
> 
> I also used to be frustrate about edition wars, but I guess those days are over
> 
> Havard




Thirded. Actually, pdfs in general, not just TSR.


----------



## darjr (Feb 1, 2010)

Let me chip in on the whole pdf issue.

WotC, imho, the PDF's need to come back.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 1, 2010)

Caerin said:


> Thirded. Actually, pdfs in general, not just TSR.



Fourthed. Not to mention (oops) the extremely flimsy, dodgy excuse they exploited in timely fashion. That kinda made it *worse*, just for the record.

And the rest of the smokescreens, claims, etc. Yeesh. What a trail they left.

But, to get to the actual question posed by the OP, no, that stuff (and other things like it) don't bother me one bit, day to day. It hasn't crossed my mind whatsoever for quite some time. . . until this thread reminded me once more.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 1, 2010)

You'd have to list the things I've been fired up about.  Almost by definition, if the things I'm no longer fired up about, I've forgotten that I ever really was fired up about it, but the things I'm most likely to remember are precisely those things that still raise a certain amount of passion with me.

Things I know I'm still 'fired up' about...

1) Killing the print editions of Dragon and Dungeon.

2) Completely dissing their own past products in their marketing of 4e.  Related note, completely dissing the fans of their past products (anyone remember 'Cloudwatching'?)

3) Printing a 4e of a game which is utterly incompatible with the prior three editions of the game to the extent that is fundamentally a different game.  

4) The ludicrous statements of some 4e defenders concerning what 4e would be like - I remember alot of arguments about how great the Skill Challenge system was going to be - and the absolute faith that they had in a product they'd never seen.  

It was going to be out of the box a rules light, stream-lined, flexible, narrativist, minature optional system with very fast but still cinematic combat resolution but that also made resolving complex situations with skills as natural and as important as combat, and if you didn't believe that then you were a mental defective.  And the skill challenge system was going to let you use any skill at any time, and it was going to make everyone in the party to contribute all the time to everything, and if you couldn't see the beauty of the coming system you shouldn't disagree with the people that did, because _you_ hadn't seen the rules.  If there was anything which you didn't understand from the previews, that was ok because it was going to be the best written edition of D&D ever with the most compelling fluff, the best DM advice, and in fact the DM advice would be impossible for anyone to read the rulebooks and be a bad DM or design a bad encounter.  Because of course, there are no past issues that were the result of bad DMing, because everyone knows a good game system can't be run badly.  And the rules would be such that it would prevent rules lawyers from being pricks.  And the math would be fixed so that everything would just work with no need for DM input, because the designers said so.  And the modules were going to be the best ever written for D&D ever, so that you'd totally forget about all that badwrongfun of earlier editions, which let's face it, sucked.  And, it was also at the same time going to change nothing about how you played D&D because it was going to be the same game, and an even smaller change than between 3e and 2e, and heck, even if it didn't support playing D&D the same way then that was ok because D&D was always badwrongfun anyway.

5) The entirely pointless and contridictory new alignment non-system, and the other trashing of old fluff just for the sake of trashing it.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 1, 2010)

I'm well hacked off by a hobby/ industry that spends more time on tearing chunks out of itself over stuff like Edition Wars instead of concentrating on getting kids off videogames and onto tabletop, scientifically destroying the puerile claims against tabletop RPGs, (occult or gang related come to mind), and getting RPGs into homes, schools and libraries.

That may sound very preachy but it's entirely selfish at root: a few more years of videogames, and RPGs borrowing from videogames, and there'll be no more open-ended play, 'don't take ourselves too seriously' players left to form a decent group. Tabletop RPGs won't disappear but they'll all be mechanical battle systems where sessions are 'won' by experts and a tiny number of apprentices determined to learn the experts 'dark arts'.


----------



## Deset Gled (Feb 1, 2010)

I'll never be too happy with the stealth errata in the 3.5 Rules Compendium, but I give WotC credit for coming through with the last couple pieces of 3.5 web-published errata they promised.  Considering this happened after the 4e release, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.


----------



## underthumb (Feb 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 2) Completely dissing their own past products in their marketing of 4e.




Full disclosure: I'm not a huge fan of D&D 4e, but I keep hearing comments like yours.

Was their marketing _really_ like that? My (admittedly dim) memory is only of comments about what they were trying to fix with 4e. Which makes sense, given that they were performing a mechanical overhaul. Why should that anger you? Maybe the direct quotes you're thinking of would provide a better background.



> Related note, completely dissing the fans of their past products (anyone remember 'Cloudwatching'?)




I just searched for "cloudwatching" and found the original post by Davd Noonan. I find no "dissing the fans of their past product." The post was about how 4e was coming, and that the varied reactions to it (good, bad, inbetween) were not changing its schedule. That is, the arrival of 4e was non-negotiable. Thus, he suggested that players and DMs play more consciously, and try to to see what was working/not-working in their own games. Presumably, this is a good thing to do if there's a new edition coming out, and you need to decide whether to switch.



> 4) The ludicrous statements of some 4e defenders concerning what 4e would be like .... It was going to be out of the box a rules light, stream-lined, flexible, narrativist, minature optional system with very fast but still cinematic combat resolution but that also made resolving complex situations with skills as natural and as important as combat, and if you didn't believe that then you were a mental defective.




Those are indeed strong claims. Do you have any examples?



> 5) The entirely pointless and contridictory new alignment non-system, and the other trashing of old fluff just for the sake of trashing it.




I too am sad at the trashing of old fluff.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 1, 2010)

my hat of d02 still know no limits


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 1, 2010)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> I wouldn't say I'm mad, but I remain bewildered and exasperated that WotC stopped selling the PDFs of the TSR-era material.




They're waiting for the iPad


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 1, 2010)

underthumb said:


> Full disclosure: I'm not a huge fan of D&D 4e, but I keep hearing comments like yours.
> 
> Was their marketing _really_ like that?




That is my impression of their online marketing.  A typical piece would be:

1) Designer explains why 3e sucked, giving some example of play experience you never suffered from.
2) Designer makes unfounded claim about how some mechanical change in 4e will fix the problem, even when said problem to the extent it existed was attributable to encounter design, adventure design, or other DM choices.



> Those are indeed strong claims. Do you have any examples?




Linking to past flame wars, some of which got locked, and calling out individuals specifically is probably not a good idea.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 4) The ludicrous statements of some 4e defenders concerning what 4e would be like - I remember alot of arguments about how great the Skill Challenge system was going to be - and the absolute faith that they had in a product they'd never seen.




You're still angry about random forum posts over a year later? Really?

Talk about holding a grudge! I can't even remember most of the posts I read or was in over a year ago.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 1, 2010)

underthumb said:


> Was their marketing _really_ like that?




Partly.  In retrospect, I feel that they were trying to be funny, and trying to point to 4e as an "evolution" rather than a revision, but it backfired.



> I just searched for "cloudwatching" and found the original post by Davd Noonan. I find no "dissing the fans of their past product." The post was about how 4e was coming, and that the varied reactions to it (good, bad, inbetween) were not changing its schedule.




That is a blog post that completely ticked me off on first reading and which, on later reading, made me realize I had totally (1) overreacted, and (2) missed the point.



> Those are indeed strong claims. Do you have any examples?




LOL.  Although the benchmarks have moved, there are still people on EN World and elsewhere with this attitude, IMHO.  

Of course, it isn't limited to just 4e.  

Prior to the advent of 4e, if you brought up the same problems the 4e designers did about 3e, you were imagining it.  Likewise, if you enjoy an earlier version of the game, it is all nostalgia and rose-coloured glasses.  Mind, if you enjoy an earlier version of the game, your comments about 3e and 4e are likely to be just as irrational.

I think that gamers tend to be defensive about their hobby, and tend to see any criticism as a form of attack, whether justified or not.  And, while I am not going to point to examples, I am sure that they are easy enough to find.  

I am sure that some of my own posts could be used as examples.

(Which is *not* something I am proud of.)


RC


----------



## Shazman (Feb 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> You'd have to list the things I've been fired up about.  Almost by definition, if the things I'm no longer fired up about, I've forgotten that I ever really was fired up about it, but the things I'm most likely to remember are precisely those things that still raise a certain amount of passion with me.
> 
> Things I know I'm still 'fired up' about...
> 
> ...




Yeah, what he said.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 1, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Yeah, what he said.




Seconded.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 1, 2010)

yeah, the Dungeon and Dragon magazine license recall along with other license recalls were a deal breaker for me.

i haven't bought a product from WotC since feb 2006.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 1) Designer explains why 3e sucked, giving some example of play experience you never suffered from.




With all due respect, I think you took it more personally than intended.  Also, I must have had a different play experience than you, because most of what they said sucked seemed to suck in my own games.

I don't know if I would have chosen the same solutions if I was designing my own edition of D&D that they did, but certainly I agreed on the problem.

If I was designing the new edition and I said:  "Why would anyone think that dealing with all the minute details of a monster required slavish devotion to rigid formulas was necessary to make custom monsters for your adventures?  We've come up with the superior design philosophy of breaking a monster into object oriented components that determine how a monster interacts with the PC's.   Rather than worrying about the idea that monsters of a particular type (such as humanoid) must all have the same type of hit dice or feat slots, we simply have you swap out an attack, utility, or defense component with another. 

Would you view that paragraph as me being insulting to people who prefer the 3e way of doing things, or would you see it as expressing my excitement for what I genuinely feel is a better way to do things?    Sure, I'm not particularly being gentle on the people that designed the monster rules, but I don't think that is the same as being insulting.    

The only thing I would think of as out and out insulting would be the infamous "bullet to the head" podcast where they were getting rid of various setting flavor elements that they didn't like.   Not the "bullet to the head" comments specifically, but the mocking tone "we're from the plane of neutral good".  I however don't think it was particularly malicious or in the spirit of trying to tear down the work of others, they were just having fun at the expense of something they didn't like.


----------



## Janx (Feb 1, 2010)

I became happier once I found where the ignore button was.  Only one person in it, but all the threads I was cranky in got instantly more pleasant to discuss alternative viewpoints.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Feb 1, 2010)

Aeolius said:


> They're waiting for the iPad




Awesome. Sign me up. We've begun a process of removing/converting all Flash-based content from our site, just in preparation for this.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 1, 2010)

underthumb said:


> Was their marketing _really_ like that? My (admittedly dim) memory is only of comments about what they were trying to fix with 4e. Which makes sense, given that they were performing a mechanical overhaul. Why should that anger you? Maybe the direct quotes you're thinking of would provide a better background.




I think RC is right. They were really just trying to be funny, hip, and informal in their marketing. The trouble is, as I see it, that's marketing designed to look non-professional and amateurish and it's not easy to pull it off well with out looking completely *UN*professional.




underthumb said:


> I just searched for "cloudwatching" and found the original post by Davd Noonan. I find no "dissing the fans of their past product."




I looked up the old thread on it and it's quite clear that Celebrim reacted strongly against it then. It doesn't look to me much like an obvious diss, but I think Celebrim's take on it indicates he found Noonan's blog post extremely patronizing. While not everyone may agree, I can totally see how it can be interpreted as patronizing.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 1, 2010)

The only thing that keeps me mad is that I absolutely can't have a conversation with some folks about 4e (and to a lesser extent, gaming itself) with some folks without it turning into something extremely negative. It's even worse because a lot of these folks are the sort that I used to get along with and agree with quite well.

I'm quite willing to accept the notion that 4E isn't the be-all-end-all game, and there's still a lot to discuss about gaming that is edition proof, but it seems like sometimes you just can't do that without getting into a fight.

Aside from that, I'm far enough away from my 3X days that I don't really even think about it anymore.

--Steve


----------



## Chrono22 (Feb 1, 2010)

The misleading statements about the GSL, and the final result still bother me. It just seems so wrongheaded, having such a restrictive license. It hurts more than it helps.
And the PDFs thing also bothers me. It's a blatant attempt to force previous editions players into getting on 4e, by making the previous editions sourcebooks harder to acquire.

Basically WotC's marketing strategies have been disrespecting d&ds fanbase. Statistics might not show it, but gamers are one of the most perceptive and technically proficient buyers. Treat them like cattle and spurn their requests and you _will_ suffer lost sales. That's not to say 4e was not a success. But how much more of a success could it have been?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 1, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I think RC is right.





I didn't read past this.  








Seriously, though, I am sorry for my part in edition wars.  While I really dislike 4e as a system, and some of WotC's business decisions over the last couple of years, I am happy that the game exists for those who like it.

RC


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 1, 2010)

ferratus said:


> With all due respect, I think you took it more personally than intended.  Also, I must have had a different play experience than you, because most of what they said sucked seemed to suck in my own games.




Obviously, we all had different gaming experiences.  

I don't intend to argue with you about specifics.  It would just end up in a flame war.

I will say that the phrase, "With all due respect..." and related phrases like, "I don't mean to be rude..." and "I don't want to say this..." are pet peeves of mine that do tend to get me really irritated.  The reason is, whenever someone says, "With all due respect...", you can gaurantee that whatever they say next won't be with due respect.  Personally, I see all such phrases as an attempt at self-deception, and believe that they actually make any statements that you make more insulting than if they were left off.

Your writing reads better and is less condescending and is less personal if it just begins with: "I think you took it more personally than intended."

And as for that charge, all I can say is, I didn't design 3e, so I wasn't taking it personally, but did very much see it as saying, "Third edition sucked and so we are going to make radical changes."  The way I did respond to that was to realize that however good of a game 4e was going to be, it wasn't going to be a game for me.  And, while I confess that its totally selfish of me to want WotC to make a game entirely for me and which caters to my exact taste, I also humbly protest that that is what customers normally want.



> If I was designing the new edition and I said:  "Why would anyone think that dealing with all the minute details of a monster required slavish devotion to rigid formulas was necessary to make custom monsters for your adventures?




I would have put the emphasis on that statement entirely differently than you did:  "_Why would _anyone think that create a monster required slavish devotion to rigid formulaes, or that complete adherence to minute details you didn't particularly care about was essential and necessary?"  For example, exactly why do you need to spend 10 minutes distributing skill points to a creature you never intend to make skill checks with?  Why is it that we need explicit permission to ignore aspects of monster creation when we are in a rush?  Why are you having a headache over whether the save DC of the effect should be 16 or 17?  Why not just pick one that represents a suitable challenge to your PC's and go with it?



> Would you view that paragraph as me being insulting to people who prefer the 3e way of doing things, or would you see it as expressing my excitement for what I genuinely feel is a better way to do things?




Neither.  I would see it as missing the point.  I would argue that there is nothing at all simple about the mechanics of most 4e monster entries, and that the process of 4e monster creation is no easier than 3e monster creation.   All that really seems to have changed is your response to how exacting you have to be about the details.  What's changed for me is have to go from a system that I'm fully comfortable working within, to gaining mastery of a completely new system.   Half an hour trying to produce convert my ideas into even the most basic 4e monsters convinced me that was not insignificant effort.

I never needed permission to use the rules in whatever way I was comfortable with, so telling me that I could wasn't innovation from my perspective.



> however don't think it was particularly malicious or in the spirit of trying to tear down the work of others, they were just having fun at the expense of something they didn't like.




There was it turns out quite a bit that they didn't like, that I did, and vica versa.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 1, 2010)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> I wouldn't say I'm mad, but I remain bewildered and exasperated that WotC stopped selling the PDFs of the TSR-era material.




Agreed.



Celebrim said:


> 3) Printing a 4e of a game which is utterly incompatible with the prior three editions of the game to the extent that is fundamentally a different game.




This was 4E's main appeal to me, though I could understand why this can make others upset. My purely selfish reasons is that I get a game more akin to Earthdawn that gets the support that only D&D can garner.



Celebrim said:


> 4) The ludicrous statements of some 4e defenders concerning what 4e would be like




One of my passionate responses to this day is related to this point. 4E haters would attribute things to the game that don't really exist. Usually through a combination of ignorance and their own tainted perceptions of what the game has become. I know this causes friction all around. Because 4E haters accuse 4E defenders of the same thing. In most cases though the 4E defender does have experience with 3E to state what problems they had with 3E. But then a 3E defender comes along to tell you that your problem didn't exist because they never encountered it.



Celebrim said:


> 5) The entirely pointless and contridictory new alignment non-system, and the other trashing of old fluff just for the sake of trashing it.




Yep. I'd rather they would have dropped it entirely or kept all 9. But it doesn't bother me much since it has no real effec on the game.



Raven Crowking said:


> Partly.  In retrospect, I feel that they were trying to be funny, and trying to point to 4e as an "evolution" rather than a revision, but it backfired.




Another thing that bugged me. I liked the humor behind it all. These are real people working on the game, not corporate robots. They never anticipated that too many gamers take their fun so seriously and would rage against the machine so fiercely. Or they did anticipate it and decided it would be fun to poke the bear.



SteveC said:


> The only thing that keeps me mad is that I absolutely can't have a conversation with some folks about 4e (and to a lesser extent, gaming itself) with some folks without it turning into something extremely negative. It's even worse because a lot of these folks are the sort that I used to get along with and agree with quite well.
> 
> I'm quite willing to accept the notion that 4E isn't the be-all-end-all game, and there's still a lot to discuss about gaming that is edition proof, but it seems like sometimes you just can't do that without getting into a fight.
> 
> Aside from that, I'm far enough away from my 3X days that I don't really even think about it anymore.




This.



Celebrim said:


> I will say that the phrase, "With all due respect..." and related phrases like, "I don't mean to be rude..." and "I don't want to say this..." are pet peeves of mine that do tend to get me really irritated.  The reason is, whenever someone says, "With all due respect...", you can gaurantee that whatever they say next won't be with due respect.  Personally, I see all such phrases as an attempt at self-deception, and believe that they actually make any statements that you make more insulting than if they were left off.




I find it irritating (ironically) that people can't take others posts here with a grain of sugar. Yes, a grain of *sugar*. I'm sure 90% of us do not intend to be rude, but the media we communicate over makes it hard to convey tone. I try to think of us as buddies chatting around a table. But then someone takes something I said as if I just killed their dog.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 1, 2010)

SteveC said:


> The only thing that keeps me mad is that I absolutely can't have a conversation with some folks about 4e (and to a lesser extent, gaming itself) with some folks without it turning into something extremely negative. It's even worse because a lot of these folks are the sort that I used to get along with and agree with quite well.
> 
> I'm quite willing to accept the notion that 4E isn't the be-all-end-all game, and there's still a lot to discuss about gaming that is edition proof, but it seems like sometimes you just can't do that without getting into a fight.
> 
> ...




It extends farther than online.  The release of 4e fractured the game community in real life.  maybe it is just an anomaly, but there is a game group at my game store that completely split and have not spoken to each other in a year.  A person that used to be my friend won't play in my Mutants and Masterminds game anymore because I won't run 4e.  Mind you I am over it.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 1, 2010)

I'm still mad as hell about Wo  aljjt  lakd tjek ... _[post lost due to transmission error]_


----------



## nedjer (Feb 1, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> It extends farther than online.  The release of 4e fractured the game community in real life.  maybe it is just an anomaly, but there is a game group at my game store that completely split and have not spoken to each other in a year.




wtf? and why are three year olds allowed to play RPGs anyway.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 1, 2010)

Wow.  Great responses!  Thanks!

I agree that I wouldn't mind getting some old TSR stuff in PDF format, especially when I started my Dark Sun campaign a while back!  That would have been cool.  

I really do see 4E as being a different game than 3E.  I also see that it didn't replace it.  However, it's a tough call for a company to do something new and not support the old anymore.  So, no support for 3E is a tough call.  Further, putting out something with a very different style than all previous versions of 3E was a tough call, I would think.  They either had good market data or a feeling of which way to go, if indeed 4E is a success.  

I like 4E better than 3E but don't think less of 3E.  But, with where I am at in my life and the style of game I like to play, 4E better fits my style.  So, I am happy and for more 4E style stuff.  

I don't like "with all due respect" either and try to cut it out of my speech and writing.  As someone else said, just say it rather than prefacing it.  

I also don't like it when I can't have a good conversation about any system with others because the medium of the internet doesn't let me convey all that I mean with only words.  

But, I do like ENWorld and I keep coming back to see what everyone thinks as well as get good ideas!  

Thanks!

edg


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I will say that the phrase, "With all due respect"...are *pet peeves of mine* that do tend to get me really irritated.






Celebrim said:


> The reason is, whenever someone says, "With all due respect...", *you can guarantee* that whatever they say next won't be with due respect.  Personally, I see all such phrases as an attempt at self-deception, and believe that they actually make any statements that you make more insulting than if they were left off.




If it is a pet peeve of yours, then by definition you cannot guarantee that whatever they say next won't be with due respect.  Because, as you admit, it's a pet peeve of *yours*, not everyone.  If everyone always meant it that way, then few would ever use it, it wouldn't be known as a pet peeve but as a universally known rude phrase, and it would probably be against the rules here.

Some people actually mean due respect when they say that phrase.  Your assumption that no people mean it is more a reflection of it being a pet peeve of yours.  You're sensitive to the phrase, and take it as a negative.  But, that sensitivity does not guarantee the intent of the speaker is what you assume it is.  Your assumption may well be false.  You don't really know what the speaker actually means when they use that phrase.

I find, if I don't know the speaker's intent, that it is best to assume a positive or neutral interpretation, rather than assuming a negative one.  It helps communication.



> Your writing reads better and is less condescending and is less personal if it just begins with: "I think you took it more personally than intended."




To you.  To me, his statement didn't look in any way condescending.  It looked to me like he was trying to say "I respect your opinion as my fellow peer, and hope you will listen to my differing opinion with the same level of respect".  I don't think it's fair to apply your pet peeve to what others say.  It's your issue.  That's what makes it a "pet" peeve.  It's a personal vexation, not a universal one.


----------



## The Ghost (Feb 1, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Another thing that bugged me. I liked the humor behind it all. These are real people working on the game, not corporate robots. They never anticipated that too many gamers take their fun so seriously and would rage against the machine so fiercely. Or they did anticipate it and decided it would be fun to poke the bear.




Yeah, the marketing was a big turnoff for me. I still cringe every time I think about the Gnome is a Monster, Rawr! video.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 1, 2010)

The Ghost said:


> Yeah, the marketing was a big turnoff for me. I still cringe every time I think about the Gnome is a Monster, Rawr! video.




I loved that video!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 1, 2010)

Don't forget that, in earlier editions, the beholder was apparently a wuss.  Until he _*finally*_ became a solo monster.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Feb 1, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> AI try to think of us as buddies chatting around a table. But then someone takes something I said as if I just killed their dog.



Good point.  I wish people would remember this. Brings to mind that old public service announcement:

*Croaky the Bugbear* says:
"Remember kids:  every time you post in an edition war thread, _*I kill a puppy*_!"​Things that have bugged me:

Losing access to PDFs of older material still bothers me a lot.  I've never played the classic modules, and would like to have copies of them to read through-- and even play when I take another shot at older editions.

The whole GSL episode annoyed me at the time, but doesn't so much now.

.


----------



## Axolotl (Feb 1, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Don't forget that, in earlier editions, the beholder was apparently a wuss. Until he _*finally*_ became a solo monster.



Which was especially irritating since he was really nerfed for 4e. Yeah looking back we overreacted to the marketing but at the time I remember feeling that it was patronising and arrogant.

The only gripes I still feel are the lack of TSR PDFs and the death of Planescape.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 1, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> If it is a pet peeve of yours, then by definition you cannot guarantee that whatever they say next won't be with due respect.




That doesn't logically follow.  Just because something particularly peeves me, doesn't mean that the thing that peeves me isn't annoying.  It only means that my responce to it is sharper or stronger than average.  I knew someone who was particularly peeved by people not returning shopping carts to the stalls and instead leaving them in random parking places.  It's not my pet peeve.  I easily control my anger or discontent in such situations.  He however does not.  

By admitting it is a pet peeve, I'm only admitting that I take it more seriously than I probably ought to.  However, just as my friend is right that its usually a sign of being lazy and disrespectful to other shoppers when you don't walk the 5 yards to the shopping cart stall, so it is that I am right that the motivating factor behind qualifiers like, "I don't mean to be rude..." or "With all due respect..." is to give yourself permission to be rude or disrespectful.   We say thing likes, "I don't mean to be rude...", precisely because we know we are going to be rude.  If we didn't mean to be rude, either we'd actually not say the thing we claim we don't want to say, or else we'd be oblivious to potential offense and not qualify our next statement.



> "If everyone always meant it that way, then few would ever use it..."




This also doesn't follow.  The implication of your statement is that humans are noble actors that never intentionally mean to be rude.  Any cross section of experience with humanity indicates that they frequently don't consider the feelings of others, that they frequently attempt to dominate and hurt others, but that very few people like to admit that this is what they are doing even to themselves.   So phrases like, "With all due respect...", however they might have gotten started, continue to be in parlance because they let you give yourself permission to be rude, while passive-aggressively signaling to the group that you are justified in the rudeness you know are about to engage in.  



> ....it wouldn't be known as a pet peeve but as a universally known rude phrase, and it would probably be against the rules here.




Again, this doesn't follow.  Humanity is not fully self-conscious.  Plenty of things occur which aren't understood by everyone who observes them.  Much time can pass before people really start thinking about what they are saying, and negative thought and speech patterns can continue even when they have been roundly discredited or criticized.  The idea that we are likely to achieve universal agreement on anything seems highly suspect to me.

However, I refer you first to the urban dictionary entry on the phrase:

Urban Dictionary: with all due respect

And secondly, to the canon of JRR Tolkien, who was fond of having his characters say things of this sort whenever they were really going to put their foot in their mouth.  In particular, pay attention to Bilbo's dialogue with Gandalf at the beginning of the Hobbit where Gandalf calls him on it, and Sam's dialogue with Faramir that begins, "I don't mean to put myself foward..."



> Some people actually mean due respect when they say that phrase.




I've seen no examples of that.  The most charitable interpretation I can give the phrase it it means, "Forgive me for being offensive/contridictory, but I feel I must", which is I suspect the original intent of the phrase probably from a time where there was more rigid class stratification and people could get in serious trouble for speaking above their station.  In modern contexts and usage, it never IME the equivalent of "forgive me for what I'm about to say because I know it is wrong...", rather it is the equivalent of an aside to the audience which means, "Forgive me of the verbal hiding I'm about to give this jerk because he deserves it..."

Actually, I think I can give an even more exact accounting of how the phrase passed into general usage.  My suspicion is that the phrase originally was used as a common written descriptor when describing how some two third parties of different social standing had interacted.   When the lower social party had contridict the one of higher social standing, it was essential to write of the exchange that the lower party had contridicted the other with "all due respect".  Otherwise, someone reading the account might think ill of the lower party.   Somehow, gradually this usage must have moved inside the quotation marks, where in my opinion it clearly doesn't belong.

In any event, I strongly encourage you not to use this phrase where respect due to social status is still required.  If you say, "With all due respect..." to a judge, don't be surprised if he or she blows his or her top.

Since I can convince no one of anything by means of words alone, I leave it to the reader to decide how he means it, particularly when he finds himself using it in the future.


----------



## Wik (Feb 1, 2010)

Meh.  The only thread that still bugs me after it went the way of the Dodo was that whole "Reveille/Frukathka" debacle.  

The rest is all just water under the bridge.  People wind up on my Ignore list for a few days, and then are taken off.  Easy Peesy.


----------



## Wereserpent (Feb 1, 2010)

Wik said:


> Meh.  The only thread that still bugs me after it went the way of the Dodo was that whole "Reveille/Frukathka" debacle.




As someone who considered Rev a friend, I was never mad about this, but he certainly did cause some trust issues to arise on the forum for a while.


----------



## Voadam (Feb 1, 2010)

Things I'm still annoyed at.

No NPC and pc wealth charts in the 3e srd.

Later monster books did not make it into the 3e srd.

3e WotC pdfs were ridiculously expensive.

4e pdfs were just expensive enough for me not to get them.

4e is GSL and not OGL.

4e does not have a rules srd you can use to play the game, just a reference list of things you can publish under the GSL. Quick start rule set only does half the job.

Can't buy any TSR/WotC pdfs.

Can't download the pdfs I legally bought if I get a crash.

d20 logo ending informally nonsense.

Stuff about modelling stats being better than playing a concept.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 1, 2010)

*well*

I remain disinterested in doing business with Hasbro, but since Paizo meets my needs these days, I'm not actively 'mad' about anything.

If anything, things turned out pretty well.  Because 4E occupies the young gamers/casual gamers/MMRPG influenced gamer niche so fully, Paizo is incentivized to keep a more traditional, old school approach.  So now we have two systems, and one of them works fine for me.

Ken


----------



## Beginning of the End (Feb 1, 2010)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> I wouldn't say I'm mad, but I remain bewildered and exasperated that WotC stopped selling the PDFs of the TSR-era material.




Taking the OD&D manuals off the market soured me and at least a dozen other people locally who were all playing in an open table OD&D game.



Celebrim said:


> That is my impression of their online marketing.  A typical piece would be:
> 
> 1) Designer explains why 3e sucked, giving some example of play experience you never suffered from.
> 2) Designer makes unfounded claim about how some mechanical change in 4e will fix the problem, even when said problem to the extent it existed was attributable to encounter design, adventure design, or other DM choices.




Ditto. The fact that their "solutions" often turned out to make the problem worse was, of course, hilarious.

Mearls writing a blog post critiquing 2nd Edition for elevating a particular style of play above other styles of play -- after months of participating in a marketing campaign and writing core rulebooks which literally described ways that people had been playing the game for 30+ years as "no fun" and "wrong" -- was simply the surrealist cherry on the top of it all.

4th Edition appears to have been specifically designed to be a completely different roleplaying game from previous editions (which all largely played like each other). The 4th Edition marketing campaign seemed explicitly designed to create a massive schism in the marketplace. And the legal wranglings around 4th Edition appear to have been designed in an effort to make the pre-4th Edition version of D&D as unavailable as possible.

All of those things annoy me.

I also think 4th Edition is a net negative on the gaming industry: It's a narrowly-designed game which appeals to fewer people. The "everything is core" marketing approach raises the level of confusion and/or the perceived entry cost for newcomers. This, coupled with the continued lack of a non-preview version of the game packaged and sold like other games (a decision which dates back to TSR), has made D&D less accessible than ever before.

Since D&D remains the #1 entry product for the industry, this is really bad news.

This also annoys me.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 1, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I remain disinterested in doing business with Hasbro, but since Paizo meets my needs these days, I'm not actively 'mad' about anything.
> 
> If anything, things turned out pretty well.  Because 4E occupies the young gamers/casual gamers/MMRPG influenced gamer niche so fully, Paizo is incentivized to keep a more traditional, old school approach.  So now we have two systems, and one of them works fine for me.
> 
> Ken




It's posts like this one that starts e-wars and end threads.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 1, 2010)

*How WotC affected third party publishers...*

From a publisher's point of view (I wasn't one then, but am now...):

1. The whole GSL debacle - which is less monstrous in the newest version, but still not a good thing to 3pp's. And not just the GSL itself, but issuing the license, while not releasing the game for a whole year after that killed many small publishers, since by signing the first GSL, they couldn't produce previous edition material, yet had no new edition to support. I'm not saying this was intentional, but if it was, how deviously well designed to kill the small publisher as it did.

2. DDi - I constantly hear all the love of this. Yet, what about the 3pp's that did sign the GSL, and the newest one who want to support 4e, but can't get their monsters and other support material into the DDi.

Again, not saying any of this is intentional, but it "seems" that WotC's public voice stating we want 3pp support does not coincide with how they treat them, and still prevent them from being active supporters.

Since at the time, I was considering becoming a small 3pp - all of this forceably sent me to Pathfinder or other directions - far away from 4e.

I'm now happily a Pathfinder RPG 3pp with my first adventure out, second and third on the way, and possibly a new setting and adventures to follow, which is already in the works.

I'm glad I wasn't sucked into trying to be a 4e 3pp - it would probably have killed any possibility to ever being a publisher.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I am right that the motivating factor behind qualifiers like, "I don't mean to be rude..." or "With all due respect..." is to give yourself permission to be rude or disrespectful.   We say thing likes, "I don't mean to be rude...", precisely because we know we are going to be rude.  If we didn't mean to be rude, either we'd actually not say the thing we claim we don't want to say, or else we'd be oblivious to potential offense and not qualify our next statement.




Please do not speak for me or others.

When I say "with all due respect", I mean "with respect for your views and position as my peer, I hope you will give me the same courtesy when I say..."

You are not right, all of the time, about you knowing the private motives of all others who say that phrase.  



> I've seen no examples of that.




How could you possibly know?

You would have to know the private unspoken motives of every person who every said the phrase, to know there were no examples.

You're assuming you know, but stating that you are certain about it.



> The most charitable interpretation I can give the phrase it it means, "Forgive me for being offensive/contridictory, but I feel I must", which is I suspect the original intent of the phrase probably from a time where there was more rigid class stratification and people could get in serious trouble for speaking above their station.  In modern contexts and usage, it never IME the equivalent of "forgive me for what I'm about to say because I know it is wrong...", rather it is the equivalent of an aside to the audience which means, "Forgive me of the verbal hiding I'm about to give this jerk because he deserves it..."




You can give it a more charitable interpretation.  I suggested one.  So now, once you heard the alternative possibility, you CAN give it a more charitable interpretation.  You're choosing to not do so.



> In any event, I strongly encourage you not to use this phrase where respect due to social status is still required.  If you say, "With all due respect..." to a judge, don't be surprised if he or she blows his or her top.




I probably have said it to a judge, and nobody ever blew their top.  I've definitely said it to other attorneys, and nobody ever reacted the way you are reacting.

I encourage you to consider the possibility that some people do not mean that phrase in a negative manner at all, and in particularly it's unfair for you to assume a negative thing was meant by it in this thread.

If I ever say it to you, I assure you, it will not be intended in a negative manner.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 4) The ludicrous statements of some 4e defenders concerning what 4e would be like - I remember alot of arguments about how great the Skill Challenge system was going to be - and the absolute faith that they had in a product they'd never seen.



Oh God that sounds like me.  

In my own (meager) defense, I readily admit that I was misled by some developer posts which implied that 4e would embrace various 'indie RPG' elements that I love so much.

Since then, I have learned to take their words well-salted.

I cringe when I recall tilting at the lists with you and others, armed with nothing but wishful thinking and my soured memories of 3e. 

A sadder and a wiser fanboy I woke the morrow morn.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 2, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Things I know I'm still 'fired up' about...
> 
> 1) Killing the print editions of Dragon and Dungeon.
> 
> ...




Celebrim has channeled some of my feelings as well.  Preach on!

There are other things that bug me still, some of which bug me so much I don't talk about them here anymore because of what those discussions did to my blood pressure.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 2, 2010)

I'm still kinda hacked off about 2 of Celebrim's 5 issues, but I don't think about them very often.

That is, #3 (lack of backwards compatibility) is still a thorn in my side and #1 (no more Dungeon & Dragon magazines) is something I miss sometimes, but am learning to live without.  #1 does mean I don't go to FLGS nearly as often, which is sad . . . 

As for one issue Celebrim doesn't mention -- WOTC pulling pre-4e PDF's, that issue makes me "not mad, just disappointed", since I've found a substitute source that makes me even more happy than a PDF would have done.  That is, buying old stuff from Noble Knight.  99% of the time, they have what I'm wondering about, and I prefer real printed versions anyhow. 



Celebrim said:


> Things I know I'm still 'fired up' about...
> 
> 1) Killing the print editions of Dragon and Dungeon.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2010)

About the only thing that still bugs me is the ludicrous assertion of how insulting the dev-blogs were.  Looking back at those posts, particularly the "Cloud Watching" one, it takes some serious mental gymnastics to take offence at those.

Ever since the end of the print Dungeon and Dragon, people were going out of their way to take offence at anything and everything that WOTC had to say.  It didn't matter if they were right, wrong, or indifferent.  If they said something, the peanut gallery had to be up in arms yet again that they were "insulting the fan base".

The worst part is that years later, people STILL contend that these posts were so insulting.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 2, 2010)

More good stuff!  Thanks!  

I vaguely remember the GSL but since I am a consumer, not producer, it didn't affect me.  I will say this.  I bought Mouseferatu's extra player's guide but was the only one in the group.  Since it wasn't in the DDI, and we all use that, it didn't get used.  It's too bad.  

Further, except for a few handout type things from Paizo, I don't really look at 3pp products anymore.  They might be great but I really like the electronic support.  So, I don't use them.  

I don't like the comparison of 4E to MMOs.  While I can't argue there are some ideas that look like they are from the MMO world, most of what they used fits my style and group well.  But, this isn't a computer.  It's a pen and paper game and when I find something doesn't work, the players don't wait for a patch!  

I do agree that 4E is a different game.  I think that while I could play older editions, if I was DMing them, a lot of 4E would influence how I run it.  No, 4E isn't perfect nor am I claiming that.  But I do think it's a completely different game.  

Thanks!

edg


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 2, 2010)

haakon1 said:


> As for one issue Celebrim doesn't mention -- WOTC pulling pre-4e PDF's, that issue makes me "not mad, just disappointed", since I've found a substitute source that makes me even more happy than a PDF would have done.  That is, buying old stuff from Noble Knight.  99% of the time, they have what I'm wondering about, and I prefer real printed versions anyhow.




Half Priced Bookstore for me.  I don't like pdf's much.  Nothing beat paper for reading, and by the time you pay to get a pdf printed up it costs as much or more than a book.

I've managed to get quite a few nice treasures from used bookstores.  None of them are in collector's condition, but they are still more servicable than I find pdf's.

So it's hard for me to get excercised about them taking away something I've no real interest in anyway.


----------



## outsider (Feb 2, 2010)

I'm still ticked that people consider character roles a mmoism despite the fact players had been acknowledging roles in D&D for decades.  It's like everybody that disliked 4e developed selective amnesia.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 2, 2010)

I was ticked about a lot, the only thing I really am still and most likely always will be ticked off about is the treatment of the Forgotten realms. Mainly killing the setting I have used for 16 or more years and replacing it with a whole new setting with some of the same names.

A note: I am not here to debate the new realms setting or start a war over it, that's how I feel and nothing anyone says is gonna change it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 2, 2010)

Voadam said:


> 4e is GSL and not OGL.




I still feel a minor bit ticked that some people feel *entitled* to an OGL (not necessarily you Voadam as I could see one being annoyed without feeling entitled). Yes, the 3E OGL was a great and generous gift. But how many game publishers offer that? Not TSR for OD&D, BD&D or AD&D. I'm not aware of any other publisher that opened their game to the point that others were distributing their material verbatim for profit. Others please step in and name any other game than 3E D&D that was truly OGL that wasn't already a d20 derivative. I'm sure others exist, but I'm also sure there aren't that many.


----------



## Siberys (Feb 2, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> 3) Printing a 4e of a game which is utterly incompatible with the prior three editions of the game to the extent that is fundamentally a different game.




This just honestly confuses. I mean, I can understand the other points, even if personally I think they're exaggerated or unfounded; they're mostly subjective things, so, whatever. C'est la vie.

This, though - Why? 3e wasn't backwards-compatible with 2e (anyone who's tried a conversion knows that). Even PF requires a bit of work to update, and that had BC as a specific design goal. Why expect the new edition to be backwards-compatible?

::

The only thing I'm still ticked about is the DDI suite - I want it to better handle house rules and 3PP materials. The PDF debacle bugs me, too, I guess. I may not play 2e, but it's a great fluff mine.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> About the only thing that still bugs me is the ludicrous assertion of how insulting the dev-blogs were.  Looking back at those posts, particularly the "Cloud Watching" one, it takes some serious mental gymnastics to take offence at those.




It doesn't take any "mental gymnastics" to be offended when someone calls something you liked, "the antithesis of fun" in a blog post, and later in a podcast multiple devs mock other things you like, while apparently not knowing much about it to begin with. It's frustrating and the sort of thing that makes someone go from "not interested in the game, not my thing" to "I actively dislike this game".


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 2, 2010)

A gentle reminder, not aimed at anyone in particular: remembering some of these things is enough to make anybody cranky. Please don't take that out on other people in this thread.

Thanks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 2, 2010)

Siberys said:


> This just honestly confuses. I mean, I can understand the other points, even if personally I think they're exaggerated or unfounded; they're mostly subjective things, so, whatever. C'est la vie.
> 
> This, though - Why? 3e wasn't backwards-compatible with 2e (anyone who's tried a conversion knows that). Even PF requires a bit of work to update, and that had BC as a specific design goal. Why expect the new edition to be backwards-compatible?




Well, 2Ed was fairly compatible with 1Ed, for instance.

And as for 3Ed, while it wasn't perfectly compatible, 

WotC was kind enough to publish a 2Ed to 3Ed conversion manual that made conversion very easy
The degree of incompatibility from 2Ed to 3Ed was MUCH less than from 3.X to 4Ed.

By way of example, I'm part of a group that has run a campaign since 1986 or so.  We converted...well, really, _alloyed_ 1Ed & 2Ed, and when 3Ed came out, we started converting to that.  Now, I know I had problems with converting some multiclassed PCs, but none with single or dual classed ones.  And even the multiclassed ones didn't really lose functionality or capabilities, they just lost a class because the remaining ones did the job nearly as well.

There simply wasn't a PC we couldn't model in 3Ed out of the box.  The only question was fine details.

But converting from 3.X to 4Ed?  Not a chance!

Certain classes & races that were either core to D&D from the beginning or were part of the earliest supplements of 1Ed given were simply absent from 4Ed until much later.  To convert would have required extensive retconning of the campaign because certain events couldn't have happened the way they actually did.  Gone were the Druids & Barbarians, the Gnomes, most Planetouched and others.  Gone were certain abilities- combat or non-combat- that were key to the campaign's history.  Gone were PCs with more than 2 classes...especially those who weren't half-elves.


----------



## Roman (Feb 2, 2010)

Let's see: 

1) Terminating print Dragon and Dungeon magazines 

I was surprised to hear it happen at the time, since I heard these were gaming staples, but I was never a subscriber to either of these, so I was not personally mad at all. That said, I could definitely sympathize with those who were subscribers. 

Verdict: NOT MAD 

2) 4E having a GSL rather than an OGL 

I was definitely negatively surprised at the time, though mad might be a strong word. Since it turned out I don't like 4E, I don't care and am no longer mad. 

Verdict: NOT MAD 

3) The GSL fiasco of delays, hyper-restrictions, more delays... 

By this time it was clear I didn't like 4E, but I was still entertaining a vague hope that maybe, just maybe an enterprising third party publisher will fundamentaly transform the game into something I would like, so I was a little dissapointed at the delays/restrictions. Even before the license was released in semi-usable format for third party companies, however, I came to the conclusion that I am better off just stopping to follow it altogether - I still have other D&D editions to use - no need to waste my time following the possibility of a fundamental transformation of the 4E system of which the likelihood was very small indeed. 

It also seemed like an underhanded way of clearing the field of publishers without taking the blame - just drain them through delays... 

Verdict: NOT MAD 

5) 4E marketing 

Yes, I did find it somewhat patronizing, though not nearly as much as a lot of other gamers. I never took it too personally, though, and made a conscious effort to write it off as bad marketing. 

Verdict: NOT MAD 

6) 4E ditching of legacy D&D flavor 

I was definitely not amused by this. Mad is really too strong a word to use about anything that happened on these messageboards for me - I did not, for example, go about participating in flame wars about this or other issues, but I still don't like it. I recognize that I have alternatives and that's great, but WotC, particularly with its D&D brand, with its market power, creates a general millieu and trends for gaming, including the biggest player network, so the nature of the most recent version of D&D still matters and there is the emotional attachment to D&D as well. Thankfully, the version of D&D I prefer is still going strong - I assumed that it was more threatened with disappearance, but it appears more resilient than I thought (though no doubt time will continue to take its toll on the player base), which makes me less uncomfortable about favoring an out of print game (+ there is Pathfinder) meaning I am somewhat less concerned with 3E versions/variants being pushed out of the gaming scene in the near future. 

Verdict: DISAPPOINTED 

7) Making 4E a mechanically entirely and radically new game, rather than it building on the previous editions 

Pretty much the same as point number 5.

Verdict: DISAPPOINTED

Well, there we have it. If WotC came up with a product I were interested in, yes, I would still be willing to buy it, but that remains unlikely, as the next version of D&D is likely a long way off and in any case, it is by no means certain if I would find it better than the previous editions and I would need a lot of convincing that the new direction had been fundamentally altered.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I still feel a minor bit ticked that some people feel *entitled* to an OGL (not necessarily you Voadam as I could see one being annoyed without feeling entitled). Yes, the 3E OGL was a great and generous gift. But how many game publishers offer that? Not TSR for OD&D, BD&D or AD&D. I'm not aware of any other publisher that opened their game to the point that others were distributing their material verbatim for profit. Others please step in and name any other game than 3E D&D that was truly OGL that wasn't already a d20 derivative. I'm sure others exist, but I'm also sure there aren't that many.




There is the FATE system, which is based on FUDGE and is used by _Spirit of the Century_. It's out there with an OGL that's not based on 3e. Same with Mongoose's version of _Traveller_.

For me, it's less a case of being actively ticked as much as being terribly disappointed. WotC was such a breath of fresh air after TSR's IP and online presence management style. And then with 3e, they made a terrifically ballsy move of making much of it open content. Much of what has happened since then with 4e, despite big changes in the mechanics, seems a retreat from bold leadership. The fact that I don't really like most of the mechanical and setting changes is just icing on the cake. WotC isn't the same company that knocked my socks off a decade ago.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Others please step in and name any other game than 3E D&D that was truly OGL that wasn't already a d20 derivative. I'm sure others exist, but I'm also sure there aren't that many.




Action!
Dominion Rules
Donjon
FUDGE
FATE 2e
Myriad
Shadows
Spirit of the Century (Fate 3e)
The Shadow of Yesterday (Solar System) 
vs. Monsters
Wushu Open

I've excluded games with licenses that forbid commercial development. Interestingly, two of the above games predate the OGL.


----------



## Siberys (Feb 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, 2Ed was fairly compatible with 1Ed, for instance. [et cetera, snipped for brevity]




To be fair, I'm coming from the viewpoint of someone who is really flexible with fluff, and who likes to homebrew. A player of mine wanted a soulknife, for example. We made him an avenger, filed off the divine stuff, and called his weapons mind blades. No need for a whole soulknife class. And before PH2 came out, we might have done that with the rogue. I might have done gnome using halfling stats, druid using the cleric class, barbarian using fighter or ranger, etc.

So, conversions weren't a problem for me - I never tried direct conversions anyways. Someone who _was _ trying to do that _would_ be stymied. But the idea I always seem to get from those who, like Celebrim, were disappointed with 4es lack of backwards compatibility is that they seem to expect to be able to use their older books for more than just fluff mines.

I'm certain I came across that sentiment a few years ago, though I'm not sure if Celebrim holds that viewpoint - 'backwards compatibility' is a vague enough phrase to create confusion over the 'net. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, after all. That's just what I always seemed to get out of it - "I've already spent so much on D&D products that'll be useless with the new edition! Why couldn't it be backwards compatible?" was quite common, as I recall.

Eh, it's not a big deal in the end. C'est la vie, as I said before. *shrug*

EDIT: On the GSL/OGL thing, I'd have certainly liked a more open license, but considering the Mongoose pocket manuals and things like Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, etc. I see where WotC is coming from.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> There is the FATE system, which is based on FUDGE and is used by _Spirit of the Century_. It's out there with an OGL that's not based on 3e. Same with Mongoose's version of _Traveller_.




The Mongoose Traveller rules are actually released under _the_ OGL (i.e, the Open Game License Version 1.0a used for D&D 3x).


----------



## billd91 (Feb 2, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> The Mongoose Traveller rules are actually released under _the_ OGL (i.e, the Open Game License Version 1.0a used for D&D 3x).




The big point I was trying to make is that neither is a d20-based game, based on WotC's SRD. They have their own, different, rules so it's not like either is riding the coattails of someone else who has already put their rules out there for public use.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> The big point I was trying to make is that neither is a d20-based game, based on WotC's SRD. They have their own, different, rules so it's not like either is riding the coattails of someone else who has already put their rules out there for public use.




Well, obviously, the Mongoose Traveller rules aren't d20-derived, but the entire open license _absolutely_ came from D&D 3x. The rules largely came from GW. And it _did_ have a d20 incarnation released under the OGL. So, no, they weren't really riding WotC's coattails directly, but they were riding _somebody's_.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 2, 2010)

I think the big issue with backwards-compatibility has nothing really to do with the manuals, rather the adventures. You can't really use a 2e rules handbook and apply to 3e directly without lots of work. Transitioning characters from one system to the next, while still lots of work, was less so than trying frankenstein a previous edition ruleset with the next.

However, with just slight tweaking one can easily play an 1e or 2e adventure using 3e rules (same is true for Pathfinder rules) - change some monster stats, replace NPCs with more appropriate to current rules version, some trap and spell mechanics changes, but that's it.

Trying to do that using 4e is problematic at best. Pacing is different, the mindset is different. You could use an old map, perhaps, but the adventures need radical changes to be compatible.

2e and 3e adventures aren't part of a fluff mine, rather they are aspects of the D&D game which is concrete.

There is really very little compatibility between 4e and any adventure from previous editions. That's the major backward-compatibiliy issue for me.

In the end to both my posts in this thread - was I mad, eh irritated sometimes, flumuxed at others, but I'm not bothered anymore. 4e is not my game - no offense to anyone who likes it, that's just me and my gaming group. Its really a non-issue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 2, 2010)

Siberys said:


> To be fair, I'm coming from the viewpoint of someone who is really flexible with fluff, and who likes to homebrew. A player of mine wanted a soulknife, for example. We made him an avenger, filed off the divine stuff, and called his weapons mind blades. No need for a whole soulknife class. And before PH2 came out, we might have done that with the rogue. I might have done gnome using halfling stats, druid using the cleric class, barbarian using fighter or ranger, etc.
> 
> So, conversions weren't a problem for me - I never tried direct conversions anyways. Someone who _was _ trying to do that _would_ be stymied. But the idea I always seem to get from those who, like Celebrim, were disappointed with 4es lack of backwards compatibility is that they seem to expect to be able to use their older books for more than just fluff mines.
> 
> ...






gamerprinter said:


> I think the big issue with backwards-compatibility has nothing really to do with the manuals, rather the adventures. You can't really use a 2e rules handbook and apply to 3e directly without lots of work. Transitioning characters from one system to the next, while still lots of work, was less so than trying frankenstein a previous edition ruleset with the next.
> 
> However, with just slight tweaking one can easily play an 1e or 2e adventure using 3e rules - change some monster stats, replace NPCs with more appropriate to current rules version, some trap and spell mechanics changes, but that's it.
> 
> ...




For us, who had been playing the same campaign since the 1980's, it wasn't the adventures, it was the rules- we simply couldn't convert our PCs right away, something we were able to do previously.  In order to play 4Ed, we would be forced to start anew.

Don't get me wrong- that old campaign wasn't the only one we had active.  Nearly everyone in that group was active in at least one 3.X campaign of some sort.

The problem was, even for those campaigns, there was no possibility of changeover- in each campaign, someone had something that couldn't be brought over.

Even changing fluff as you did with the soulknife doesn't get around how the nature-themed classes were largely not in 4Ed out of the gate.  Altering a Druid or Barbarian to one of the classes in the first 4Ed PHB leads to jarring dissonances...which pale in comparison to the issues faced by people whose races had been excised.  The characters simply wouldn't play the same, feel the same...and the campaign history would definitely not look the same.

And to be perfectly clear, it wasn't just the vets who were put off by this.  Even some of the more casual players were displeased with the radical changes.  Just as they were learning how to really get their characters to run on high octane, along comes the new system with terminology, math and fluff that just didn't resonate with what they knew about their established characters.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 2, 2010)

Why don't you folks with your MAD skills! Buy back Wotc from Hasbro's hands, and call it day.

Less mad, more action!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 2, 2010)

Hey...that's an idea!

I have $22.43 to spare- anyone else?


----------



## Wik (Feb 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hey...that's an idea!
> 
> I have $22.43 to spare- anyone else?




I have a one dollar american bill that I found on the grungy floor of a strip club saturday night... oh, and I also have a toonie, three quarters, and maybe a couple of dimes.

...is that enough to buy the spellthief?


----------



## Chris Knapp (Feb 2, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> However, with just slight tweaking one can easily play an 1e or 2e  adventure using 3e rules  (same is true for Pathfinder rules) - change some monster stats, replace  NPCs with more appropriate to current rules version, some trap and  spell mechanics changes, but that's it.
> 
> Trying to do that using 4e  is problematic at best. Pacing is different, the mindset is different.  You could use an old map, perhaps, but the adventures need radical  changes to be compatible.



In my experience, NPC creation and Spell compatibility between 1/2E and 3E were pretty drastic, and were some of the more difficult aspects of adventure conversion. I had a heck of a time converting my stuff over. Converting from 3E to 4E is also a challenge. But, converting from 1/2E to 4E is much simpler than from 1/2E to 3E for me. I guess I never really got my mind around 3E's mechanics. I think it has much to do with the fact that I love 4E and am motivated to build with it. 3E felt like a chore from day 1. I do agree that 4E made it much more difficult to convert our PC's over from 3E. From 1/2E to 3E was a snap concept-wise, just maybe not mechanics-wise. Again, this probably reflects upon the fact that I never cared that my own PC couldn't be converted 100%. Heck, as long as my "upgraded" character had the same name and still swung a sword or used a magic stick, the details behind it were inconsequential.


----------



## Votan (Feb 2, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Half Priced Bookstore for me.  I don't like pdf's much.  Nothing beat paper for reading, and by the time you pay to get a pdf printed up it costs as much or more than a book.
> 
> I've managed to get quite a few nice treasures from used bookstores.  None of them are in collector's condition, but they are still more servicable than I find pdf's.
> 
> So it's hard for me to get excercised about them taking away something I've no real interest in anyway.




While I agree with this in general, the PDFs had two nice aspects:

1) It was possible to obtain otherwise very rare gaming material (stuff with a limited print run, for example).  SO playing things like Planescape was more viable

2) It gave me confidence that one could recruit new players to older edition games as they had a reliable way to obtain books or source material (if interim measures, if nothign else)

So, even if it as an overall good decision, it was not something that I enjoyed.  I actually lost PDFs in a computer crash not realizing that the PDFs had been withdrawn and assuming my back-up plan was re-downloading.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 2, 2010)

Absolutely the only thing that still annoys me is how (what I perceive as) half truths and untruths about the whole run-up and release of 4E still get perpetuated as gospel years later. That's about it, and is more of a general bugbear of mine that anything specific to the hobby.

Overall the game (whatever edition) and this board seem pretty healthy lately.


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 2, 2010)

I'm still mad at Paizo for _this_: 

'No, we *aren't *going to reprint the 3.5 SRD and only create new stuff when it's needed to make it a complete system (e.g. provide "alternative" charts for stat point buy and XP progression). Here's what we're doing instead:



			
				Monte Cook's alternate twin reviews Pathfinder RPG said:
			
		

> _You see, while some of the changes are merely revisions, many are also completely different rules. Despite what Paizo has said, there are conversion issues between 3.5 and Pathfinder RPG (your half-orc barbarian is going to be a fairly different character in PF-RPG). Many of the changes, some of them even good ones, are ones I would never have allowed in a "revision," but only in a new edition.
> 
> Allow me to clarify. If I were in charge of the world (or at least D&D), I'd make sure that in a revision, there were no actual rules changes that could retroactively alter a character or a campaign. Changing the price of magic item, clarifying an unclear rules, even adding a new piece of equipment or tweaking a spell is not going to significantly alter anyone's character or campaign. But if I'm running a 3.5 game (which I am) and was going to switch over completely to Pathfinder RPG (which I'm not), I'd have to deal with all kinds of changes to the game. Suddenly the most important spells in the game no longer cost XP. Suddenly dwarven armor is made of adamantite rather than mithral. Suddenly devas are called angels. Suddenly half-elves are the best diplomats in the game. And so on. You might see some or all of these things as good changes -- some of them are. But in my definition of a revision, they just shouldn't be part of these books. This is 4th Edition material. I shouldn't have to change my campaign just because Paizo needed cash._


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 2, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> I'm still mad at Paizo for _this_:
> 
> 'No, we *aren't *going to reprint the 3.5 SRD and only create new stuff when it's needed to make it a complete system (e.g. provide "alternative" charts for stat point buy and XP progression). Here's what we're doing instead:




That's a stupid quote, because none of those are changes.

The barbarian is somewhat different, but remains the same class.  You're still using a two handed weapon and throwing yourself into a rage, and all the flavor has gone unchanged.

Half elves in 3.5 were supposed to be the best diplomats.

Dwarven items were supposed to be made of adamantite.

And the devas -> Angels change is such a small issue it's laughable.

When you can point me out a solid and concrete change between 3.5 and Pathfinder that alters the world, by all means, list it.  But none of those things fall under that category.  It's just whining for the sake of whining.


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 2, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> That's a stupid quote, because none of those are changes.




I certainly haven't made the effort to update every detail in the original quote (from 2003, and linked to) to bring it up to 2009. 

Doesn't change the fact that by Paizo's own admission the change from 3.5 to PFRPG is on the same scale as from 3.0 to 3.5. 

If the situation of 2003, then, is structurally analogous to the current one, the same spectrum of reactions is legitimate. Personally, I didn't like the way WotC handled the "revision" in 2003, and I don't like how Paizo handled it either. And if one thought that Cook's analysis of the situation in 2003 was salient (as I did), it would be incoherent not to extend it to the exact same situation in 2009. If anything, I recommend people to read the review I linked to (preceding my fabricated quote) and re-assess the current situation with respect to it.

I'm fine if not everyone agrees with that review or agrees to extend its conclusions to the situation generated by the 3.5/PF split. But I'd rather that any disagreements on this be expressed without resorting to derogatory language ("Stupid", "Whining just for whining's sake.") as that makes it harder to take the opposing view seriously.


----------



## Starfox (Feb 2, 2010)

ferratus said:


> ...most of what they said sucked [in 3E] seemed to suck in my own games.




It is kind of funny that I used to agree very much with this but have changed completely since then. When 4E was coming I was very fed up with 3E and wanted to get away from it. That's why I embraced 4E back then. Now, having played a but of 4E, 3E doesn't seem so bad anymore. I guess its all about perspective.

PS: My next campaign is probably going to be completely homebrew.

Back on topic, a few things from the edition change still bothers me, but that's not really things that appeared on ENworld - it was in the 3E and 4E games, ENworld was just the forum to discuss it in.


----------



## aurance (Feb 2, 2010)

I was never really that fired up about any of this stuff.

Back in 1988 I found a Red Box to play with. Anything after that is just gravy. I mean, no company really "owes" me anything, eh? I either buy their product or I leave it, it's as simple as that, I don't stress about it. Especially about a hobby.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 2, 2010)

Well, most of the things mentioned in this thread do not anger me, at least in a historical sense. Most of my annoyances are things happening now, like the stealth edition war (people sniping at each other in one-line posts) and other things, but hey, an ignore list is a good thing and I make good use of it. 

Looking at historical things, I am glad they did not try to shoehorn 3.5 into 4E and jsut make a few changes, while keeping it backwards compatible. 3.5 is 3.0 is 2E is 1E, as far as I am concerned, an evolution of largely the same system, each edition built on the previous one.

4E took the feel of D&D and made a new ruleset. While I do not think it is perfect, and things could be better, the change was needed, in my opinion. 3.5 took things as far as they could go, and I could not see any more evolution possible. From what I have seen, people who change 3.5 wither 1) make a game justs as complicated (Pathfinder) or simple versions (Castle and Crusades, to name one of many)  

So I am glad for the change, and still play both 3.5 and 4E. 

As for the PDFs, I am still waiting for the other shoe to drop and WOTC to tell us how the older pdfs are going to be available again, and wondering why they needed to alienate that much of their fan base. It  makes sense to say 4E is their MAIN seller, but why di it have to become their ONLY seller. 

Most other points raised in this thread never bothered me much at all even at the time, though most discussions did add to my ignore list.


----------



## avin (Feb 2, 2010)

I'm not "maaaaaad" about anything, but there are some changes that I dont like:

- World of Darkness newest fluff
- 3E inserting wings on the Golden Dragon
- 4E killing yugoloths and fluff in general


----------



## tmatk (Feb 2, 2010)

Not mad, but I can't help but wonder what 'could have been' had the gametable been a reality.


----------



## Perram (Feb 2, 2010)

Things I'm still mad about:

1) 4e's GSL mess.  Yes, I would have prefered that they would have kept the OGL going, but even so, the wreck with the release of the GSL and its delays hurt more than just NOT having an OGL would have.  

2) The PDFs.  Their logic regarding the PDFs of their products was completely flawed, and hasn't done anything to stop piracy of their books.  (And yes, I HATE piracy.)  

3) DDI and its game table.  Dead horse?  Maybe.  I don't believe we will EVER see it released, and string us subscribers along for as long as they did before admitting it?  Horrible.  Yes, EVENTUALLY DDI took a form that is now worth their subscription, but I consider their approach to this whole product as false advertising.

4) My loss of trust for WotC.  After the rediculous amount of double speak, broken promises, and out and out fabrications... I no longer trust anything that WotC says until I see it in action and in my hands.  I think things are getting better now, but I've been burned too many times to let my guard down yet.

5) They would have had another loyal 4e customer if they could have just handled their own launch better.  Instead they gave me enough reasons to look elsewhere.  I'm still mad that I'm NOT a loyal customer of 'D&D' any longer.  I miss being a 'Dungeon Master' and not a game master.

7) The Realms.  I just can not understand why they felt the need to invalidate everything they published for the realms up until 4e.

6) OUTLAW PRESS.  I'm not a T&T player, but I'm still mad that that much blatant theft could go on.  Someone needs to get this guy in court.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 2, 2010)

Wik said:


> I have a one dollar american bill that I found on the grungy floor of a strip club saturday night...





Hey!  That could be mine.  Does it have George Washington on it?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 2, 2010)

Perram said:


> 6) OUTLAW PRESS.  I'm not a T&T player, but I'm still mad that that much blatant theft could go on.  Someone needs to get this guy in court.




I had been unaware of that.  That's.....pretty awful.  


RC


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 2, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> I remain disinterested in doing business with Hasbro, but since Paizo meets my needs these days, I'm not actively 'mad' about anything.
> 
> If anything, things turned out pretty well.  Because 4E occupies the young gamers/casual gamers/MMRPG influenced gamer niche so fully, Paizo is incentivized to keep a more traditional, old school approach.  So now we have two systems, and one of them works fine for me.
> 
> Ken




I agree with this.  I really stopped caring about 4e or what WOTC did after Pathfinder was released.  I think the edition wars settled down once Pathfinder was released.  The edition wars never bothered me.  At least in Game stores for me it was more of a civil debate.  It is only online that I encountered the vitriol.  Maybe because online people just talk to words written on a screen instead of actual people.

IN any case I agree.  There is 4e for the New MMORPG style, and Pathfinder for the more traditional.  All is pretty settled in the game stores now.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 2, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Trying to do that using 4e is problematic at best. Pacing is different, the mindset is different. You could use an old map, perhaps, but the adventures need radical changes to be compatible.




Actually, I'm finding that 2e adventures that I like are easier to convert to 4e than they were to convert to 3e.  The biggest problem with 4e vs. older adventures is the smaller rooms.  If you break formation in 4e, it can be a bad scene.

But there were more group combats in 2e than 3e.  Monstrous humanoids are generally found in groups for example, and monsters worked together more.  In 3e you generally had a party fighting numbers of monsters smaller than your party size, while prior to 2e you had moments of having more or less monsters.  

I actually prefer converted adventures converted from pre-D20 to the actual 4e adventures (for the most part).   The reason being that I think 4e doesn't seem to appreciate the value of the short resolution encounter.   Sometimes coming across a solitary monster, or a weaker encounter is good to move the plot along, or allow you to have the experience of exploring a larger dungeon (over 10 rooms) without having to run back to base all the time.

Now if I was going to convert a 3e adventure, there would be too many speedbumps.  But older adventures which didn't worry so much about making sure an encounter was balanced to level or CR (merely logical for the monster personalities and interesting) do very well with the tougher 4e characters.  You get some speedbumps to be sure, and some very dangerous encounters involving a high level monster thrown in for spice.  However, I've only killed characters with 4e encounters. (They were an Irontooth TPK, hobgoblins and Harpy killed a wizard, tiefling darkblades killed another wizard and there was a TPK in the Well of Demons.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 2, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> IN any case I agree.  There is 4e for the New MMORPG style, and Pathfinder for the more traditional.  All is pretty settled in the game stores now.




I wouldn't call Pathfinder traditional myself.   In many ways it is even more gonzo than 4e is.  The mechanics of Pathfinder are more like 3e I suppose, but the flavour text of the classes and races is pretty much as over the top as 4e's flavour text.   

I'd prefer a game with 4e's mechanics and the modesty of flavour text of earlier editions.  We sort of drifted away from pulp fantasy dungeon crawling and low magic worlds over the decades to high arcana, exotic fantasy and superheroic panache.  Planescape and Spelljammer were the harbingers, 3e tried to take us back to the dungeon but gave up a couple years into its run, and 4e and Pathfinder seem to have made the new flavour the new norm.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 2, 2010)

jdrakeh said:


> Action!
> Dominion Rules
> Donjon
> FUDGE
> ...




Thanks for the list. According to The Encyclopedia of Roleplaying Games there are over 1,300 RPGs in existence. That's right around 1% that are open knowing that your list may not be 100% complete on a world-wide basis, multiple games on the list may fall under the same OGL, the encyclopedia may not be 100% complete (it's missing at least one game I know of), etc. So WotC and the other publishers above did do something great, but it's not the norm and shouldn't be expected.



gamerprinter said:


> There is really very little compatibility between 4e and any adventure from previous editions. That's the major backward-compatibiliy issue for me.






ferratus said:


> Actually, I'm finding that 2e adventures that I like are easier to convert to 4e than they were to convert to 3e.




This is my experience too. I've had great success converting 1E adventures to 4E. I think the pacing of 1E modules fits 4E better than it did 3E.



Haffrung Helleyes said:


> 4E occupies the young gamers/casual gamers/MMRPG influenced gamer niche so fully,




Excuse me? I'm definitely not young, both in actual age and "gaming age." I'm not a casual gamer. And I've never played an MMORPG. Are you intentionally trying to start an edition war? Because you're coming off as very dismissive of a game just because you don't like it.


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 2, 2010)

ferratus said:


> The biggest problem with 4e vs. older adventures is the smaller rooms.




Quite! It's also a problem with modules published for 4E specifically, e.g. _Demonqueen's Enclave _where we even _know _that the cartographer got the dimensions wrong and ended up drawing maps with too confined spaces.

My quick solution to that problem is to pretend that the squares in the original maps (whether 2E or 4E now) don't measure 5 foot but 10 foot. 

You're fine with this rescaling as long as you don't break verisimilitude. Sometimes, adjustments are in order; e.g., if a bed occupies a square in the original map one isn't to assume that the bed now stretches 10 feet in length.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> The worst part is that years later, people STILL contend that these posts were so insulting.




Conversely it can be said, the worse part is that people STILL don't see how they WERE insulting.

MAny boiled down to:  "we fixed the bad fun that was rampant in Third edition.  It will be better for everyone this way.  Trust us."


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 2, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, 2Ed was fairly compatible with 1Ed, for instance.
> 
> And as for 3Ed, while it wasn't perfectly compatible,
> 
> ...




Absolutely!  My campaign has been running since '88.  However I am giving you experience for this:


Dannyalcatraz said:


> well, really, _alloyed_ 1Ed & 2Ed




I use the word alloy everyday with my job and never thought to use it so eloquently to describe what I did with 1st and 2nd edition.

Brilliant use of a word.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 2, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> Conversely it can be said, the worse part is that people STILL don't see how they WERE insulting.
> 
> MAny boiled down to:  "we fixed the bad fun that was rampant in Third edition.  It will be better for everyone this way.  Trust us."





Agreed, alot of "your game must suck if you use this rule" or  'if you us rule x your games are unfun"

I found it very insulting as my games all suck and are unfun so saith the 4e dev team


----------



## Starbuck_II (Feb 2, 2010)

I'm pissed that the makers of the video game Temple of Elemental Evil aren't making a sequel/new game. I loved there combat system, but the game is laggy certain areas are corrupted (Nulb) to save in, etc.

I have to do 10 saves just to get through it so far (that way I lose less when primary saves get corrupted randomly).


----------



## avin (Feb 2, 2010)

Starbuck_II said:


> I'm pissed that the makers of the video game Temple of Elemental Evil aren't making a sequel/new game. I loved there combat system, but the game is laggy certain areas are corrupted (Nulb) to save in, etc.




100% agreed!

Too bad Troika died... worst, too bad Bethesda did FO3 instead of Troika (which worked on the original) guys.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 2, 2010)

ferratus said:


> I wouldn't call Pathfinder traditional myself.   In many ways it is even more gonzo than 4e is.  The mechanics of Pathfinder are more like 3e I suppose, but the flavour text of the classes and races is pretty much as over the top as 4e's flavour text.




I have to agree with that.  With Pathfinder, I did not read the flavor text as much as the crunch.  I don't need flavor text at this point, so I did not give it a proper analysis.  The rules allow me to run the classes with 1st through 3rd edition flavour so I am satisfied.  I have not done a comparison of the flavor, but maybe now I will


ferratus said:


> and 4e and Pathfinder seem to have made the new flavour the new norm.




Sadly I must agree


----------



## ferratus (Feb 2, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Quite! It's also a problem with modules published for 4E specifically, e.g. _Demonqueen's Enclave _where we even _know _that the cartographer got the dimensions wrong and ended up drawing maps with too confined spaces.




I'll have to remember that.  



> You're fine with this rescaling as long as you don't break verisimilitude. Sometimes, adjustments are in order; e.g., if a bed occupies a square in the original map one isn't to assume that the bed now stretches 10 feet in length.




Yeah, clutter is another problem too.   I treat whatever I can get away with as "difficult terrain" rather than obstacles 

Small rooms can work sometimes as a nice change of pace.  With so much movement and dynamic tactics going on in 4e, it can feel claustrophobic to fight in a small room (or over 2 or 3 small rooms) because you can't move as you are used to doing.

When I ran a conversion of Castle Korvosa as an adventure, it was too much.  Lots of pointless combats that were over when you rolled up initiative, and everyone reverted back to the 3e D&D combat default of fighting in the doorways.  It was a room to room slog, and not really suited to 4e's strengths.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 2, 2010)

ferratus said:


> I wouldn't call Pathfinder traditional myself.   In many ways it is even more gonzo than 4e is.  The mechanics of Pathfinder are more like 3e I suppose, but the flavour text of the classes and races is pretty much as over the top as 4e's flavour text.
> 
> I'd prefer a game with 4e's mechanics and the modesty of flavour text of earlier editions.  We sort of drifted away from pulp fantasy dungeon crawling and low magic worlds over the decades to high arcana, exotic fantasy and superheroic panache.  Planescape and Spelljammer were the harbingers, 3e tried to take us back to the dungeon but gave up a couple years into its run, and 4e and Pathfinder seem to have made the new flavour the new norm.




And herein we've got a really fascinating paradox, because I've seen people grin and describe Pathfinder as more amenable to old school tastes than 4e, and at the same time I know that I'm about as far away from old school as you can get (started in 3e, and heavily influenced by the craziest of the 2e setting fluff) and likewise I find Pathfinder to be more amenable to my tastes than 4e as well.

There's something for a really wide variety of tastes in the system and/or its associated setting material to make a really wide variety of players and DMs appreciate. I've gotten to write tons of flavor text and a lot of planar stuff, so I'm as happy as a famished imp let loose in an orphanage. But even so, even outside of my favorite niches, I enjoy the whole package just as much as people who approach gaming from and have particular gaming genres and influences from totally different backgrounds. It's pretty cool and kinda perplexing.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 2, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> And herein we've got a really fascinating paradox, because I've seen people grin and describe Pathfinder as more amenable to old school tastes than 4e, and at the same time I know that I'm about as far away from old school as you can get (started in 3e, and heavily influenced by the craziest of the 2e setting fluff) and likewise I find Pathfinder to be more amenable to my tastes than 4e as well.




Most likely because old/new school, tone, etc. come mostly from the DM and the group, not the system. It then boils down to what rule parameters float your boat. The true *feel* of the game is only going to come from you, not the game and it takes work no matter what system you use. If you like the rule system you *can* make any system work for you instead of working against the system. All the arguments I've seen stating that "System X" doesn't work all boil down to the added caveat "for me." I've been guilty of the same thing at times, as others find solutions to the problems I have with a system and I buck against them becuase the solution doesn't appeal to me.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 2, 2010)

Starbuck_II said:


> I'm pissed that the makers of the video game Temple of Elemental Evil aren't making a sequel/new game. I loved there combat system, but the game is laggy certain areas are corrupted (Nulb) to save in, etc.
> 
> I have to do 10 saves just to get through it so far (that way I lose less when primary saves get corrupted randomly).



Are y'all aware that Circle of Eight modified the game very heavily, fixing bugs, increasing difficulty where called for, and building new quests and dungeons?  I imagine the Co8 stuff is still available out there.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 2, 2010)




----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 2, 2010)




----------



## The Ghost (Feb 2, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> The edition wars never bothered me.  At least in Game stores for me it was more of a civil debate.  It is only online that I encountered the vitriol.  Maybe because online people just talk to words written on a screen instead of actual people.




On the internet you don't get to see my face; you don't know my name; you don't hear the tone in my voice; you don't get to see my facial expressions - all you have is the words I write and the moniker/avatar to the left. For some reason some people seem to think that that anonymity gives them the right to say some of the most vial and mean-spirited things imaginable - things most of us would never say to someone's face.


----------



## malkav666 (Feb 2, 2010)

I don't really get mad over games. I was mad about the PDF thing because I lost access to some files I had paid for. Sure it could be said that this was my fault for not DLing them right away, but none the less it pissed me off as a consumer of those files that I had given my money for. I eventually got over it and got the files I payed for from an alternate source.

That and a couple of other things left a sour taste in my mouth about buying products from Hasbro/WOTC. I still give them a  little money here and there for a few packs of minis and the occassional set of tiles and I will likely buy the Ravenloft game this year, but on the whole, the lionshare of my gaming budget is being spent with other gaming companies.

Its not an issue of being mad at anyone. WOTC has had some products that I thought were great in the past and has introduced a lot of awesome into the hobby. After the Star Wars liscense goes the way of the dodo I can't say that any of their other lines (aside from the previously mentioned minis and tiles) really grab me as a customer as something I want/need.

I don't really care for 4e as a game. The way it was marketed seemed like a poor choice to me but didn't really ruffle my feathers. I bought the game when it first came out and played for regularly for over a year. My group just wasn't into it as much as they were into 3.x and some other games we play. So we went back to 3.x and played that. When PF was released we gave it a gander and while not being exactly what we wanted it was pretty close to 3.x and had just enough "new" to it to excite my players into playing classes they had already played out/were tired of.

Emotion just doesn't come into it for me. It felt kind of strange to leave the official D&D brand after so many years with it for an "alt" D&D. But the folks I game with (and myself) just couldn't seem to connect with the new version of D&D. It's not completely alien to us. There are plenty of familiar mechanics there. But all in all the experience left us wanting something more. We tried to supplement the experience with more source books, but in the end, we found the experience to just be lacking something. I won't go in great specifics, but the overall time we spent with it just seemed kinda bleh. Everything felt the same for us. Please note I am not knocking the system or saying anyone has bad taste. It just didn't do it for us, and WOTC angst or the lack there of really had nothing to do with it. we played it and judged it as a game, not as the product of a company and found that it did not meet our standards for a game that we would like to continue playing regularly. I understand there are folks that love it. I am totally cool with that. I think everyone should partake in things in life that they dig. the fact that some folks dig different stuff then me really does not matter to me. If it makes you happy go for it I say.

We are mainly playing PFRPG now. Its not perfect. But it's in print so we don't have to pay ridiculous after market prices for it, and it stands up pretty good on its own and my group is happy playing it. But to reiterate, we are not playing this game because are mad at WOTC/Hasbro. We are playing it because we find it to be enjoyable.

love,

malkav


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 2, 2010)

Wow!  Good stuff here!  Thanks for all of the responses!  

I was a bit disappointed at the comparisons and edition wars over the year(s) but that's to be expected.  Having said that, I probably learned more about what 1E was trying to do, what it did well and what it didn't do well from current discussions than anything back then!  Yes, the internet helps a lot with that but still.  It was very interesting to see what 1E was trying to do from a fresh perspective.  To some extent 2E, since they weren't all that different, imo.  

It's also interesting about the "split to the community" and I wonder how true it is.  I am sad by that but hope that people are happy for others, however that happens.  For me, it's about gaming in a group and having fun, regardless of the rules used.  

What's interesting to me is how it appears that those who liked 3E a lot don't like 4E and those who like 1E/2E like 4E.  Unfortunately, that's a generalization at best and with scant evidence.  But, I could see 3E AND 4E having come from 1E/2E just following different evolutionary paths and objectives in a game.  

I do miss the gametable from DDI and would love to see it get more support and more tool releases.  But that's because my group has two remote players and so things like that would help me run my game!  I get by with other tools that are just fine but am curious what a company like WotC would have produced.  Even the character visualizer, which was demoed at the '08 Gen Con, would have been cool to play with and have.  Ah, well.  

I do miss print Dungeon and Dragon.  I am finding that I don't read everything like I did when it was in print.  That's me and even though I really like technology, I don't always embrace it all.  I haven't yet but thought about printing out the electronic versions so I would actually read everything.  

I'm sorry that Exalted wasn't like 4E or had a supported character builder that printed out Charms and powers on cards.  (Yes, it could support cards but wouldn't be used in the same way.)  I really, really like the setting of Exalted but I think the system doesn't work for it as well as they think.  At least, not in how I understand it.  

Really, that's the reason I started this thread.  I was curious if anyone else remembered the "graduate your game" and no one has mentioned it except for me!  And it didn't bother me, but amused me.  It makes more sense, because Exalted is quite complex. I am sure if I was playing it regularly I would understand it more but it seems to take time that I don't have. 

I am disappointed that the Alternity game wasn't used for 3E or 4E and is firmly OOP.  It has so many strengths because it has limits for the main characters, that don't have to be there for monsters, and is a fun system.  What stopped me playing it was lack of new material, or that I had to write new material and play test it while playing (there's that lack of time again), which is tough for me.   I really enjoyed it as a system and might use it for modern/future but didn't like where my fantasy campaigns went with it.  

Thanks!

edg


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 2, 2010)

Regarding your point about MapTable - what's the problem there are plenty of both free and paid-for Virtual Terrain applications out there to play D&D. It almost like your "Walmart" of gaming stuff all as to have WotC written all over it for you to touch it. That's unfortunate because long before WotC started talking about GameTable there were worthwhile options already in existence. You don't need the DDi to give and your remote gaming group an online source to play games. Its like you use DDi as your crutch - if it ain't there, it doesn't exist.

I use MapTools which is free and powerful and does everything and more that GameTable was supposed to be. Lucky for me since I'm not "all about 4e" I have many options to fulfill my needs. I think you need to step out of the DDi and look around, the world is a much bigger and option filled place.

Not trying to be overly critical, just your point falls flat when you keep running back to DDi with your explanations. You need to get out more. (But don't take me too seriously - do what makes you happy.)

GP


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 2, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> It's also interesting about the "split to the community" and I wonder how true it is.



Speaking personally, it's very real.

There are games that I'd seek to play in if the DM wasn't set on 4E.  (I have played 4E, and I suppose I'd play it again if it were put in front of my face, but it just doesn't interest me enough to go out of my way for it.)

And there are players that would have played in my games if I were running 4E (instead of 3.5 and Pathfinder, and now M&M).  My housemate liked 4E enough that she played in our brief experiment with 4E, but wouldn't play in our 3.5/PF games.  (Amusingly, she -- with no exposure to such opinions online or otherwise -- said that she liked how much 4E was like MMORPGs.)

So there's a very real split, and I guess I'm just fortunate that in my area it seems to fall in favor of 3.5/PF.  The one guy I know that plays 4E regularly goes to Sacramento to play.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 2, 2010)

*yes*

I'll admit, I don't like the Wayne Reynolds pathfinder art direction (big swords, spiky hair, etc).  I wish Pathfinder was even more traditional than it was.

But, it's still closer to what I want than 4E.  By a mile.  

So, to reiterate, I'm pleased at how things turned out.  Pathfinder is D&D for me, in everything but name.  And it's owned and run by really cool people who I want to do business with.   I can live with the big swords and spiky hair!

Ken



Mournblade94 said:


> I have to agree with that.  With Pathfinder, I did not read the flavor text as much as the crunch.  I don't need flavor text at this point, so I did not give it a proper analysis.  The rules allow me to run the classes with 1st through 3rd edition flavour so I am satisfied.  I have not done a comparison of the flavor, but maybe now I will
> 
> 
> Sadly I must agree


----------



## Scribble (Feb 2, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> So there's a very real split, and I guess I'm just fortunate that in my area it seems to fall in favor of 3.5/PF.  The one guy I know that plays 4E regularly goes to Sacramento to play.




I stopped shopping at Gamescape because the guy behind the counter went on a tirade about how 4e was for kids, and not really D&D... It was just annoying.

I always like Games of Berkeley better anyway, so it wasn't a huge deal. I know GoB had weekly 4e games (my friend was playing in one of them) and our weekly group was filled with people in multiple groups all of them 4e games.  

These were all also in Berkeley so maybe your friend can stop going all the way to Sac...

I think like everything else though, it just depends on the groups and their current tastes.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 2, 2010)

gamerprinter:  If your comments are to me about DDI, yes.  Essentially.  I have casual gamers and they wanted a computer helper program from day one instead of doing it by hand.  After all of the choices of 3E, I can understand that.  And, the character builder is nice in that it does figure out things for us.  I am disappointed I can't enter my own data.  This is actually not fair to the group.  I really only have one player who would be turned off by doing it by hand and had one guy who was doing some things by hand.  The others would do it by hand but like the character builder.  So do I because it lets me focus on other aspects of the character instead of mechanics.  

And, as I said, I am using tools to have a virtual game table already.  Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.  

Haffrun and Scribble:  Wow.  Just, wow.  The problem is that I am the DM and have not usually had a problem finding players.  Further, my players have been very generous in going along with me if I wanted to run something other than DND.  I think the trade off is that I don't get the character depth I would like to see but that's hardly their issue.  

btw, I also have a tough time getting into Exalted/Anime style art with huge swords.  Even with the explanations of how it can be done, it seems silly to me.  So, I get not wanting that.  I can see how that would fit a high level 3.X/PF game but that's not how I imagine it, generally.  

edg


----------



## Scribble (Feb 2, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> Haffrun and Scribble:  Wow.  Just, wow.  The problem is that I am the DM and have not usually had a problem finding players.  Further, my players have been very generous in going along with me if I wanted to run something other than DND.  I think the trade off is that I don't get the character depth I would like to see but that's hardly their issue.




Oh... Most of my groups I've gamed with have pretty much always been willing to give whatever one of us wanted to run a shot. I didn't mean to imply otherwise if I did.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Feb 2, 2010)

Siberys said:


> This, though - Why? 3e wasn't backwards-compatible with 2e (anyone who's tried a conversion knows that). Even PF requires a bit of work to update, and that had BC as a specific design goal. Why expect the new edition to be backwards-compatible?




While there wasn't stat block compatibility between 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition, 3rd Edition still played like the same game. Playing a fighter in 3rd Edition felt like playing a fighter in OD&D; playing a wizard in 3rd Edition felt like playing a magic-user in 1st Edition; and so forth.

4th Edition doesn't play like that. 4th Edition has about as much in common with previous editions of the game as Runequest does.

Take the name "Dungeons & Dragons" off the cover of 3rd Edition and people would still point at it and say, "Oh. Hey. That's a cleaned up version of D&D."

Take the name "Dungeons & Dragons" off the cover of 4th Edition and people would point at it and say, "Oh. Hey. That's a nifty fantasy RPG."

(Of course, without the trademark they'd probably both have been doomed fantasy heartbreakers.)

The weird French guy saying "the game remains the same, the game remains the same, the game remains the same"? Yeah. The wizard doth protest too much, methinks.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 2, 2010)

At first, I wasn't thrilled about the changes in FR but the guys who follow FR as much as I do, or more, aren't my regular weekly players anymore.  So, I realized it didn't matter because the weekly group didn't know anything about FR anyway, other than what I had done with them in other campaigns!  One guy has read some of the FR DND books but not the game material.  

BotE:  Hmm.  Maybe.  I still think that 3E and 4E could have come from 2E but I guess I am hard pressed to argue that you would have to tell someone that 4E is DND if it weren't on the cover as it is very different.  I don't think that's bad, though.  ymmv

edg


----------



## Scribble (Feb 2, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> While there wasn't stat block compatibility between 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition, 3rd Edition still played like the same game. Playing a fighter in 3rd Edition felt like playing a fighter in OD&D; playing a wizard in 3rd Edition felt like playing a magic-user in 1st Edition; and so forth.
> 
> 4th Edition doesn't play like that. 4th Edition has about as much in common with previous editions of the game as Runequest does.
> 
> The weird French guy saying "the game remains the same, the game remains the same, the game remains the same"? Yeah. The wizard doth protest too much, methinks.




I think it's really just a personal thing. In my experience the Game felt more like the game experiences I had (the good ones) back in my 2e/1e/basic era.  Sure some characters had new tricks, but overall it felt closer then I'd felt in a while.

I'm fully aware that others don't agree, but like I said... A personal thing me thinks.

(Also this is based on how the game plays, as I am well aware that the way it looks in the book is very different.)


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 2, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think it's really just a personal thing. In my experience the Game felt more like the game experiences I had (the good ones) back in my 2e/1e/basic era.  Sure some characters had new tricks, but overall it felt closer then I'd felt in a while.
> 
> I'm fully aware that others don't agree, but like I said... A personal thing me thinks.
> 
> (Also this is based on how the game plays, as I am well aware that the way it looks in the book is very different.)




I feel this way from a DM perspective.  I remember the other guys getting 1E stuff before me but me getting 2E stuff before them, especially the monstrous compendiums.  I remember showing them the new picture of the (2E) hobgoblin and them running, first time, because they didn't know what it was!  

Playing in 4E and having monsters with kewl powerz that they can unleash on the PCs and not hold back is a LOT of fun!  So, yeah, for me 4E has really captured the best of my early days of gaming.  3E was fun but it didn't have as many moments as 4E has already had for me.  

edg


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 2, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> Conversely it can be said, the worse part is that people STILL don't see how they WERE insulting.
> 
> MAny boiled down to:  "we fixed the bad fun that was rampant in Third edition.  It will be better for everyone this way.  Trust us."




I don't see why they were insulting. Wizards listened to the feedback of its customers. Customers highlighted areas they disliked about the game, we had many threads pre-4E discussing those problems. Wizards set out to fix the problems their customers were having with the game. Not all of their customers had the same problems. I would assume that they tackled the most common problems people were having. I'm sorry you weren't in the majority that was having said problems. Even those that did share the same problems may not have liked the ways Wizards tried to fix those problems. Don't take it personally, they were doing what they thought best for the game. They didn't ask you what you liked about the game and then design against that. They designed a game based on the feedback of the majority. If I still enjoyed 3E I wouldn't be angry. I thought 2E AD&D was totally unnecessary, but I wasn't angry with TSR when they explained why they were fixing what they considered wrong with 1E.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 2, 2010)

I'm still mad that Raven posted a lolCat!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm still mad that Raven posted a lolCat!




As well you should be!


----------



## Chrono22 (Feb 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Wizards listened to the feedback of its customers. Customers highlighted areas they disliked about the game, we had many threads pre-4E discussing those problems. Wizards set out to fix the problems their customers were having with the game. Not all of their customers had the same problems. I would assume that they tackled the most common problems people were having. I'm sorry you weren't in the majority that was having said problems. Even those that did share the same problems may not have liked the ways Wizards tried to fix those problems. Don't take it personally, they were doing what they thought best for the game. They didn't ask you what you liked about the game and then design against that. They designed a game based on the feedback of the majority. If I still enjoyed 3E I wouldn't be angry. I thought 2E AD&D was totally unnecessary, but I wasn't angry with TSR when they explained why they were fixing what they considered wrong with 1E.



And how did WotC go about collecting this information? Was it a survey? A general examination of trends? Or perhaps (more likely based on the results) the devs simply assumed their own playstyles and experiences were reflected in the majority? Cause nothing you've said in the above paragraph is really supported by any data or facts. On the other hand, the results seem to support my idea.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 2, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't see why they were insulting._<snip>_




One thing that I learned in my Conflict Negotiation & Mediation program is that you don't win any arguments by discounting a party's emotional response to the situation.  All you do is erect barriers to rational discourse.

Some players- myself included- were insulted by the language and tone 4Ed designers took when discussing 3.5.  I actually talked about that from a marketing & advertising point of view when they were doing it.  It was one of the first indicators to me that I wasn't going to care for the next edition.

You may not agree with the perception certain gamers had of the rollout, but don't tell us we were wrong to be insulted.


----------



## Wereserpent (Feb 2, 2010)

I am not mad about anything really, but I do wish they had not pulled the PDFs.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One thing that I learned in my Conflict Negotiation & Mediation program is that you don't win any arguments by discounting a party's emotional response to the situation.  All you do is erect barriers to rational discourse.
> 
> Some players- myself included- were insulted by the language and tone 4Ed designers took when discussing 3.5.  I actually talked about that from a marketing & advertising point of view when they were doing it.  It was one of the first indicators to me that I wasn't going to care for the next edition.
> 
> You may not agree with the perception certain gamers had of the rollout, but don't tell us we were wrong to be insulted.




Exactly. 

Also I tried to give a 4E a fair shot. I ran a few games (but never played as a player) and it was in the middle of one combat that I realized that it REALLY felt more like a mini's skirmish game. It felt like the D&D Miniatures game that they had just cancelled. The encapsulation of powers and the short monster stat blocks made for a great mini's game, but not a game that I was interested in playing as D&D. 

I'm not saying that it is a bad or poorly designed game, it's not. But I've tried to pull the PHB off of the shelf and love it but I can't. It's the way that powers are done for the PC's that REALLY drive me away from the system. I've tried to reverse engineer 3.5 / Pathfinder abilities into powers to see if it's just me and maybe it's not that big of a deal. Only to discover that IT IS a really big deal. A deal breaker. So I can't say that I HATE or am MAD about 4E but it's the ONLY edition of D&D (been playing since Red Box) that I can't bring myself to support. 

I also really didn't like the tone of SOME of the designers when talking about 3.5. Comparisons to the older game to sell your new one. But I think that if you can't tell me what you like about something without bashing something else then you've got an issue. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbbqMoEwDqc"]Like this[/ame]


Also while I'm not a 4E fan, I'm a little annoyed that nothing ever came of [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aLXuMb6WWw"]this[/ame] especially the game table....


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 3, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> And how did WotC go about collecting this information? Was it a survey? A general examination of trends? Or perhaps (more likely based on the results) the devs simply assumed their own playstyles and experiences were reflected in the majority? Cause nothing you've said in the above paragraph is really supported by any data or facts. On the other hand, the results seem to support my idea.




They did do surveys during 3E, I participated in no less than 3. They also listened to fans on the road at cons. They also listened to posts here and on their own site. The reason we have no data or facts is because all we have is the word of the devs. And what results support your idea? That 4E is selling? That some people got angry and blew up on the interwebs? I can either take the word of devs of the company that they listened to their customers or I can believe the idea of Chrono22 on the interweb. Hmmm.....



Dannyalcatraz said:


> One thing that I learned in my Conflict Negotiation & Mediation program is that you don't win any arguments by discounting a party's emotional response to the situation.  All you do is erect barriers to rational discourse.




I'm not discounting anyone's emotional response. I said:



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> *I* don't see why they were insulting.




Emphasis mine. I stated my opinion and why I wouldn't be insulted if I were still a 3E fan. That's all.

Edit: Actually I *am* still a fan of 3E. It is a fun edition of the game for me as a player, I just do not prefer to DM it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2010)

Pretty much everything that still sets me growling has been mentioned already.

The lead up to 4e, especially the attitude towards the older games - "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

Thanks Mr. Wyatt - that was the point where I decided 4e was not for me. You see, I _do_ want games where the PCs do something other than combat. You saved me a lot of time right there.... Charging as much for an _advertisement_ for the new edition as the 3e rules cost when they first came out was another bit of class.

The GSL. When I decided to actively dislike 4e rather than just ignore it. Oh, and let's charge a thousand bucks for the license if they want to use it early! Whoops, sorry, no license yet, but at least you didn't spend a K ahead of time, right?

Deciding that OGL and GSL products could be sold in the same lines, but only after the deadline to destroy the offending OGL products had passed....

Calling back all the licenses.  Sure, these people are doing a great job with Dragon/Dungeon/Dragonlance/What Have You, and we are only going to do a few books in each line before abandoning them, but let's call back all the licenses!

Ending PDFs... 'cause we all know that being able to get stuff legally is what leads to piracy.... Especially when it is stuff that is out of print otherwise!

I think that a lot of this was not deliberate malice, just plain incompetence, but good golly Miss Molly....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 3, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> The lead up to 4e, especially the attitude towards the older games - "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




I'm glad someone besides me brought that one up.  People will come out of the woodwork and say that the quote is taken out of context. I read the blurb in Races & Classes, and it's just as insulting when you read the lead-in. Traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people is infinitely more interesting and appealing that playing smack-bottom with some horrible monster. 

I admit that I play D&D a bit loosey-goosey; I'm in it for the fun, not nit-picking with stats. My games are typically combat-light, because of it. With characters and monsters being defined by their role in combat, 4e left a sour taste in my mouth.

Oh, and I'm a leap-grognard; 1e to 3e to 5e  (though I started with Basic, to be fair)


----------



## Chrono22 (Feb 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> They did do surveys during 3E, I participated in no less than 3. They also listened to fans on the road at cons. They also listened to posts here and on their own site. The reason we have no data or facts is because all we have is the word of the devs.



Yeah and they are totally reliable. How's that gametable going? Still working on it huh? That's good to hear. How about that GSL? Still supporting 3ps? What? PDFs created piracy? Oh gee golly me, what shall we do.


> And what results support your idea? That 4E is selling? That some people got angry and blew up on the interwebs? I can either take the word of devs of the company that they listened to their customers or I can believe the idea of Chrono22 on the interweb. Hmmm.....



A split consumer base = large numbers of dissatisfied customers. Either their market research was wrong, or they didn't do any.
And please, don't make the mistake of assuming your opinion ever mattered in the first place. 4e was in production long before they ever declared it existed. Nothing about any of the so-called playtests they did has lead me to believe those were anything but ways of increasing 4e's exposure before release.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 3, 2010)

Hmm.  Some more good stuff.  

I wonder if the developers, after being immersed in 4E and enjoying it, just wanted to show it off?  But I can't speak for them.  That they did a poor job is too bad.  I didn't take it that way, and I might play 3E but I don't want to DM it anymore, as others have said.  I like DMing 4E.  Having said that, I might not be as anal about things in 3E as I could be but there is more to why I was unhappy with 3E.  I know a lot weren't, and I hope they are still having fun!  

I said it already but I am also sorry about the game table.  I could really use that about now!  



> The lead up to 4e, especially the attitude towards the older games - "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




I am not arguing that this can be taken poorly.  I took it more as a shot against some other RPGs (Fairyland or Changling) and about DND getting back to its roots of monsters vs PCs and monsters having kewl powerz to challenge the PCs.  But, again, I was their demographic for a new edition. 



> I'm not saying that it is a bad or poorly designed game, it's not. But I've tried to pull the PHB off of the shelf and love it but I can't. It's the way that powers are done for the PC's that REALLY drive me away from the system. I've tried to reverse engineer 3.5 / Pathfinder abilities into powers to see if it's just me and maybe it's not that big of a deal. Only to discover that IT IS a really big deal. A deal breaker. So I can't say that I HATE or am MAD about 4E but it's the ONLY edition of D&D (been playing since Red Box) that I can't bring myself to support.




Would you mind explaining this more?  I don't think I completely understand it.  

I can only speak for myself but I am impressed how quickly some people understood 4E.  I am still struggling with it.  It took me nine months of weekly gaming sessions playing with nWoD to begin to grok it and probably a year for Alternity, but I was messing around with it and playing with Red Dragon's fantasy rules and not the core stuff.  I do understand the core Alternity well.  In any case, the point is that I am still learning 4E and enjoying it.  

I would like to see more Adventure tools come out.  Monster Builder is great, especially since I am playing Dark Sun, but I would love to see item builder or class builder or map builder or something else.  And it's not that I don't have tools to do some of these things.  But I really hate struggling with the tool as I try and plan something.  (I think I have given up on ProFantasy after ten years.  Ten years!  And it's me, not them.  I couldn't make my maps look as "pretty" as I wanted and so thought I needed to stop fooling myself and give it up.)  

Again, it's interesting to me how much I have learned about previous versions and tools, like the World Builder's Guidebook (I am sorry I don't have that anymore), as I better understand how to use them.  Only years later.  

*sigh*  

edg


----------



## Khairn (Feb 3, 2010)

Still mad?  About a couple of things, I would have to say yes.  

I've GM'ed and played 4E, and I know what parts of the system I like and which parts I don't care for.  WotC appears to be making 4E players happy with their products, and I'm quite happy with the job Paizo and other companies (KQ, Rite etc) have done to support those gamers who don't like the latest edition.  So system wise, I have no issues.  Play whatever game you enjoy, its all good.

But then we have some other decisions that WotC has made which still raise my ire.  As an example, the elimination of the magazines, promoting 4E by equating 3E to badwrongfun, handling of GSL, FR, eliminating the sale of all pdf's including older editions, licensing, etc etc.  But pretty much all of those things are marketing, customer relations and management decision, and not system related.  In my book WotC has succeeded in creating a negative reputation for themselves amongst a large part of the gaming community that is completely separate from the products they sell.

And as for Exalted and White Wolf's "Graduate your Game" promotion, I thought it was brilliant.  I know a couple of players who made the switch, and enjoyed the game although all are playing something else right now.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 3, 2010)

Aeolius said:


> I read the blurb in Races & Classes, and it's just as insulting when you read the lead-in. Traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people is infinitely more interesting and appealing that playing smack-bottom with some horrible monster.



To you.

That doesn't mean D&D isn't designed in a certain direction. You can employ the system (however awkwardly) to accomplish whatever you may like, including traipsing off through fairy rings, but that doesn't mean the game doesn't have a core and a focus.

If you find interacting with little people more interesting than exploring dungeons and slaying monsters, that's cool. Use D&D or don't use D&D; it really doesn't matter. You'll enjoy your game, and we'll enjoy ours. Finding _insult_ in the statement of a designer who was simply pointing out what the game is designed to best accomplish is just silly, though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 3, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I also really didn't like the tone of SOME of the designers when talking about 3.5. Comparisons to the older game to sell your new one. But I think that if you can't tell me what you like about something without bashing something else then you've got an issue.
> 
> Like this




Thanks for posting that.  It was one of the examples I was thinking of when I originally posted about the bad marketing scheme WotC had rolled out.  Its one thing to compare your new product to your old, its quite another to actually _denigrate _your previous product in order to sell the new.

And that's just one example of the snark that ticked some of us off.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 3, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I also really didn't like the tone of SOME of the designers when talking about 3.5. Comparisons to the older game to sell your new one. But I think that if you can't tell me what you like about something without bashing something else then you've got an issue.



Amusingly, this is one of my biggest criticisms with 4e detractors; more often than not, they are unable to justify their appreciation of whatever their current game is without explaining why they just can't stand another game (in this case, 4e). It makes it appear as though they like their game of choice merely because _it's not Game X_, and the game they like doesn't have any significant redeeming qualities of its own to stand upon.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2010)

Dannager said:


> To you.
> 
> That doesn't mean D&D isn't designed in a certain direction. You can employ the system (however awkwardly) to accomplish whatever you may like, including traipsing off through fairy rings, but that doesn't mean the game doesn't have a core and a focus.
> 
> If you find interacting with little people more interesting than exploring dungeons and slaying monsters, that's cool. Use D&D or don't use D&D; it really doesn't matter. You'll enjoy your game, and we'll enjoy ours. Finding _insult_ in the statement of a designer who was simply pointing out what the game is designed to best accomplish is just silly, though.



To him, to me, and to a large number of other players - it is an excellent example of the BadWrongFun that WotC has been accused of passing around during their lead up to 4e.

Telling me that your brand new game is not going to be useful for the types of game I want to run is not the best way to get me to spend time and money on your brand new game.

4e has a focus, and it is a focus that does not interest me - so how does that make the game in any way more desirable to me? Show me how the new game does better for running the games that _I_ want to run, don't tell me that the games I want to run are not what the game is about. The older edition does just fine for running what I want, so why should I change?

The sad thing is that most of the quotes that annoy me came from game designers, not the folks who put the polish on advertising....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 3, 2010)

Hmmm...never had that problem, Dannager.  I could tell you everything I _like_ about each version of D&D- 4Ed included- without griping about other versions.

And I can do that about any other RPG I like, too.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hmmm...never had that problem, Dannager.  I could tell you everything I _like_ about each version of D&D- 4Ed included- without griping about other versions.
> 
> And I can do that about any other RPG I like, too.




Again, exactly. 

It's not like I dont play and like other games (M&M, HERO System, Spycraft, Star Wars Saga to name a few), it's just that D&D has been the one through line in my entire Role Playing career. 

Like I said before 4E was the first time where I looked at a D&D ruleset and said "this is not for me". The Powers are a big part of that. The build up to 4E and the marketing was another part of it. Even now I still pull the MM off of the shelf and flip through it (it's my favorite book of the three main core rule books) it gives me ideas on different ways to run monsters in my PF games. 

I love the way the DM's guide is laid out and it's a solid DM's guide for any edition. I like the idea of using XP as an encounter budget (which Pathfinder now uses and Trailblazer). 

But like I said, when I actually ran it the combats felt like more like a pure mini's game and while I like mini's games and have no problem with them (youre talking to someone who has 6 WH40K armies, mini's from Warmachine and Void) it didnt feel right to me as a D&D game. 

I havent gotten rid of the 4E Gift set yet, but I really dont see myself playing 4E.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Thanks for posting that.  It was one of the examples I was thinking of when I originally posted about the bad marketing scheme WotC had rolled out.  Its one thing to compare your new product to your old, its quite another to actually _denigrate _your previous product in order to sell the new.
> 
> And that's just one example of the snark that ticked some of us off.




Yeah instead of touting the proud tradition of the awesomeness of each previous edition they basically chose to take pot shots at them, especially 3rd ED. 

That was a deliberate choice.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2010)

Dannager said:


> If you find interacting with little people more interesting than exploring dungeons and slaying monsters, that's cool.




Actually in my games, we do both. You should check out the awesome dungeons in the land of Fey, even dungeons inhabited by Fey, and only sometimes does that lead to combat - but you can't get there without traipsing through the faerie ring!


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Feb 3, 2010)

Dannager said:


> That doesn't mean D&D isn't designed in a certain direction. You can employ the system (however awkwardly) to accomplish whatever you may like, including traipsing off through fairy rings, but that doesn't mean the game doesn't have a core and a focus.



That is certainly true, but the real issue here is what the devs were saying about this fact, and how they were saying it.  Again:


> "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



 This _is_ very clearly stating that D&D is something very specific.  And that something specific is very much _not_ what many, many players view it as. Moreover this is not something new: for 30 years before 4e came out people had been playing D&D in various different ways for various different reasons.  But the approach taken by developers to hype the system very specifically singles out one of those ways as the "correct" way.  So why shouldn't the "incorrect" players have felt insulted?

I really don't think it was intentional, of course.  As someone in another thread not long ago suggested, this was probably just a really awkward attempt at being hip and trying to appeal to a target demographic.  It's just unfortunate that this also really vexed another demographic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 3, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> > "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
> 
> 
> 
> This _is_ very clearly stating that D&D is something very specific.  And that something specific is very much _not_ what many, many players view it as. Moreover this is not something new: for 30 years before 4e came out people had been playing D&D in various different ways for various different reasons.  But the approach taken by developers to hype the system very specifically singles out one of those ways as the "correct" way.  So why shouldn't the "incorrect" players have felt insulted?




Agreed...and thank you for reposting one of the other quotes that bugged me.


> I really don't think it was intentional, of course.  As someone in another thread not long ago suggested, this was probably just a really awkward attempt at being hip and trying to appeal to a target demographic.  It's just unfortunate that this also really vexed another demographic.




Again agreed, and while I'm probably not the only one nor the one you're thinking about, I definitely suggested this possibility.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm still mad about "Mad About You".  

Paul Reiser was a comic genius.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm mad that My Little Pony RPG was a April Fool's joke.  I want to play Rainbow Dash .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 3, 2010)

Relique du Madde said:


> I'm mad that My Little Pony RPG was a April Fool's joke.  I want to play Rainbow Dash .




You can do that in HERO or M&M...

It might be a Gritty Little Pony in GURPS, though.


----------



## Mikaze (Feb 3, 2010)

"I'm not mad.  I'm just _disappointed._"


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 3, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Yeah instead of touting the proud tradition of the awesomeness of each previous edition they basically chose to take pot shots at them, especially 3rd ED.
> 
> That was a deliberate choice.




I agree and predict that the marketing for 5E will be pitched differently. Frankly, nothing short of a Dragonborn trailer "Grrr! I'm a monster now!" will do. Preferably the dragonborn gets roasted in the video by a fairy, but I guess that's hoping for too much.


----------



## MoxieFu (Feb 3, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> I still think that 3E and 4E could have come from 2E but I guess I am hard pressed to argue that you would have to tell someone that 4E is DND if it weren't on the cover as it is very different.  I don't think that's bad, though.  ymmv
> 
> edg




And this is why some people said that 4e is D&D for people who hate D&D.

Progression from one version of the game to the next was always fine with me. With 4e it went from progression to divergence.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 3, 2010)

MoxieFu said:


> And this is why some people said that 4e is D&D for people who hate D&D.




People who hate 4e say that 4e is for people who hate D&D, and that it isn´t D&D. It is like a rollercoaster of hate, or like that Star Trek:TnG-episode where they are trapped in a temporal loop. Raise shields, Data!

Anyway, i´m still disappointed that i wasn´t disappointed by anything. I really felt left out.


----------



## megamania (Feb 3, 2010)

There are several things I am still disappointed over but "mad"?   Most of these have profit based reasons that after sitting back from it I can see and understand BUT.......


1) I still miss Dragon magazine

2) I still even miss Dungeon magazine

3) I dislike the WoW and/or Computer game feel of how to do DnD being THE way now

4) I miss not getting new Eberron stuff.  They put out two 4e books then ignore it.   I can't even take concepts / ideas to place into 3e this way.

5) Constant restructuring of miniatures.


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 3, 2010)

megamania said:


> 4) I miss not getting new Eberron stuff.  They put out two 4e books then ignore it.   I can't even take concepts / ideas to place into 3e this way.




As noted in another thread just the other day, there has in fact been a lot of Eberron articles (about one per month) in the magazines. Of course, if you do not buy those, you are SOL.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 3, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Speaking personally, it's very real.
> 
> There are games that I'd seek to play in if the DM wasn't set on 4E.  (I have played 4E, and I suppose I'd play it again if it were put in front of my face, but it just doesn't interest me enough to go out of my way for it.)
> 
> And there are players that would have played in my games if I were running 4E (instead of 3.5 and Pathfinder, and now M&M).  My housemate liked 4E enough that she played in our brief experiment with 4E, but wouldn't play in our 3.5/PF games.  (Amusingly, she -- with no exposure to such opinions online or otherwise -- said that she liked how much 4E was like MMORPGs.)



I think you left out the part that is really amusing, or at least interesting.

People say that they worry everyone will wander off to play MMORPGs. Yet, when MMORPG players are faced with D&D 4, they want to play it. It. D&D 4. Not World of Warcraft. Not Lord of the Rings Online. They want to play a table top roleplaying game. They don't rather sit behind a monitor. They prefer rolling dice rather than pushing their mouse. 

It seems there is still something left in RPGs and D&D specifically if that can happen. 

I personally attribute this to the fact that having a human being instead of a computer controlling the game environment gives a lot of possibilities and opportunities computer games simply lack. Actually interacting with "real" beings instead of voices from your speakers might be another (and related) component.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 3, 2010)

Aeolius said:


> I'm glad someone besides me brought that one up.  People will come out of the woodwork and say that the quote is taken out of context. I read the blurb in Races & Classes, and it's just as insulting when you read the lead-in. Traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people is infinitely more interesting and appealing that playing smack-bottom with some horrible monster.
> 
> I admit that I play D&D a bit loosey-goosey; I'm in it for the fun, not nit-picking with stats. My games are typically combat-light, because of it. With characters and monsters being defined by their role in combat, 4e left a sour taste in my mouth.
> 
> Oh, and I'm a leap-grognard; 1e to 3e to 5e  (though I started with Basic, to be fair)




I think in designer speak this is like saying:
"Mutants & Masterminds is ultimiately a game about playing superheroes fighting against supervillains, not about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with little people."

You can do the latter with M&M. You can do it with D&D 4. You can do it with Shadowrun. But that's not what these games are designed for. 

These guys are game designers. They speak about the design of their game. What it focuses on. What they were looking out for. What's important for the development of the game mechanics. 

It isn't a value statement that people using it for something else are doing it wrong. 

I think the typical reason for feeling insulted is not sharing the same context as the game designers.


----------



## JeffB (Feb 3, 2010)

I don't get mad about silly games of make believe. I think most gamers take games way too seriously- but thats a topic for another thread.

Overall I'm happy with  4E the game, and how it has been handled by WOTC - In  fact happiest I've been since 1998 or so with them. I tuned out around 2002. 

I would agree I miss print magazines, and OOP PDFs, but I'm not mad about it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 3, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> Conversely it can be said, the worse part is that people STILL don't see how they WERE insulting.
> 
> MAny boiled down to:  "we fixed the bad fun that was rampant in Third edition.  It will be better for everyone this way.  Trust us."






Hunter In Darkness said:


> Agreed, alot of "your game must suck if you use this rule" or  'if you us rule x your games are unfun"
> 
> I found it very insulting as my games all suck and are unfun so saith the 4e dev team






Dannyalcatraz said:


> One thing that I learned in my Conflict Negotiation & Mediation program is that you don't win any arguments by discounting a party's emotional response to the situation.  All you do is erect barriers to rational discourse.
> 
> Some players- myself included- were insulted by the language and tone 4Ed designers took when discussing 3.5.  I actually talked about that from a marketing & advertising point of view when they were doing it.  It was one of the first indicators to me that I wasn't going to care for the next edition.
> 
> You may not agree with the perception certain gamers had of the rollout, but don't tell us we were wrong to be insulted.







ShinHakkaider said:


> /snip
> 
> I also really didn't like the tone of SOME of the designers when talking about 3.5. Comparisons to the older game to sell your new one. But I think that if you can't tell me what you like about something without bashing something else then you've got an issue.
> 
> Like this




Ok, so, just to sum up, we've got one three line quote from a book and a video that actually wasn't made by a developer at WOTC, but by Gamer0, who, IIRC, got canned before the launch of 4e, specifically for posting crap like what was linked.

And that becomes the "Long list of wrongbadfun" stuff?

See, Shemeska, while I might disagree, at least has a pretty valid point.  They did specifically piddle on something that's very near and dear to him.  Fair enough.  I can see being annoyed with that.

But, I the way I look at it, I see two possible alternatives.  

One:  People in a highly charged atmosphere, after reading several changes to the game they probably didn't like, become hyper-sensitive to every single thing that WOTC said and took everything personally.

or

Two:  The people at WOTC, who spend thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars every year on a marketing department, collectively decide to piddle all over the fan base in the hopes of driving sales.

I remember times people actually claiming that the Dev's had gone back to rewrite their blog posts after the fact to make them less antagonistic.  Never mind the fact that you can WayBack a website to see if any changes were made, AND NONE HAD BEEN MADE.  Evidence?  Piffle.  The people were INSULTED!  How dare they make any criticisms?  

So, yeah, that's something that still bugs me.  People talk about how insulting the posts were, how the Dev's were trash talking all over the place, but, when you start to actually drill down and take an honest look, suddenly, most of the material is pretty banal and moderate.

Like I said, which is more likely?  That people who had a hate on for the edition change started claiming that they were victims of big bad WOTC, or that WOTC really was out to piddle on the community that they'd spent about ten years building?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I remember times people actually claiming that the Dev's had gone back to rewrite their blog posts after the fact to make them less antagonistic.  Never mind the fact that you can WayBack a website to see if any changes were made, AND NONE HAD BEEN MADE.  Evidence?  Piffle.  The people were INSULTED!  How dare they make any criticisms?





Unless you are talking about someone else, in a thread I am unaware of, that was me.  Mischaracterized, as usual, but me.  About the Noonan "Cloudwatching" post.

And, as I said then, and as I said since, I was wrong -- I completely overreacted to that post.  I mischaracterized it, much as you are mischaracterizing me.

This is probably a function of "reader bias", in both our cases.



RC


----------



## billd91 (Feb 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Like I said, which is more likely?  That people who had a hate on for the edition change started claiming that they were victims of big bad WOTC, or that WOTC really was out to piddle on the community that they'd spent about ten years building?




Or a third option, that WotC's marketers misread segment of their market, failed to understand the effectiveness of previous branding, and turned a deaf ear to the complaints. It's not like bigger corporations with far more extensive marketing departments haven't done that before and in even more mindboggling huge fashion.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ok, so, just to sum up, we've got one three line quote from a book and a video that actually wasn't made by a developer at WOTC, but by Gamer0, who, IIRC, got canned before the launch of 4e, specifically for posting crap like what was linked.
> 
> And that becomes the "Long list of wrongbadfun" stuff?




I linked that video as an example of the type of shots that WOTC was taking at their older editions not necessarily an example of what the designers were saying at the time. I should have been more specific. Also I don't know who Gamer0 is / was in WOTC but can you post a link verifying that was the reason he was fired? Thanks. 

I'll try to find some of the developer blogs but I have no idea where to start since that stuff was originally part of Gleemax.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 3, 2010)

I may be able to shed some light on this; we discussed it briefly when I spoke to Bill Slaviscek and WotC's president Greg Leeds last summer. From my notes:

I asked about the community's perception that D&D players were eroding into other games. What was their retention strategy for keeping players?

They answered that they had a multi-layered approach to retaining old players. They believe that 4e is the best game for the majority of people, but certainly not everyone. Their obligation to the people who play is to make the best game for as many people as possible. As a result, they're going to continue to invest in that rules set. They don’t want to exclude anyone. Greg was disappointed that some players feel abandoned, they're trying to avoid that and bring the 3rd-2nd-1st ed players back under the tent. Maybe those people will convert to 4e, maybe not. But it's important that they keep playing D&D or RPGs of any type.

Both Bill and Greg agreed that they inadvertently became too exclusionary when marketing 4e. That wasn’t their intent. They love the old game, and they love the new game.​
I firmly believe that, by the way. I have a pretty good bullsh*t meter and the design team are people who just plain love D&D. I think if they could go back and edit their commentary they would, though; whether true or not, the perception that the marketing was dismissing 3.5 really rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I may be able to shed some light on this; we discussed it briefly when I spoke to Bill Slaviscek and WotC's president Greg Leeds last summer. From my notes:
> 
> 
> Both Bill and Greg agreed that they inadvertently became too exclusionary when marketing 4e. That wasn’t their intent. They love the old game, and they love the new game.​
> I firmly believe that, by the way. I have a pretty good bullsh*t meter and the design team are people who just plain love D&D. I think if they could go back and edit their commentary they would, though; whether true or not, the perception that the marketing was dismissing 3.5 really rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.




I can totally accept that kind of sentiment and appreciate it. Though it still won't get WotC off the hook for other decisions like their rationale for pulling PDF sales or get me to play 4e, I'm sure getting the word out on that would smooth some ruffled feathers.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 3, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Yeah and they are totally reliable. How's that gametable going? Still working on it huh? That's good to hear. How about that GSL? Still supporting 3ps? What? PDFs created piracy? Oh gee golly me, what shall we do.
> 
> A split consumer base = large numbers of dissatisfied customers. Either their market research was wrong, or they didn't do any.
> And please, don't make the mistake of assuming your opinion ever mattered in the first place. 4e was in production long before they ever declared it existed. Nothing about any of the so-called playtests they did has lead me to believe those were anything but ways of increasing 4e's exposure before release.




You seem to think of WotC as this singular entity mashing its way through grognards like Godzilla. WotC is a group of actual people. Some of them touted the Gametable while others took that away. Some of them may have wanted the GSL to be as open as the OGL, others shut it down. Some of them may have understood pdf piracy while the Hasbro lawyers forced them to shut it down. What you see as large numbers may be acceptable losses to them to gain new players. The matter of whether their market research was wrong is a matter of opinion, not a fact as you try to state it. Of course 4E was in production before they revealed it, this is not mutually exclusive of the developers incorporating player feedback. You choose to view their actions as a slap in your face, while it is instead the decisions of a group of people that just happened to not go in a direction you like. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but as PCat posted the *people* at WotC meant no direct offense to you personally.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> These guys are game designers. They speak about the design of their game. What it focuses on. What they were looking out for. What's important for the development of the game mechanics.
> 
> It isn't a value statement that people using it for something else are doing it wrong.
> 
> I think the typical reason for feeling insulted is not sharing the same context as the game designers.




This. I also add that I still think it was a mistake to let the developers start talking in the first place.



Hussar said:


> But, I the way I look at it, I see two possible alternatives.
> 
> One:  People in a highly charged atmosphere, after reading several changes to the game they probably didn't like, become hyper-sensitive to every single thing that WOTC said and took everything personally.
> 
> ...




Exactly.



billd91 said:


> Or a third option, that WotC's marketers misread segment of their market, failed to understand the effectiveness of previous branding, and turned a deaf ear to the complaints. It's not like bigger corporations with far more extensive marketing departments haven't done that before and in even more mindboggling huge fashion.




Focusing on a new segment =/= insulting the old segment. [Edit: retracting unfair comment.] I likened it in the past to going to a band's fansite and flaming everyone there for liking said band. If you don't like it, fine. But it shouldn't be an affront to you that it exists.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 3, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Or a third option, that WotC's marketers misread segment of their market, failed to understand the effectiveness of previous branding, and turned a deaf ear to the complaints. It's not like bigger corporations with far more extensive marketing departments haven't done that before and in even more mindboggling huge fashion.




Well there's also the idea that while the previous branding was perfect for 10 years ago, it was loosing it's effectiveness in today's market (and the future market) so things had to change. (Despite the fact that it might cause a bit of a commotion as those still attached solidly to the old branding tactics felt left behind.)

Current clients are very important yes, but at the same time, if your current clients are slowly atrophying, and you're not bringing in enough new clients with your current product... What do you do?


----------



## billd91 (Feb 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Focusing on a new segment =/= insulting the old segment. People did seem to hunt for things to be offended by just because they didn't like the direction the game was going. I likened it in the past to going to a band's fansite and flaming everyone there for liking said band. If you don't like it, fine. But it shouldn't be an affront to you that it exists.




Yeah, that may be *your* take on it, but it's not mine. You and Hussar seem to be doing the very same thing that Dannyalcatraz is talking about, discounting other people's emotional reactions to the situation. Or maybe it's worse because you're ascribing other motives or sentiments despite what we've been saying. Is there a reason you won't take what we're saying at face value?

And I don't see anybody here saying that focusing on a new segment is the same as insulting the old segment. Merely focusing on the new direction probably would have been perceived as less insulting.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 3, 2010)

> I also add that I still think it was a mistake to let the developers  start talking in the first place.



Meh. I like to hear the developers and designer thoughts. They can use sensitive, target-audience-appropriate marketing language in their advertisements. I'd prefer something substantive.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 3, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Is there a reason you won't take what we're saying at face value?




I am taking what you say at face value. I understand that you and others were offended. I just don't think that those who you felt offended by *intended* to offend you. And PCat provided a statement that supports that position.

In retrospect, the one thing I did say that isn't fair and is ascribing motives to others that I cannot support is:



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> People did seem to hunt for things to be offended by just because they didn't like the direction the game was going.




I sincerely apologize.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 3, 2010)

yeah, i'm not gonna go back and dig into old threads, but i specifically remember being told to go play my "old" game and leave the new game to new people.

at the time it was very ing

but they had lost me long before 4e was released.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 3, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, that may be *your* take on it, but it's not mine. You and Hussar seem to be doing the very same thing that Dannyalcatraz is talking about, discounting other people's emotional reactions to the situation. Or maybe it's worse because you're ascribing other motives or sentiments despite what we've been saying. Is there a reason you won't take what we're saying at face value?
> 
> And I don't see anybody here saying that focusing on a new segment is the same as insulting the old segment. Merely focusing on the new direction probably would have been perceived as less insulting.




I'm not discounting anything.  I am, however, very much of the mind that there were more than a few people who were massively over reacting to anything and everything that was being said.  It was to the point where the developers at WOTC could say the at water was cold and wet and someone would jump up and down shouting, "How dare you claim that the water in my taps is both cold and wet!  I'll have you know that I work very hard to make sure that the water coming from MY taps is both warm and as dry as a bone.  It actually klunks as it hits the bottom of the sink.  These guys are idiots who obviously have completely lost touch with anything remotely resembling how water has been for the past several years!"

Am I saying anyone in this thread did that?  Not in the least.  But, there was some pretty huge over reacting going on.

As far as Gamer Zero goes, well, he was the Community Manager over at the WOTC boards.  There was all sorts of poopie going on over there, that I'm not privy too.  Was he canned over this ad?  Nope, not at all.  But, pointing to this particular video as an example of the face WOTC was putting on things may not be all that fair either.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 3, 2010)

Thing is, one person's definition of "overreaction" is another person's totally justified emotional response. I wouldn't be too quick to cast aspersions, please.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It was to the point where the developers at WOTC could say the at water was cold and wet and someone would jump up and down shouting...




Actually it was the lack of water, specifically watery creatures, that was on my list against 4e.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Thing is, one person's definition of "overreaction" is another person's totally justified emotional response. I wouldn't be too quick to cast aspersions, please.



The normative line gets drawn somewhere. If we made allowances for every individual's own take on the sorts of behaviors that are acceptable online, we'd have...well, we'd have 4chan.


----------



## Harlekin (Feb 3, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Thing is, one person's definition of "overreaction" is another person's totally justified emotional response. I wouldn't be too quick to cast aspersions, please.




The main problem may be that people state their emotional reaction as facts to give them more weight, even though they know that their perception is not shared by everyone on the board.

If you look at the first two pages of the board, several posts express their emotional reaction to the designer diaries as a factual statement about 4th editions marketing. And then this "factual statement" gets repeated over and over as if it was truth, when in fact it is just an emotional response. 

Later, others express their emotional response as a fact and say that the articles were using some hyperbole to be entertaining, but did insult and obviously not intend to insult. Thus they implicitly (or explicitly) say that the first reaction was an "overreaction". 

So the solution may be to refrain from using the rhetorical device of phrasing your opinion like facts. If you talk about your emotions (especially about edition war topics), you can say "I felt insulted by the ad campaign." Then it is much easier to recognize your emotions, because then we are not debating facts anymore.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 3, 2010)

Harlekin said:


> So the solution may be to refrain from using the rhetorical device of phrasing your opinion like facts.



Alternately, those who need it can retake the primary school unit we all had in which we were explicitly taught to distinguish fact from opinion.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 3, 2010)

havard said:


> I also used to be frustrate about edition wars, but I guess those days are over
> 
> Havard




Ha...oh this made me laugh. If the many pages of this thread are evidence of anything it's that people are still fighting over editions, "mine's better, no your's is just Magic Cards with dice, yeah well you're a grognard, blah, blah, blah."

Why don't we try this? Everyone likes their own damn edition that they play. Nobody is forcing you to play 1, 2, 3, 4e or the inevitable 5e. If you have fun playing the deadly, more freeform first edition released, have fun, if you prefer the tactical, balanced 4e, cool, if you prefer the plethora of OGL options 3.xe is the way to go. 

Oh, here's an interesting link from IGN. Although it discusses video games and console wars, it totally reminded me of the "edition wars"

State of the Console (Flame) War - PC feature - at IGN


----------



## Chrono22 (Feb 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You seem to think of WotC as this singular entity mashing its way through grognards like Godzilla.



Well, it _is_ a corporation (a subsidiary). That makes it a legal entity. But actually no, I don't think that. Please don't try to straw-man me.


> WotC is a group of actual people. Some of them touted the Gametable while others took that away. Some of them may have wanted the GSL to be as open as the OGL, others shut it down. Some of them may have understood pdf piracy while the Hasbro lawyers forced them to shut it down. What you see as large numbers may be acceptable losses to them to gain new players. The matter of whether their market research was wrong is a matter of opinion, not a fact as you try to state it.



No losses are acceptable losses. Not when you are trying to make sales and a profit~ anyone that tells you otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about. Including actions that lose you a large chunk of your current income base over the long term is a risky strategy with little chance of return. The person in charge of their brand strategy was a fool.


> Of course 4E was in production before they revealed it, this is not mutually exclusive of the developers incorporating player feedback. You choose to view their actions as a slap in your face, while it is instead the decisions of a group of people that just happened to not go in a direction you like. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but as PCat posted the *people* at WotC meant no direct offense to you personally.



As I said earlier, I'm not emotionally invested in 4e. I'm just annoyed by the crappy GSL and pulling PDFs. Both were stupid things that damaged WotC customers' goodwill and D&D's brand image. The less exposure D&D has, the less it grows. 3ps' expanded the pie beyond whatever tiny proportions WotC might have lost. And WotC's excuses for pulling PDFs _were_ a smack in the face. They were abject lies.
I have a low tolerance for b******* and deliberate stupidity. WotCs' actions regarding PDFs and the GSL smack of both.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 3, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You can do that in HERO or M&M...
> 
> It might be a Gritty Little Pony in GURPS, though.




Yeah, but I want official Hasbro stats.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 3, 2010)

Dannager said:


> The normative line gets drawn somewhere. If we made allowances for every individual's own take on the sorts of behaviors that are acceptable online, we'd have...well, we'd have 4chan.




How about the line is drawn at the point where you stop telling other people how they're supposed to feel?

This isn't exactly a new argument.  "4e insulted me."  "No it didn't you're overreacting"  "No I didn't, I was honestly insulted!"  "We should have a line drawn for people who overact about 4e insulting them!"

No.  That's dumb.  You feel one way, someone feels differently.  That doesn't make you supreme overlord and psychic master, who can delve into the hearts and minds of others over the internet to know how they _really_ feel.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Feb 3, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> These guys are game designers. They speak about the design of their game. What it focuses on. What they were looking out for. What's important for the development of the game mechanics.
> 
> It isn't a value statement that people using it for something else are doing it wrong.
> 
> I think the typical reason for feeling insulted is not sharing the same context as the game designers.



This is a very good point, and may well be THE point.  And it's exactly why designers shouldn't be allowed to do marketing


----------



## Pierson_Lowgal (Feb 3, 2010)

underthumb said:


> Full disclosure: I'm not a huge fan of D&D 4e, but I keep hearing comments like yours.
> 
> Was their marketing _really_ like that? My (admittedly dim) memory is only of comments about what they were trying to fix with 4e...




The marketing of 4E wasn't as negative towards past products as is Dominoe's product relaunch, hilariously spoofed by both The Daily Show &  Colbert.  The launch of a replacement product in and of itself is a repudiation of the past product.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 3, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> No losses are acceptable losses. Not when you are trying to make sales and a profit~ anyone that tells you otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about.




I respectfully disagree. If you try to make a game that appeals to *everyone* then you will most likely lose more than if you focus on what your market research has told you is your largest segment. Anyone who tells you that you must cater 100% to your current customer base is doomed for failure.



Chrono22 said:


> Including actions that lose you a large chunk of your current income base over the long term is a risky strategy with little chance of return.




You *still* continue to assert a "large" portion of their prior income base. What data do you have to supoprt this? Anecdotal evidence of people raging against 4E on the internet? Anecdotal evidence of people you know not playing 4E? WotC and Hasbro are the only ones who know whether their risk paid off as they expected. And since the game keeps releasing more and more my guess is that the game is the success they have been telling us it is.



Chrono22 said:


> The person in charge of their brand strategy was a fool.




See, right here is why I don't think you think of this person as a real person. Would you call another poster a fool? That's what you just did. And you should get a warning for it.



Chrono22 said:


> I'm just annoyed by the crappy GSL and pulling PDFs. Both were stupid things that damaged WotC customers' goodwill and D&D's brand image. The less exposure D&D has, the less it grows. 3ps' expanded the pie beyond whatever tiny proportions WotC might have lost.




I agree with you. Although less vehemently in the case of the GSL. 3PP are doing well releasing 4E product under the GSL. Why some have decided to accept the GSL while others dismiss it is a reason only those publishers know for sure.



Chrono22 said:


> And WotC's excuses for pulling PDFs _were_ a smack in the face. They were abject lies. I have a low tolerance for b******* and deliberate stupidity. WotCs' actions regarding PDFs and the GSL smack of both.




You should really stop making personal attacks. Most of the WotC folks post here or used to post here and calling others liars and deliberatly stupid doesn't seem wise to me.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 3, 2010)

Pierson_Lowgal said:


> The marketing of 4E wasn't as negative towards past products as is Dominoe's product relaunch, hilariously spoofed by both The Daily Show &  Colbert.  The launch of a replacement product in and of itself is a repudiation of the past product.




*For me*, this. The message I heard was "players told us 'Aspect X' wasn't fun, so this is how we are handling it in 4E." I _feel_ certain that they never intended that message to turn into "your game is stupid and unfun."


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2010)

Now I don't know the entire user base but in an area with only two game stores, I don't know anyone who plays 4e - no group in either of those two stores. Granted the area is rural so we're not talking huge numbers here, but I know about 40 people who play RPGs, most still play 3e, some Pathfinder, but I know of no one here, that play 4e. One store owner says, he's stuck with all these 4e books and they are not selling.

Again, one tiny slice of the market. But it says something here.

GP


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I respectfully disagree. If you try to make a game that appeals to *everyone* then you will most likely lose more than if you focus on what your market research has told you is your largest segment. Anyone who tells you that you must cater 100% to your current customer base is doomed for failure.




I agree.



> You *still* continue to assert a "large" portion of their prior income base. What data do you have to supoprt this?




Based on the importance WotC placed on the game table for thier initiative, and based upon the general idea that making it work is mostly a matter of throwing money into its development, one might argue that WotC no longer thinks the money worth it.

Go on, WotC....Get the game table running!  Prove me wrong!  


RC


----------



## Chrono22 (Feb 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I respectfully disagree. If you try to make a game that appeals to *everyone* then you will most likely lose more than if you focus on what your market research has told you is your largest segment. Anyone who tells you that you must cater 100% to your current customer base is doomed for failure.



Microsoft office.


> You *still* continue to assert a "large" portion of their prior income base. What data do you have to supoprt this? Anecdotal evidence of people raging against 4E on the internet? Anecdotal evidence of people you know not playing 4E? WotC and Hasbro are the only ones who know whether their risk paid off as they expected. And since the game keeps releasing more and more my guess is that the game is the success they have been telling us it is.



WotC keeps laying off its employees. Doesn't sound like a stunning success to me.




> See, right here is why I don't think you think of this person as a real person. Would you call another poster a fool? That's what you just did. And you should get a warning for it.



I would call another person a fool, yes, if he's acting like a fool. Your warning has been duly noted and duly thrown in the trash.

*Admin here. See this, folks? Don't do this - sarcastic rudeness gets you booted from the thread and makes your moderators cranky. It's fine to disagree with someone, but never be a jerk about it. ~ PCat*



> I agree with you. Although less vehemently in the case of the GSL. 3PP are doing well releasing 4E product under the GSL. Why some have decided to accept the GSL while others dismiss it is a reason only those publishers know for sure.



Poison pill clause and late release are the reasons, obviously. It ain't because D&D stopped being a source of income.


> You should really stop making personal attacks. Most of the WotC folks post here or used to post here and calling others liars and deliberatly stupid doesn't seem wise to me.



When I address "WotC" I am addressing the corporate entity. When I start naming names, is when it becomes a personal attack. Believe me, you'll know the difference.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 3, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Now I don't know the entire user base but in an area with only two game stores, I don't know anyone who plays 4e - no group in either of those two stores. Granted the area is rural so we're not talking huge numbers here, but I know about 40 people who play RPGs, most still play 3e, some Pathfinder, but I know of no one here, that play 4e. One store owner says, he's stuck with all these 4e books and they are not selling.
> 
> Again, one tiny slice of the market. But it says something here.
> 
> GP




FWIW the game store in my city has 3 nights a week that run RPGA games and they sometimes have to turn players away. Small portions of the whole are not worthwhile to determine the success or failure of a system. Until WOTC releases their sales figures for 3e and 4e and as well their initial estimates to compare against actual results we probably won't have more than conjecture on the interwebs about how well or not well it's doing.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Feb 3, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, yeah, that's something that still bugs me. People talk about how insulting the posts were, how the Dev's were trash talking all over the place, but, when you start to actually drill down and take an honest look, suddenly, most of the material is pretty banal and moderate.
> 
> Like I said, which is more likely? That people who had a hate on for the edition change started claiming that they were victims of big bad WOTC, or that WOTC really was out to piddle on the community that they'd spent about ten years building?



You might be right.  But that's also completely irrelevant.

I've never studied business or marketing, but it seems to be a basic premise of marketing is that it is the marketer's responsibility not to offend the (potential) customer.  It is _not_ the (potential) customer's responsibility not to be offended by the marketing.  And this especially applies in a world as small as the community of D&D players.  

The _mea culpa_ PCat posted upthread bears this out: WoTC understands they made a mistake.  Honestly, I think that's very cool of them, and deserves some notice on the part of people who were miffed by the whole thing.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Feb 3, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> Microsoft office.




Lame. Try naming a RPG that appeals to everyone and I'll discuss this with you. Microsoft Office doesn't even appeal to everyone, sorry to tell you.



Chrono22 said:


> WotC keeps laying off its employees. Doesn't sound like a stunning success to me.




Yep. They did this in the 3E days too. Geuss by your measure 3E was a dismal failure. They pulled their support for it too so it must be even a bigger flop. Please.



Chrono22 said:


> Poison pill clause and late release are the reasons, obviously. It ain't because D&D stopped being a source of income.




Other publishers picked up the GSL and are producing 4E material despite your "obvious" reasons.



Chrono22 said:


> When I address "WotC" I am addressing the corporate entity. When I start naming names, is when it becomes a personal attack. Believe me, you'll know the difference.




Yeah, calling the "Brand Manager of D&D" a "fool" is targeting the company and not an individual. This is what I meant by you viewing WotC as an entity instead of the individuals that make it up. Contradict yourself much? Where's that ignore button?

*Folks, this is a good example of the sort of thing that gets you threadbanned. When you start arguing AT someone else instead of discussing an issue, please walk away from the keyboard for a while. ~ Piratecat*


----------



## Chrono22 (Feb 3, 2010)

In any case, the GSL was a mistake. 3rd party support is key to increasing market exposure. The timing of the GSL's release and it's poison pill clause forced 3ps to choose- less 3ps means less new players.
Same applies to the PDF fiasco. Less customer access means less customers.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 3, 2010)

I say next we debate about whether or not we should debate about past debates!


----------



## Gimby (Feb 3, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> In any case, the GSL was a mistake. 3rd party support is key to increasing market exposure. The timing of the GSL's release and it's poison pill clause forced 3ps to choose- less 3ps means less new players.
> Same applies to the PDF fiasco. Less customer access means less customers.




Is it really though? How much 3rd party support do companies like White Wolf, SJG and so on have?


----------



## renau1g (Feb 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I say next we debate about whether or not we should debate about past debates!




I will take that challenge sir! 

So I think we should not re-open old debates, but leave sleeping tigers lie(well that is unless you think we shouldn't re-open them, to which I retort, No we must reopen old wounds, let the air get to them and clean out the bad blood ).... what say you?


----------



## PoeticJustice (Feb 3, 2010)

I don't think many people are still mad about what was done and said two years ago (for my sake, I hope not), but there are ways in which I don't think the community has fully healed.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Now I don't know the entire user base but in an area with only two game stores, I don't know anyone who plays 4e - no group in either of those two stores. Granted the area is rural so we're not talking huge numbers here, but I know about 40 people who play RPGs, most still play 3e, some Pathfinder, but I know of no one here, that play 4e. One store owner says, he's stuck with all these 4e books and they are not selling.
> 
> Again, one tiny slice of the market. But it says something here.
> 
> GP



Supposedly something similar is occurring at the local Borders, at least according to a friend who works there.

I dislike 4e, but I find his observations dubious - he is basing them primarily on returns, that returns to the publisher are higher for 4e than for 3.5 - which may very well be true, and that sales are lower, here I believe that he is comparing peak to peak, rather than 4e vs. 3.5 at the end of its product cycle. 3.5 at its peak was a massive seller, but I think that by the time 4e appeared the popularity was waning.

4e did not have to beat 3.5 at its peak, it just has to beat 3.5 at its tail end. It also seems that Borders is ordering much larger numbers of 4e books than they did for 3.5, so even if sales were exactly the same they would have larger returns to the publisher.

3rd party products are gone entirely - only official WotC products are for sale for D&D, though Pathfinder has made an appearance for the OGL market. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2010)

Clearly, some people are still mad about things - mad enough to continue arguing about them.

Let's be clear about something - if you are still mad about something, even now, that suggests that all the previous discussion of it failed to alleviate your anger and frustration.  I'd take that as an indication that further discussion isn't going to help.  

And further, if you see someone still angry - that's an indication that you are not going to change their mind through further discussion here.

Which is to say that this thread is useful to note what people are still annoyed at - but it isn't any good for hashing through those arguments _yet again_.  Don't start warring here, folks.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 3, 2010)

I've just threadbanned a few folks. No more personal attacks, please; if you're angry at some of the things being discussed, walk away from the keyboard for a bit until you can discuss it without insulting other people.

EDIT: drat, beaten by two minutes!


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 3, 2010)

ooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww  Double mod! Does this thread win a prize now


----------



## billd91 (Feb 3, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I sincerely apologize.




Thanks, I do appreciate that.

And I think you're right that they didn't intend to offend anyone, but I think the reaction was fairly predictable and that's why I think they misread a segment of their market. And that's just a mistake, not and will to offend.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 3, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> ooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww  Double mod! Does this thread win a prize now




Woo hoo!  First prize ever for me here!  Is that like an Ennie?  

And, as the OP, I also apologize.  I guess people are still mad about some things, as Umbran and others said.  It wasn't my intention to "open old wounds" or to turn it into an edition war.  I merely like reflecting on things and wasn't even thinking about within DND but things like the "Graduate Your Game" that were outside of DND.  

I think the problem was asking about rants instead of making it a rave, as Monty did.  

Live and learn.

edg


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 3, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> WotC keeps laying off its employees. Doesn't sound like a stunning success to me.




  By that logic, 3E was a failure as well. 

  On topic, I must be the only person not mad about the cancellation of the magazines--I miss them as part of a legacy, but I never got into Dungeon and was getting kind of tired of the Greyhawk and demon obsessions by the end of Paizo's run on Dragon.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> By that logic, 3E was a failure as well.




Then what's that say about Paizo - they keep hiring people, many of whom were recently fired from WotC? Granted Paizo is small, but their development team is already bigger than WotC's - what's up with that?

GP


----------



## Stoat (Feb 3, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> On topic, I must be the only person not mad about the cancellation of the magazines--I miss them as part of a legacy, but I never got into Dungeon and was getting kind of tired of the Greyhawk and demon obsessions by the end of Paizo's run on Dragon.




I'm not mad about the end of the magazines either.  I wish WotC did a better job with the online versions, and I was -- I guess sad, wistful, nostalgic, something like that -- when I learned that the magazines were going away, but I wasn't mad then, and I'm not mad now.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 3, 2010)

*wow*

Does Paizo really have a bigger dev team assigned to Pathfinder than WoTC has for 4E?  That would be...remarkable!

Ken


----------



## Scribble (Feb 3, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Then what's that say about Paizo - they keep hiring people, many of whom were recently fired from WotC? Granted Paizo is small, but their development team is already bigger than WotC's - what's up with that?
> 
> GP




Could be a lot of things, the very easiest of which being Pathfinder is in it's early stages, and therefore needs lots of developers.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 4, 2010)

Of course it's the interwebs so I can just as easily say that Paizo's team is half the size of WotC and unless I back it up with reliable sources it's just internet hearsay


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 4, 2010)

*Backwards Compatibility/Edition conversion*



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, 2Ed was fairly compatible with 1Ed, for instance.
> 
> And as for 3Ed, while it wasn't perfectly compatible,
> 
> ...




Nod.  My current campaigns started in 1996 in AD&D.  Converted to 3.0, then to 3.5

The only real complaints were one player who didn't like giving up percentile Strength, and the same player complaining about buying a new PHB for 3.5.  Not a whole lot worse than leveling up, as I remember it.

Note that we never did convert to 2e, and I stopped playing at all in the height of 2e (from 1991-1996), before deciding to restart in AD&D (with just the original rules, not Unearthed Arcana, etc.).

I was not a fan of 2e because when it came out, my primary PC was a half-orc assassin -- both his race and his class were "banned" by the nanny-izing that happened for 2e.  But I bought and used significant amounts of 2e material -- modules, Dungeon issues, historical resources, setting materials, etc. -- because "converting" them back to AD&D was doable, and that fluffy stuff was still interesting.

3.0 to 3.5 was the only "overnight" conversion we did, as a "no brainer", essentially.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 4, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> However, with just slight tweaking one can easily play an 1e or 2e adventure using 3e rules (same is true for Pathfinder rules) - change some monster stats, replace NPCs with more appropriate to current rules version, some trap and spell mechanics changes, but that's it.




Converting between 2e and AD&D, or AD&D and BECMI, that's trivial.

But those and 3e were a bit further apart -- a 3rd level Cleric/Priest or an ogre were still the same things, but the stats were substantially different, so there was some paperwork involved in running EXACTLY the same adventure.

But I agree with your point about that compared to 4e.  4e to 3e seems about as compatible as 3e and GURPS.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ok, so, just to sum up, we've got one three line quote from a book and a video that actually wasn't made by a developer at WOTC, but by Gamer0, who, IIRC, got canned before the launch of 4e, specifically for posting crap like what was linked.
> 
> And that becomes the "Long list of wrongbadfun" stuff?




No, that's just a couple of examples of what got us annoyed.  We really don't need to scour the net for _everything_ in the 4Ed rollout that annoyed us, do we?  (Especially with all that red text popping up.)




billd91 said:


> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> > But, I the way I look at it, I see two possible alternatives.
> ...




QFT, bild91.

I had actually been pretty stoked by some of the early press releases- I was enthused enough to pre-order the Core 3 within a week of being able to do so.  But as the rollout continued with revelations about the actual system details, I began to feel like I had been a victim of bait and switch.  That aside, the tone and language used went counter to most of what I learned earning my MBA.

So I stopped looking at most of the press releases so I could judge the game on its own merits.  When I got it in my hands, my fears were confirmed.

Market research, no matter how thorough, may still miss salient points.  New Coke, as I've pointed out before, is cited as THE classic example in marketing classes.

According to Coke's _extensive_ market research, New Coke beat both Coke's traditional recipe and that of Coke's fast-rising rival, Pepsi.

What they missed was that, while New Coke would have flourished as a new product in Coke's line, most Coke drinkers didn't want their classic recipe _replaced._  Over time, New Coke might have wrecked Pepsi and supplanted Coke's original flavor as #1 in the market...but it wasn't given time to grow.  It was just thrown out there.

WotC's release of 4Ed was, in some ways, similar.  While comparatively MUCH more successful a product than New Coke ever will be, it did cause a similar kind of rift in the targeted market.  The difference is that 4Ed had a broader appeal- it won converts AND new blood- something New Coke failed to do.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Of course it's the interwebs so I can just as easily say that Paizo's team is half the size of WotC and unless I back it up with reliable sources it's just internet hearsay




The source I'm going by is WotC layoff's back in December, and they listed who was left on the development staff which I believe was 6 people. I don't know all the developers at Paizo, but I'm pretty sure there's more than six people working on development - I could be wrong. Still they have announced when they got new hires and who they were. Paizo has more the six people based on new hires and existing staff.

Now WotC may have hired new developers since then, but then that isn't public information. From the limited sources it seems true.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 4, 2010)

Things I've personally been mad about for years, and still am:

 - Since the 1e-2e overlap, ongoing refusal of either TSR or WotC to support previous editions alongside whatever edition is-was current
 - After playing the game for close to 20 years, finding my opinions on its development leading up to 3e - and those of most of the people I played with at the time - were deemed irrelevant by WotC's market researchers because we were over 35
 - Marketing the game (2e and to some extent 4e, I'm looking at you) to a too-young demographic.  It's a game for adults, or close, and should be designed and marketed as such; and if younger players want to dive in that's fine, but this should not affect the game's basic design.
 - That this hobby has been allowed to turn into an industry where design is driven by the bottom line, leading to (among other things) endless expansions of an edition until it collapses under its own weight thus requiring a new edition where the cycle starts again...

And some more recent annoyances:

 - Subscription-based online content.  I don't mind paying to buy a game.  I do mind being expected to continually pay more if I want to remain current.
 - Increasing requirement that one has a computer in order to play a pen-and-paper game.  I don't do pdf's, if at all possible; but a lot of material is only being made available via pdf now - and I don't have a bookbindery in my spare room. 

Lan-"I didn't think I was mad about this many things until I read this over"-efan


----------



## FireLance (Feb 4, 2010)

Lanefan said:


> And some more recent annoyances:
> 
> - Subscription-based online content.  I don't mind paying to buy a game.  I do mind being expected to continually pay more if I want to remain current.



Just thought I'd express an opinion here, even though I'm fairly sure I'm not going to persuade you of anything. 

I personally don't see this as any different from subscribing to the print Dungeon and Dragon magazines and buying supplements (including modules) in the old days. In both cases, paying more money means that you get a stream of new stuff, but deciding not to pay any more money doesn't make the game you originally bought unplayable. It just means that you don't use any new rules and other material.

Now, whether there is a greater "pressure" to remain "current" in the present time - due to the presence of online discussions about new material, for example - is another matter entirely.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 4, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Just thought I'd express an opinion here, even though I'm fairly sure I'm not going to persuade you of anything.
> 
> I personally don't see this as any different from subscribing to the print Dungeon and Dragon magazines and buying supplements (including modules) in the old days. In both cases, paying more money means that you get a stream of new stuff, but deciding not to pay any more money doesn't make the game you originally bought unplayable. It just means that you don't use any new rules and other material.
> 
> Now, whether there is a greater "pressure" to remain "current" in the present time - due to the presence of online discussions about new material, for example - is another matter entirely.



Fair enough.

I never subscribed to either of Dragon or Dungeon.  Instead, I looked at them in ye olde FLGS and if what I saw interested me, I'd buy it.  I'd usually end up getting about 1 out of 4 Dragons and almost never bought Dungeon after they switched to 3e-only content.

As for the game being playable without extras, that's a matter of opinion.  All four editions have been made more playable by later releases, provided one is really careful about separating the wheat from the chaff; but the signal-to-noise ratio is getting worse as time goes on.

And note I'm not saying I never want to pay for the game; in fact the state of my groaning bookshelf and overcrowded minis shelves would strongly suggest otherwise.   But that was all purchased by choice.  With any subscription-based system, I constantly run the risk of paying for a bunch of stuff I don't find of any use or value; where I'd rather only pay for the things I want. 

Lanefan


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Feb 4, 2010)

I miss getting Dragon in the mail once a month.  Even though I subscribe to DDI, I hardly read the articles.  I keep the DDI mainly for the fantastic other stuff it does.

I'm sad FR was so drastically changed.  I understand why they did it, but I'm not sure it was worth it.  

I'm sad we haven't had a new Campaign setting for 4E, other than the PoL default setting.  Or rather, I wish they'd fully develop the PoL setting.  It has great potential.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 4, 2010)

Mr. Wilson said:


> I'm sad we haven't had a new Campaign setting for 4E, other than the PoL default setting.  Or rather, I wish they'd fully develop the PoL setting.  It has great potential.




See I don't play or even like 4e and I'll agree with this. The system really should have had something to call it's own, in place or killing a much beloved world. PoL is a classic type of setting, A new setting to highlight some point and built around the new system would have been great for those that love the system


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 4, 2010)

What setting did 3.0 have to call its own?  I don't remember anything new before Eberron.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 4, 2010)

3.0 had nothing new, however 4e was such a radical brake from anything that had come before:I feel it would have been better to showcase what all it could do with a new setting. Trying to shove the points of light concept into already established and well loved settings was a bad ideal. What it showed to me and others was that 4e could not handled the setting without mass reworking of the setting.

Now this might not be true, but that is what it seemed. The settings should have been updated without a rewrite and a new setting put out to highlight the "selling" points of the new system. After all the new FR is a new setting in all but name anyhow.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 4, 2010)

This one is carrying over a bit from the other thread, but, I really gotta ask:



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> - Marketing the game (2e and to some extent 4e, I'm looking at you) to a too-young demographic. It's a game for adults, or close, and should be designed and marketed as such; and if younger players want to dive in that's fine, but this should not affect the game's basic design.




When was D&D EVER marketted to anything other than teens?  OD&D was reboxed as Basic/Expert and said "For 10 years old or older" in big bright letters on the front.  AD&D was marketed by a Saturday morning cartoon and the backs of comic books.  Again, ten year olds.

What official adult themed settings have come out for D&D?  Heck, when the Book of Erotic Fantasy came out, it crashed the d20 trademark, WOTC jumping so fast to distance themselves.  D&D fiction has always been Young Adult lines.  There's been no adult themed settings, modules, rule books, or anything else in the entire history of officially published D&D.

So, at what point was D&D ever NOT marketed to ten year olds?

------------------

On the emotional response.

Yes, I agree that you should never just dismiss someone's emotional response.  That's true.  But, how far does that go?  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.  When the opinions being expressed are not based on facts, but rather on gut level reactions to things that may not appear, or only appear if you look at them while squinting really hard, should everyone just bow to that and accept it because it's an emotional response?

Or should we question those responses?  Should we not try to drill down and find out why?  Take the quote from Races and Powers.  That's a three line bit from a what, 90 page book?  We're talking a very, very small amount that's being pulled out while ignoring the other 99.9% of what's been written.

And, look at what it says.  It says D&D is about combat.  This is offensive?  Really?  If you think D&D is not about combat, I would point you to 99% of the published modules out there, and probably about a similar percentage of the rules.  The fact that every year we got a new Monster Manual, yet never once got a 3e rule book for how to run a country speaks volumes about what the game is about.

Again, it's WOTC claiming that water is wet and people claiming offence.  

So, if you were WOTC, what would you do?  Would you start appologizing to those who claim offence, or do you man up, stick to what you said and realize that the people who are blazing like comets across message boards are most likely never going to buy your product no matter what you do?

Or, perhaps we should strip demons out of the game because concerned citizens groups are having an emotional response to what's in the rule books?


----------



## diaglo (Feb 4, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> What setting did 3.0 have to call its own?  I don't remember anything new before Eberron.




Greyhawk was the default setting when it was released in 2000.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 4, 2010)

3.0 used Greyhawk as the default setting, in terms of gods and examples.  But, I don't think it did as much as 4E did, in terms of what has been in the 4E DMGs for a setting.  

Unfortunately, I have nothing to cite for this, but wasn't DND traditionally marketed for a younger (13-23) audience?  I ask because if I am correct, that could be why Lanefan feels they aren't targeting him (or us) anymore.  And, last night, I confirmed that DND is not a game for adults, at least not in the past and it's probably continued that way.  

Compare Dune Trader, a supplement for Dark Sun published in '92 to Manacle and Coin, an Exalted supplement published in 2003.*  Certainly, ten years separates them and they are different companies but they do deal with the same things, trading.  Dune Trader, though, in a setting that deals with slavery, corruption and other "bad" elements of the human condition, so to speak, doesn't list prices for slaves.  It blatantly leave it up to the DM in a footnote on a table.  Further, while it mentions beer and wine, it doesn't have anything more exotic or worse.  Manacle and Coin has two chapters specifically to deal with drugs and slavery.  It handles them in a very adult way, talking about the drugs, what they can do and how they are grown/cultivated and traded.  

I really enjoy reading the ideas in Manacle and Coin and they did a great job with the subject matter and it will fit well into my Dark Sun campaign as background information.  I don't see TSR/WotC ever doing anything like that.  That's not bad!  I am merely using this as an example of the fact that DND does seem to be marketed to the younger crowd.  

Maybe that's a good question.  For those who are still mad about the marketing of 2E/3E/4E, how old were you when it came out?  Are you still not happy about it?  

Thanks for the responses!

edg

*I firmly realize that TSR in '91 and White Wolf in '03 are *VERY* different companies.  TSR was still reacting to the backlash of the 80s and made 2E DND very politically correct.  They also had a very strict set of standards for novels and at least Ed Greenwood has commented that several things he proposed were rejected and he never bothered with other adult things.  In contrast, White Wolf has a company *devoted* to publishing R rated materials for their RPG lines.  In this particular instance, though, while they considered Manacle and Coin for it, they did not use that branch to publish it, so this is a "mainstream" book from them.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> What official adult themed settings have come out for D&D?  Heck, when the Book of Erotic Fantasy came out, it crashed the d20 trademark, WOTC jumping so fast to distance themselves.  D&D fiction has always been Young Adult lines.  There's been no adult themed settings, modules, rule books, or anything else in the entire history of officially published D&D.



I gotta say, if BoEF is your example of what is meant by "adult", heck if it even comes to mind as fitting the point at hand, then you are not communicating on the same wavelength.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, if you were WOTC, what would you do?  Would you start appologizing to those who claim offence, or do you man up, stick to what you said and realize that the people who are blazing like comets across message boards are most likely never going to buy your product no matter what you do?




That's it in a nutshell and I will most likely never buy into 4e, no matter what they do. If the World of Greyhawk is released for 4e, I might take a gander to see what I can retrofit.

I may get emotional about the edition(s) of D&D I prefer, but my decision not to convert to 4e is based in fact. There were plenty of omissions and changes that made the game undesirable to me.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 4, 2010)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't see why they were insulting. Wizards listened to the feedback of its customers. Customers highlighted areas they disliked about the game, we had many threads pre-4E discussing those problems. Wizards set out to fix the problems their customers were having with the game. Not all of their customers had the same problems. I would assume that they tackled the most common problems people were having. I'm sorry you weren't in the majority that was having said problems. Even those that did share the same problems may not have liked the ways Wizards tried to fix those problems. Don't take it personally, they were doing what they thought best for the game. They didn't ask you what you liked about the game and then design against that. They designed a game based on the feedback of the majority. If I still enjoyed 3E I wouldn't be angry. I thought 2E AD&D was totally unnecessary, but I wasn't angry with TSR when they explained why they were fixing what they considered wrong with 1E.




I am very glad for you that it was not insulting.  I do not remember one instance of information gathering done by the developers.  There were squeaky wheels on WOTC forums.  I think that was the only information gathering done.

Regardless, and though I did not run out with pitchforks, I found the tone of the leadup to 4e completely insulting even when I was ENTHUSIASTIC about a new edition.  

This did not cause me to dislike 4e.  I was excited.  It was the gameplay I did not like.

I gave it an honest try even though I found the blogs insulting.  That marketing had absolutely /0/ to do with why I dislike 4e.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 4, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I gotta say, if BoEF is your example of what is meant by "adult", heck if it even comes to mind as fitting the point at hand, then you are not communicating on the same wavelength.




Sigh.

Instead of simply picking out the one line that is tangential to the point, how about actually answering the question.

Funny thing is, this is pretty much EXACTLY how things went with the marketing for 4e.  People would pick one or two lines out of the field, and find THAT to take offense to, pretty much ignoring anything like context or actually trying to engage in anything resembling conversation.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 4, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> 3.0 had nothing new, however 4e was such a radical brake from anything that had come before:I feel it would have been better to showcase what all it could do with a new setting. Trying to shove the points of light concept into already established and well loved settings was a bad ideal. What it showed to me and others was that 4e could not handled the setting without mass reworking of the setting.
> 
> Now this might not be true, but that is what it seemed. The settings should have been updated without a rewrite and a new setting put out to highlight the "selling" points of the new system. After all the new FR is a new setting in all but name anyhow.




Actually, imo, what made it tough to make the last 3.X version of FR a PoL setting was its own history.  If you compare the gray boxed set of '87 to the 3.0 FRCS, or the 3.5 version, these are VERY different worlds!  

FR5 was the Savage Frontier but now we have the Silver Marches and several other kingdoms that have been forged out of those areas.  While not completely civilized, certainly more so than at first!  Halruaa was this exotic place, mentioned only here and there, and by 3.5 was fully fleshed out.  Same for Thay, which had a supplement (FR6), a boxed set (Spellbound) and a 3.x source book.  Netheril was another place of mystery that also had a boxed set and a 3.x source book!  

Now, don't get me wrong.  Maybe it would have been better to do an informal reset and go back to 1356 DR, the date (I think) of the gray boxed set and come out with information as if it was back then.  That wouldn't invalidate anything that happened and would let them have PoL setting in FR.  

Ah, hindsight!   

Thanks!

edg


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 4, 2010)

I would not call it a different world, it was just a more explored world. A 20 year old setting pretty much has to change.  You can't keep putting out books and boxed sets and not included changes you made to the line in updated campaign setting products 

I do agree a roll back or no time jump be better then the junk they put out. That setting was not the setting I have played since 92, where as the 3.0 FRCS was still very much the greybox of 87 with more info. It was not remade, was not reconnected and a whole new setting using names and a vastly altered map. I could roll out the 3.0 FRCS and match it up with the old box, I could match it up with volo guides and the old north box set, just with more info. I can not do so with the new setting they are calling FR


----------



## Windjammer (Feb 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Market research, no matter how thorough, may still miss salient points.  New Coke, as I've pointed out before, is cited as THE classic example in marketing classes.
> 
> According to Coke's _extensive_ market research, New Coke beat both Coke's traditional recipe and that of Coke's fast-rising rival, Pepsi.
> 
> What they missed was that, while New Coke would have flourished as a new product in Coke's line, most Coke drinkers didn't want their classic recipe _replaced._  Over time, New Coke might have wrecked Pepsi and supplanted Coke's original flavor as #1 in the market...but it wasn't given time to grow.  It was just thrown out there.




An interesting reaction to the upcoming 4E Red Box seems to echo this analogy. Some people who were turned off by 4E seem to like to try out the new Red Box coming out in fall 2010. I wonder how widespread this welcoming reaction to a new game had been if WotC had started to market 4E as a basic game and only over time expanded it into a full rule set for professional geeks (so to speak). They did the complete opposite by frontloading the Core Ruleset, and offered the Red Box as an afterthought. Sure this is the traditional way of releasing editions of D&D, but by going this way they lost a huge market share to begin with, and now try to regain part of that lost share (and other segments of lapsed customers) by putting out stuff like the Red Box, the Ravenloft boardgame, and so on. Apparently they've learned the error in their ways, because in a manner the upcoming 4E Gamma Worlds could be a testdrive for the significantly more important Star Wars license to be regained in 2011/2012 for 4E, by way of testing the market's reaction.

But as far as D&D itself is concerned, WotC basically deprived themselves of exposing their product to an open market to test for wider reactions _before pinning the brand's fate solely on the new baby_. And while their playtest and feedback channel was extensive, reading playtester reviews like NiTessine's makes you feel they were rather "selective" when acting on feedback.*

* See here:



> It probably should be mentioned that I playtested this, though you’ll have to take my word for it. No playtester credits on this one. I won’t elaborate on how many of our suggestions made it in. You can probably guess.



Given that the review mentions a lot of the faults they found during the playtest, WotC either didn't care to remedy H1 or didn't think the feedback valuable in the first place.


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> So, yeah, that's something that still bugs me.  People talk about how insulting the posts were, how the Dev's were trash talking all over the place, but, when you start to actually drill down and take an honest look, suddenly, most of the material is pretty banal and moderate.
> 
> Like I said, which is more likely?  That people who had a hate on for the edition change started claiming that they were victims of big bad WOTC, or that WOTC really was out to piddle on the community that they'd spent about ten years building?




In the preview books, I remember specifically "The Great Wheel is dead." Now you can justify that by saying that the sacred cow needed to be slaughtered or something about needless symmetry (which I think the book did). But that is an attack on the previous edition, which went so far as to proclaim victory for killing it. You just don't jubilantly pronounce somethings death without implying that you bore malice against it while it lived. Especially when you are the one that killed it.

In fact, using the term sacred cow was rather insulting, but I think that was more of a forumite meme. 

Anyway, yes, the marketing was a major contributor to the edition wars. I doubt that WotC activity intended to piss people off, but that happens when you aggressively promote a new product while bemoaning the problems of your last product. Perhaps they needed another editor.

And yes, people are still mad about it, obviously. Especially when they are told they shouldn't be mad at it.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 4, 2010)

Dannager said:


> To you.
> 
> That doesn't mean D&D isn't designed in a certain direction. You can employ the system (however awkwardly) to accomplish whatever you may like, including traipsing off through fairy rings, but that doesn't mean the game doesn't have a core and a focus.




What you stated above is exactly why alot of 3rd edition fans do not like 4e.  It is the design direction that shifted from the previous editions (After it evolved into AD&D at least) that has turned alot of people off.  I don't want to follow the bullet cam during every battle.  D&D now has the dungeon crawl/skirmish design direction in focus.  



Dannager said:


> If you find interacting with little people more interesting than exploring dungeons and slaying monsters, that's cool. Use D&D or don't use D&D; it really doesn't matter. You'll enjoy your game, and we'll enjoy ours. Finding _insult_ in the statement of a designer who was simply pointing out what the game is designed to best accomplish is just silly, though.




Yes but earlier editions of D&D catered to BOTH of these play styles.  It did not have to be a "you'll enjoy your game and we'll enjoy ours" type of thing.  Previously it was "Oh interesting... you play your D&D that way!  Look I play D&D this way"  Now if you play D&D off the design direction it is not the game for you.

The designers statement was indicating... we are designing D&D differently now.  

People that were into the design direction quite obviously would have no problem.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Instead of simply picking out the one line that is tangential to the point, how about actually answering the question.
> 
> Funny thing is, this is pretty much EXACTLY how things went with the marketing for 4e.  People would pick one or two lines out of the field, and find THAT to take offense to, pretty much ignoring anything like context or actually trying to engage in anything resembling conversation.



Tangential?  It is a central point of your statement and you repeat the theme in your other thread with silly equivalencies to ratings for games and modules.

Appeal to adults and "contains matter inappropriate for children" are not a fixed relationship.  And yet you can't seem to find the distinction.

I will agree that this is very much like the 4e marketing.  One person will throw out a statement not considering the clear implications of what they have said.  And when someone else points out the problem with that statment the response is not an apology or correction, but an immediate attack on the audacity of someone to apply a little thinking to the issue.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 4, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> I would not call it a different world, it was just a more explored world. A 20 year old setting pretty much has to change.  You can't keep putting out books and boxed sets and not included changes you made to the line in updated campaign setting products
> 
> I do agree a roll back or no time jump be better then the junk they put out. That setting was not the setting I have played since 92, where as the 3.0 FRCS was still very much the greybox of 87 with more info. It was not remade, was not reconnected and a whole new setting using names and a vastly altered map. I could roll out the 3.0 FRCS and match it up with the old box, I could match it up with volo guides and the old north box set, just with more info. I can not do so with the new setting they are calling FR




Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.  I call a more explored world a different world.  To me, there is a big difference between Silverymoon being this frontier city on the edge of civilization with a gate to hell nearby in 1355, to the capital of united area next to a kingdom of orcs in 1374 and no more gate to hell close by.  I'm not even sure the North was called the Savage Frontier in 3E!  

Having said that, I am no more upset about the Spellplague than I was about the Time of Troubles.  Which is to say it annoyed me for a bit but then I kept going.  Of course, I'm not the same person I was 23 years later!   

Thanks!

edg


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 4, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Appeal to adults and "contains matter inappropriate for children" are not a fixed relationship.




Hear, hear. D&D is playable by children, but it is not a child's game.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Like I said, which is more likely?  That people who had a hate on for the edition change started claiming that they were victims of big bad WOTC, or that WOTC really was out to piddle on the community that they'd spent about ten years building?




Neither.  The marketing was bad.  I was enthusiastic about 4e until about 2 months in playing it and I still detected the tone which I chalked up to bad marketing.  how can one NOT see it?  Perhaps insulting is not the right word, btu there was a definite condescending tone inherent in the developers blog to the 3rd edition ruleset.

You would  not see it because you were one of those that were fine with the changes.

I was happy about a new edition, until I saw they divereged from the D&D I knew.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 4, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think the typical reason for feeling insulted is not sharing the same context as the game designers.




Saying that does not solve anything.  There are really two types of insults, intentional and non intentional.  The designers certainly were not intentional, but they misread the community and it became an insult.  

At least in the united states if you turn on the evening news you will see examples of unintentional insults and the groups they will arouse.  You can see the problems in causes in any aspect of life.  A gaming hobby is no different even if the level of importance is minimal.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well there's also the idea that while the previous branding was perfect for 10 years ago, it was loosing it's effectiveness in today's market (and the future market) so things had to change. (Despite the fact that it might cause a bit of a commotion as those still attached solidly to the old branding tactics felt left behind.)
> 
> Current clients are very important yes, but at the same time, if your current clients are slowly atrophying, and you're not bringing in enough new clients with your current product... What do you do?




Quite honestly I get puzzled when the branding of D&D is more modern now.  I don't understand how.  Is it the DDI?  If you applied DDI to 3rd edition wouldn't that make it just as modern?  What about 4e rules design makes it modern compared to third edition?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 4, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> To me, there is a big difference between Silverymoon being this frontier city on the edge of civilization with a gate to hell nearby in 1355, to the capital of united area next to a kingdom of orcs in 1374 and no more gate to hell close by.




True but still the same world. Your looking at 19 years silvermoon was never a frontier city, but a city state in the wilds. It was always a major city, just without a kingdom. but in 19 years it went from a city all alone to the capital of a fledgling nation:that does not make it a new world. The world is the same place it was in 1355 but by 1374 things had changed

Look at it like this in 1760 America was colony's , points of light in the wilderness, by 1780 it was a young country. Still the same world as it was in 1760 but now the area had advanced. The in 1792 the us had 15 states, yet by 1821 a span of 29 years there were 24 states. Even if we keep it within 19 years your looking at 2 more states a large incress in size. 

If ya look at the realms history ya see nations rise and fall in 20 years, none of that makes it a new world but does make it more "real"


----------



## Hussar (Feb 4, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Tangential?  It is a central point of your statement and you repeat the theme in your other thread with silly equivalencies to ratings for games and modules.
> 
> Appeal to adults and "contains matter inappropriate for children" are not a fixed relationship.  And yet you can't seem to find the distinction.
> 
> I will agree that this is very much like the 4e marketing.  One person will throw out a statement not considering the clear implications of what they have said.  And when someone else points out the problem with that statment the response is not an apology or correction, but an immediate attack on the audacity of someone to apply a little thinking to the issue.




Yet, you still are incapable of answering the question.  

When was D&D EVER marketed to anyone other than teens?  I was asking Lanefan the same thing since he's claiming that 2e and now 4e are being marketed to a younger audience.  My point is that D&D has never contained much if any adult content, has always been directed at teens and nothing has really changed.

So, at what point in the history of the game, has D&D ever been targetted at anyone other than teens?  What bit of marketing has been done by either WOTC or TSR that directly targeted anyone other than the teen or maybe the very young twenties market?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 4, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> Saying that does not solve anything.  There are really two types of insults, intentional and non intentional.  The designers certainly were not intentional, but they misread the community and it became an insult.
> 
> At least in the united states if you turn on the evening news you will see examples of unintentional insults and the groups they will arouse.  You can see the problems in causes in any aspect of life.  A gaming hobby is no different even if the level of importance is minimal.




I believe it would be more accurate to say they misread a portion of the community.

It would possibly be a better question to find out why that portion reacted the way they did when another portion did not.  What sets that group apart?  What makes two groups, who likely have at least gaming in common, react almost entirely oppositely to the same statement?  What commonalities do these groups share within themselves?

I think the answers to those questions would shed a lot more light on the issue than possibly simply dumping everything back into WOTC's lap for misreading the reactions of particular groups.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, that's just a couple of examples of what got us annoyed.  We really don't need to scour the net for _everything_ in the 4Ed rollout that annoyed us, do we?  (Especially with all that red text popping up.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Of course by this reckoning 3e and 3.5e should never have been released. They were just "thrown out there" and seemed to do ok. Comparing it to "New Coke" is not fair as that product was a universal failure and 4e is certainly not, it may not be the colossal success that say the IPOD is, but I think to classify it in the same category as New Coke, The Vega, Ford Nova (in spanish speaking countries), Gerber baby products in Africa, which featured a baby on the outside and in Africa they usually put what's inside the product on the label due to low literacy rates (ironically, Gerber is vomiting in french), list goes on and on (Atari Jaguar?)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 4, 2010)

Apparantly it doesn't solve anything. 

It makes a big difference to me whether someone intentionally insults me or it just happens become he oversaw something. It seems not everyone feels the same way.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 4, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> Quite honestly I get puzzled when the branding of D&D is more modern now.  I don't understand how.  Is it the DDI?  If you applied DDI to 3rd edition wouldn't that make it just as modern?  What about 4e rules design makes it modern compared to third edition?




Stealing, uh, i mean, including rules that other RPGs on the market used when they were still absent in D&D. Compare some stuff in Earthdawn, forex, which parses over to 4e pretty well (healing is based on the character, not on healers / self-contained talents for all classes / choose from powers when levelling, regardless if you´re a figher or wizard). Another example are the minion rules. Modern in this regard means "influenced by contemporary sources."


----------



## Gimby (Feb 4, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> Yes but earlier editions of D&D catered to BOTH of these play styles.  It did not have to be a "you'll enjoy your game and we'll enjoy ours" type of thing.  Previously it was "Oh interesting... you play your D&D that way!  Look I play D&D this way"  Now if you play D&D off the design direction it is not the game for you.




I suppose the question is *how* did earlier versions cater to those styles of play, mechanically?  Sure, you could traipse through fairy rings and deal with the little people, but you still can.  What's actually been lost here, aside from statblocks telling you how good said fairies are in a fight?

Compare to something like Changeling, where the themes of innocence and wonder are important mechanically, or Exalted's Shaping combat, which invokes fairytale logic when interacting with the Fae.  

If something wasn't supported (as in, had mechanics to back it up) before, and still isn't now, then what's been lost?


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 4, 2010)

Seems like I am late to the party as usual.  I am only sore about three things that WotC has done to my beloved game:

1.  Banning PDF sales of out-of-print books.
2.  Making _Dragon_ magazine an e-publication.
3.  The GSL, which seriously limits 3pp material.

But as for everything else I was bent out of shape over in 4E (healing surges, WoW influence, dragonboobs, etc.), I'm over it.  The bottom line is, 4E isn't my kind of game...and that's _my fault_, not the fault of WotC.

EDIT: I was going to link my Edition War Flowchart, but I can't find it.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 4, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> Yes but earlier editions of D&D catered to BOTH of these play styles.  It did not have to be a "you'll enjoy your game and we'll enjoy ours" type of thing.  Previously it was "Oh interesting... you play your D&D that way!  Look I play D&D this way"  Now if you play D&D off the design direction it is not the game for you.




Well said and XP given.  This is how I felt.  

Now, to clarify, I play 4th Edition.  I do this in order to say current.  And with my multiple system mastery group (Champions from the early 80s, GURPS, Rolemaster, Top Secret, Gamma World, Traveller, etc.)  we have no problem playing our way in the new system of 4th.  Load's of fun.

But the narrowing of focus is noticeable.  And when we discuss mods locally offline with other groups, this is the first time we get told...oh you need a different game to play that way.

But we will stick with DnD.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 4, 2010)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Modern in this regard means "influenced by contemporary sources."




Thank you.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yet, you still are incapable of answering the question.



Careful with the direct accusations, please. It's possible to discuss or argue a topic without getting pugnacious.



> When was D&D EVER marketed to anyone other than teens?  I was asking Lanefan the same thing since he's claiming that 2e and now 4e are being marketed to a younger audience.  My point is that D&D has never contained much if any adult content, has always been directed at teens and nothing has really changed.
> 
> So, at what point in the history of the game, has D&D ever been targetted at anyone other than teens?  What bit of marketing has been done by either WOTC or TSR that directly targeted anyone other than the teen or maybe the very young twenties market?



As far as I can tell or remember, it has _never_ been marketed towards anyone other than teens or young adults. That doesn't mean that the reading level was artificially lowered - quite the reverse, really, except for some 2nd edition stuff - but I can't remember the marketing ever targeting the older demographic.

Certainly not the D&D cartoon, and remember these 1e ads? (That's Alan Ruck from Ferris Bueller's Day Off with the glasses, incidentally.)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnPz4qKnLds[/ame]

Or this?


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 4, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> The bottom line is, 4E isn't my kind of game...and that's _my fault_, not the fault of WotC.




That's a fair assessment that applies to me as well. Not everyone was bothered by WotC's "end your old games now and get ready for 4e" push, the loss of the ethereal plane, the disregard for the World of Greyhawk, the whole succubus/erinyes, debacle, weird dryads, loss of many traditional MM entries(as well as flavor text), loss of standard races and classes, etc etc etc. But I was. 

Yes, I could have spend aeons converting the 3e material that I enjoyed over to 4e, but I'm lazy. It was far easier to simply stay with an edition of the game that already had those elements.

And yes, subsequent supplements (pardon me.. core rules) may have added in a race, class, and beastie that had been missing. But I am quite unwilling to ask my players to spend another chunk of change on additional rulebooks.

I was ready to try 4e, to flesh out a campaign idea of mine, but alas the first 3 books had no greenhags, Awaken spell, or druids. Oh well.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 4, 2010)

Piratecat said:


>




I dont think that I've ever seen this add, but I feel an odd kinship with this kid. That was me walking around in JHS with my game books (Red box D&D, Marvel Super Heroes and or Star Frontiers) under my arm.

Except I was black.

With glasses. 

And Lee jeans and and Letigre or izod shirt.

And shell top Adidas with fat laces and a name belt buckle. 

Hanging out at a lunch table with the nerds and metal heads playing RPG's. Now that I think about it, I guess I was the hip-hop representative in our League of RPG Nations...


----------



## billd91 (Feb 4, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> As far as I can tell or remember, it has _never_ been marketed towards anyone other than teens or young adults. That doesn't mean that the reading level was artificially lowered - quite the reverse, really, except for some 2nd edition stuff - but I can't remember the marketing ever targeting the older demographic.
> 
> Certainly not the D&D cartoon, and remember these 1e ads? (That's Alan Ruck from Ferris Bueller's Day Off with the glasses, incidentally.)
> 
> YouTube - Vintage Dungeons & Dragons Commercial




I'd say that 1e ad, sorry D&D ad, is targeting college-age adults, myself. It certain appears to include them and that's not the typical teen/young adult demographic.

I find it hard to pigeonhole D&D ads as just being marketed to teens because the adult fanboy/girl demographic buys so many of the same materials. Based on where I saw a lot of the ads (gaming magazines, comic books), they were shooting for a non-mainstream segment of the demographic on both teen and adult accounts.

I'd be interested in hearing if any D&D ads appeared in Heavy Metal magazine or Marvel's Epic Illustrated, neither of which would be considered marketing for teens.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I'd say that 1e ad is




....not a 1e ad?  Do my eyes deceive me, or is that Basic?


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 4, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> True but still the same world. Your looking at 19 years silvermoon was never a frontier city, but a city state in the wilds. It was always a major city, just without a kingdom. but in 19 years it went from a city all alone to the capital of a fledgling nation:that does not make it a new world. The world is the same place it was in 1355 but by 1374 things had changed
> 
> Look at it like this in 1760 America was colony's , points of light in the wilderness, by 1780 it was a young country. Still the same world as it was in 1760 but now the area had advanced. The in 1792 the us had 15 states, yet by 1821 a span of 29 years there were 24 states. Even if we keep it within 19 years your looking at 2 more states a large incress in size.
> 
> If ya look at the realms history ya see nations rise and fall in 20 years, none of that makes it a new world but does make it more "real"




Okay, so you are thinking about growth and change?  I guess it's still a fine line we will have to agree to disagree!  

In 1355, going to Silverymoon would be an adventure unto itself based on how FR5 portrayed the world.  Orc tribes, barbarian tribes, goblins, trolls, and other monsters were out there, in the open, ready to attack.  

By 1374, in 3.X FRCS, where are the barbarian tribes?  I think they have been pushed further north of Silverymoon.  The orcs have a nation.  The trollmoors are still dangerous but only if entered, unless they are out attacking.  In this year, traveling from Waterdeep to Silverymoon would be relatively fast and safe compared to 1355.  To me, that's a different world.  

And it's to that point that I don't see the new FR of 4E much different.  Change happened.  The cities are all still there.  They just let the orc tribes and barbarian tribes back in to play!    Think of how much change we are arguing in twenty years game time and now multiply that by five!  

(I don't have my FRCS 3.0 to check what it says about the barbarian tribes.)

I know you didn't say this.  I am.  But, it seems to me that the Americas in 1500 and the Americas in 1600 are VERY different!  That's how I see the changes in FR.  

Don't get me wrong.  I don't prefer it as a way to explain a new edition.  I do find it too bad that the rules are forcing the changes.  I can life with it, though, because I do like 4E.  

edg


----------



## billd91 (Feb 4, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> ....not a 1e ad?  Do my eyes deceive me, or is that Basic?




In fact, you're right. I just get into the habit of thinking of D&D as 1e AD&D in that time period.


----------



## JediSoth (Feb 4, 2010)

I'm not really mad about 4E. I tried it, gave it, IMO, a fair shake, and determined that it's not the style of D&D for me. Reactions in my group were mixed, ranging from love to acceptance, to dislike. 

At first, I thought some of the marketing was...poorly thought out. I did feel insulted by some of things I read. Now, two years later, I can interpret what they really meant, versus my knee-jerk reaction. 

I thought the "Graduate your game" promotion was a pretty shrewd way to capitalize on a perceived divide in the D&D fan base, but I don't personally know anyone who took advantage of it. I would have if I had an extra book laying around, but never with the intention of switching to Exalted (again, not my cup of tea, I just like having lots of different RPGs...reading material, you know).

I'm still sad about the demise of the print editions of Dragon and Dungeon; I'd been collecting Dragon for about 20 years at the time it was canceled. Still, since I have determined that 4E is not my cup of tea, I doubt I'd be getting much use out of the magazines at this point.

The virtual table top was hyped up a lot, in my view, and it would have been interesting, but I think WotC noticed that there were several programs out there already that were doing something similar for free and there wasn't a cost effective way of them competing with that, particularly since they planned to charge for what they were going to offer (if I'm remembering the plan correctly). It was probably a good decision to drop it, even though it looked bad. Other companies have looked worse for dropping much-hyped products *cough*Duke Nukem Forever*cough*.

I still have a set of first three 4E core book, along with the first Draconomicon and Open Grave. I would run it again if I couldn't find a group to play anything else. With the right mix of people, I would even play again. But, if I had my druthers, I wouldn't. It's not a bad game, per se, it's just not a game to suit my preferences and style of play. Fortunately for me, no matter what game I want to play, I'll be able to find a game of it at Gen Con at the very least.

To each, their own, I say.


----------



## Quantum (Feb 4, 2010)

What gets me is the elitist attitudes and feelings of entitlement that people have towards 4e. They play simply because it is not any of the other editions and they wrongly come to a conclusion about the other editions without having played it. 

As for me, I have been playing D&D since at least 1980 and have seen three Editions plus basic and a few other versions of it. The books are just getting more and more expensive and numerous to buy. So I'm done. I'm not even going to touch 4e.  I'm sorry the young people can't understand that kind of thing, but when they reach fifty and have seen it come to 7th (maybe even a 9th!) Edition and the youngsters are chiding them simply because it's OLD, with which according to the young crowd OLD equals useless and must never be allowed (NEVER TRUST A PERSON OVER THIRTY!) they too will develop a resistance to change and have a combative attitude.

It's not going to stop at 4e because everybody has to have their take on what makes a good rules set. And in trying to reach these people, (GOTTA MAKE A PROFIT) WoTC will produce material for them.

Similar to fans of long running television shows and franchises.

It's just a game. Let people be and have their own fun and stop worrying about things. And stop being so factional about it


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 4, 2010)

Quantum said:


> What gets me is the elitist attitudes and feelings of entitlement that people have towards 4e. They play simply because it is not any of the other editions and they wrongly come to a conclusion about the other editions without having played it.



To be fair, I've seen that same attitude of entitlement for every single edition of the game except for one. 4e, 3.5, 3e, 1e, and (ahem) OD&D - there's always someone who thinks their game is the One True Way (tm). 

(Hi, Diaglo!    )


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 4, 2010)

Mournblade94 said:


> Regardless, and though I did not run out with pitchforks, I found the tone of the leadup to 4e completely insulting even when I was ENTHUSIASTIC about a new edition.



This was me, too, exactly.  I was _looking forward_ to 3E, and what I heard from marketing and designers was a (softened, of course), "3E sucks, and this is how we're going to fix it."



> This did not cause me to dislike 4e.  I was excited.  It was the gameplay I did not like.



Me, too, again.  Much (not all, by a long shot) of what they "fixed," I hated.  When we got the 4E preview in the release of the DDM 2.0, I went, "Uh-oh.  Non-Pythagorean movement rules.  I don't care for this."  But even then I said, to myself and others, "This might just be simplified for the skirmish game.  Let's see what happens."

I was onboard for 4E right up until (I felt) I was thrown off with a collective shrug from marketing and designers.  "Oh, well.  Nevermind that he bought every single book we released for 3.5.  We'll get plenty of customers to replace him."


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Feb 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I believe it would be more accurate to say they misread a portion of the community.
> 
> It would possibly be a better question to find out why that portion reacted the way they did when another portion did not.  What sets that group apart?  What makes two groups, who likely have at least gaming in common, react almost entirely oppositely to the same statement?  What commonalities do these groups share within themselves?
> 
> I think the answers to those questions would shed a lot more light on the issue than possibly simply dumping everything back into WOTC's lap for misreading the reactions of particular groups.



It would definitely shed light on the situation.  However, it *is *fair to "dump" it in WotC's lap; it was their marketing, after all!  It seems to me that all these questions are exactly the types of questions WotC were asking before and during the 4e roll out-- and I expect they've asked and answered since.  Likely, they've adjusted things accordingly.  Of course, only WotC knows for sure. 

But again, it's not a _community's_ responsibility to respond positively to a company's marketing.  It's the _company's_ responsibility to get their marketing right-- and deal with whatever results from that, positive and negative.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2010)

the orc within,

You're not alone in finding it bizarre that anyone would seriously ask, in effect, "Are corporations _*really *_responsible for their adverstising?"....or seemingly assert that the correct answer is an emphatic "No!"

RC


----------



## renau1g (Feb 4, 2010)

Well to be fair there's no way 4e could have come out with everything 3e had by the end of it (although there were some previous core elements missing, but others added). That said for the low, low price of $15 your players can have access to every source book released to date for 4e. Buy one month of DDI, get access to all the updated rules, etc. in the character builder. Much cheaper than even 1 supplement for 3e.


----------



## Maggan (Feb 4, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> On topic, I must be the only person not mad about the cancellation of the magazines--I miss them as part of a legacy, but I never got into Dungeon and was getting kind of tired of the Greyhawk and demon obsessions by the end of Paizo's run on Dragon.




Nope. I was mad for a while because Paizo couldn't deliver the magazines to me as a subscriber.

So when the mags turned digital it meant that delivery was guaranteed, which I felt was a step up.

/M


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 4, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> Okay, so you are thinking about growth and change?  I guess it's still a fine line we will have to agree to disagree!
> 
> 
> edg




Eh guess we will as I pulled out my grey The north boxed set and it matches up pretty well with the FRCS. The only big diffances I see is many arrows is starting to organize the orc into a vast hoard {again} and the founding of the  silvermarches has made the roads more guarded, still not a cake walk but big caravans are well guarded. All this was hinted at in the north boxed set as something that may happen as it has happened many times before only to be swept away by an orc hoard. It's still a very much "wild west" kinda place. the rule of law extends just as far as you can make it and just as long as ya have the men standing there backing you up

All in all very minor changes

anyhow the 4E setting has a map you barely can tell is the realms, they reconnected a bunch of stuff and made stuff up as from a pod cast the dev team said paraphrased here "we don't know why x is like this or really like the setting much. It was never really a setting we enjoyed" at that point I knew it was screwed. If you don't know something any realms GM worth his salt would ( or that was covered in the 3.0 FRCS) the creator is a phone call away. Do not make up stuff that goes against whats already there

Anyhow as I said all it showed me was 4e could not be used to enjoy the game I wanted to run without reworking my fav setting. Which was a mistake, as I think it turned more FR fans away from the system then it gained back


----------



## BryonD (Feb 4, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yet, you still are incapable of answering the question.
> 
> When was D&D EVER marketed to anyone other than teens?  I was asking Lanefan the same thing since he's claiming that 2e and now 4e are being marketed to a younger audience.  My point is that D&D has never contained much if any adult content, has always been directed at teens and nothing has really changed.
> 
> So, at what point in the history of the game, has D&D ever been targetted at anyone other than teens?  What bit of marketing has been done by either WOTC or TSR that directly targeted anyone other than the teen or maybe the very young twenties market?



Unless "your point" is that D&D has never contained much if any material that should be considered inappropriate for children, then I reject your claim.  D&D contains vast amounts of adult content.  It just happens to be true that this content is perfectly suitable for children as well as adults.  Thus no restriction is merited.

I think that the tiny pool of advertisements being shown as examples are highly being presented in a misleading manner.   Gamers, by and large are gamers.  You are not going to get a big bang for your buck running a D&D commercial during Lost.  Far too few of the viewers are potential customers, and those who are already know of your product.  
Yet if the adds being shown constituted the bulk of D&D advertising, then D&D has gone virtually unadvertised throughout its life.  

I've seen lots of D&D ads in comic books over the years.  And while many comics are assumed to be "kids" stuff, the fact of the matter is that there have always been a lot of adults who read them.  And unlike Adults who watch Lost, Adults who read comics has a fairly reasonable cross section with adults who might play D&D.  Posters on the comic store wall, books on the shelf, and ads in appropriate periodicals are the the old school mainstays of D&D marketing.  None of these can be objectively proclaimed as aimed at children only.  

You have made a proclamation of truth.  And you are taking the position that your claim is true, not just until someone proves you wrong, but until someone forces you to admit it.  Sorry, but the burden of proof is on your shoulders.  I think your claim is out to lunch.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 4, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> But again, it's not a _community's_ responsibility to respond positively to a company's marketing.  It's the _company's_ responsibility to get their marketing right-- and deal with whatever results from that, positive and negative.



Not so.

The company has no more "responsibility" to market their game effectively to any particular segment of their fan base, any more than that fan base has a responsibility to react appropriately.

The company is free to market its products however it sees fit, and the fan base is free to react as it wishes. However, if the company markets poorly, the fans will probably get fed up and stop giving the company their business. Likewise, *and here's the kicker*, if the fans react in a way that is irresponsible and simply inappropriate to the actions of the company, *the company will probably decide that catering to that segment of the fanbase isn't worth the headache*.

If you don't like what the company is doing, go ahead and say so. But have good reasons for it. If you come off as reactionary, you will probably just end up marginalized for it.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 4, 2010)

Dannager said:


> The company is free to market its products however it sees fit, and the fan base is free to react as it wishes. However, if the company markets poorly, the fans will probably get fed up and stop giving the company their business. Likewise, *and here's the kicker*, if the fans react in a way that is irresponsible and simply inappropriate to the actions of the company, *the company will probably decide that catering to that segment of the fanbase isn't worth the headache*.



The former is called boycott.  Can you tell what the later is called?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 4, 2010)

Dannager said:


> If you don't like what the company is doing, go ahead and say so. But have good reasons for it. If you come off as reactionary, you will probably just end up marginalized for it.





Not to war here, but folks have said so, many times. Some folks just do not like what they have said is all. I was put off by being told "my game sucks" about 5 or 6 times along with other cheap shots {they really needed some PR}  So don't call it reactiony or hyperbole when your told "your game sucks" by the dev team. 

If someone says to you"your games suck if you use 4e" you would be a bit put off. But it was ok for the 4e dev team to say it to 3.5 players and it's the 3.5 players fault for reacting to it I guess. 4E players get mad and upset if someone downs 4e, yet act as if 3.5 players overreacted when their game was talked down about and made fun of . It was the same thing except it was Wotc employees doing the bashing.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 4, 2010)

I can't tell which is creepier... The Wizard or the little girl looking at him.


Why was everything so damn creepy back in the day? LSD?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 4, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Not to war here, but folks have said so, many times. Some folks just do not like what they have said is all. I was put off by being told "my game sucks" about 5 or 6 times along with other cheap shots {they really needed some PR}  So don't call it reactiony or hyperbole when your told "your game sucks" by the dev team. If someone says to you"your games suck and your player are not having fun if you use 4e" you would be a bit put off. But it was ok for the 4e dev team to say it to 3.5 players and it's the 3.5 players fault for reacting to it I guess.




They didn't say your games sucks.

They said some things that people interpreted that way.  Others did not interpret them that way.  Everyone agrees they never used the words "your games suck".


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 4, 2010)

The little girl is creepier by far.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 4, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> They didn't say your games sucks.
> 
> They said some things that people interpreted that way.  Others did not interpret them that way.  Everyone agrees they never used the words "your games suck".





Unfun and sucked were words I recall hearing. If I cared enough to look I would find a video am sure it still floats about somewhere. But the comment "was x rules sucked and if you use them your game is not as fun as it could be" Profession skills was one of em, listed IIRC


----------



## Umbran (Feb 4, 2010)

BryonD said:


> D&D contains vast amounts of adult content.  It just happens to be true that this content is perfectly suitable for children as well as adults.  Thus no restriction is merited.




So, here we are, at a point where we note that the nomenclature is pretty poor.  The content is "adult", but is suitable for children?  Seems to me that the classification system leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I can't tell which is creepier... The Wizard or the little girl looking at him.




I don't know, but I'm getting a whole new insight into why the occult scare occured back then.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 4, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Unfun and sucked were words I recall hearing. If I cared enough to look I would find a video am sure it still floats about somewhere. But the comment "was x rules sucked and if you use them your game is not as fun as it could be" Profession skills was one of em, listed IIRC




Yeah, I don't think they used those words.  

Does ANYONE have a link to the specific quote that HID is referring to?


----------



## Votan (Feb 4, 2010)

I generally like the "play the edition you prefer" argument and I like how it supports the widest possible range of playstyles and lets people have the game that they enjoy.  This is pure win.  I know that much of my like of AD&D is pure nostalgia -- I'm no longer young but I like things that remind me of that youthful state of wonder.  

Where I got annoyed (not mad, just annoyed) was by the decision not to let multiple approaches co-exist.  For many years, BECMI and AD&D co-exisited peacefully on the market with some people prefering one over the other.  But both could have fun.  

Now I know that it is not practical to keep the whole D&D canon in print.  However, in the era of print on demand and PDFs, I do find it confusing that there is no viable business model to keeping older editions available.  Rolemaster managed to do it with RM Classic --> the printing looks like laser printing and the binding job is beaten by a grad student thesis but the books are avaialble.  If PDFs == piracy then print on demand (while not cheap) seems like an option.  

So I don't want to say 4E= bad.  I was actually intrigued and interested by "Cloud-watching" rather than offended (I was excited by game improvements).  I bought 4E books the first day they were available and own 15 or so of them.  

But the actual game is doing things that I don't necessarily enjoy and modern games (with things like the character builder and the tight relationships between things) seem harder to me to houserule.  This could be optics or I could be unusual -- I'm sure many people have different experiences.  But it makes me want to try older games and see if my memories of them match realities.  

It's true that careful lurking at Half Price Books does pay off, eventually, but I'd so much rather access to older material just to make things so much simpler.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 4, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Yeah, I don't think they used those words.





Eh I really don't care if you think they used such words or not. I recall being told my games must be unfun or not as fun as they could be..


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 4, 2010)

You know, I'm not feeling particularly marginalized at the moment.  Pathfinder is making me feel very, very included.

And it's not like Hasbro hasn't done many things that people have good reason to be upset about.  Lists have been posted here over and over again;  I see no reason to add yet another.

Ken



Dannager said:


> Not so.
> 
> If you don't like what the company is doing, go ahead and say so. But have good reasons for it. If you come off as reactionary, you will probably just end up marginalized for it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 4, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> They didn't say your games sucks.
> 
> They said some things that people interpreted that way.  Others did not interpret them that way.  Everyone agrees they never used the words "your games suck".



Indeed. 3.5 was "my game" at the time as well, in that it was the game I was playing, and the only version of D&D I had played in several years. I listened to all the 4E marketing and was never once told my game sucks.

That tells me it's about interpretation. We all hear the same words and watch the same videos. Some people interpret it as "your game sucks." I didn't see it.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 4, 2010)

Umbran said:


> So, here we are, at a point where we note that the nomenclature is pretty poor.  The content is "adult", but is suitable for children?  Seems to me that the classification system leaves a lot to be desired.



I'd say that this nomenclature issue has been forced by the premise.  
Outside of this thread I would not use the term in this way.  

The references have been given that "adult" must mean having PG-13+ ratings or adult video game ratings.  The point is that "adult" appeal does not preclude child appropriate.  Because "adult" has already been constrained to a definition not consistent with normal usage, the ability to clearly express ideas is hampered.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 4, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Unfun and sucked were words I recall hearing. If I cared enough to look I would find a video am sure it still floats about somewhere. But the comment "was x rules sucked and if you use them your game is not as fun as it could be" Profession skills was one of em, listed IIRC



I don't recall this, and I certainly don't recall being told my _game_ sucked. I recall them explaining some of the changes they decided to make as ways of dealing with mechanics of the previous edition they thought were not fun, or not as fun as they could be, but _at no point_ did they tell you your game sucked.

Really, what do you expect? They're making a new game! They have to explain why they made the decisions they made, or people would be up in arms about them _not_ giving an explanation. "We decided that the Profession rules weren't good enough, so we removed them," is a perfectly reasonable explanation, and it's the sort of explanation they gave.

And, of course, all this ignores the fact that there were _tons_ of people playing 3.X who at no point felt like they were being told their game sucked. They were being told their game had _flaws_, but they knew that already. This wasn't news. This was just evidence that the developers had been paying attention to what areas of the game needed the most work.

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Unless there are some official statements floating around out there that use phrases like "3.5 sucked", you are misstating what the developers said during the lead-in to 4e. I'm sorry you feel that their statements were offensive. If you want to share that sentiment with others, share it _accurately_. Why should any company make an effort to appease a segment of the fanbase that reacts like this?


----------



## Dannager (Feb 4, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> You know, I'm not feeling particularly marginalized at the moment.  Pathfinder is making me feel very, very included.



I meant marginalized by WotC. And yes, I know that Paizo is seen as a sort of safe haven for those disenfranchised customers. I worry about what that might do to Paizo down the line, though, when they make the inevitable mistake or two. A lot of their new customers don't strike me as the particularly forgiving type.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 4, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed. 3.5 was "my game" at the time as well, in that it was the game I was playing, and the only version of D&D I had played in several years. I listened to all the 4E marketing and was never once told my game sucks.
> 
> That tells me it's about interpretation. We all hear the same words and watch the same videos. Some people interpret it as "your game sucks." I didn't see it.




I dont think that I literally heard that "3.5 sucked". But it was the tone at the time that rubbed me the wrong way coming from some of the developers and the marketing. The idea that the game that I liked and played was irrevocably broken and the I would play the new one because it was D&D, really, REALLY rubbed me the wrong way. And even then I bought the gift set and ran a few games to give it a fair shot. Still, it was things like the video I posted earlier that kind of annoyed the crap out of me.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 5, 2010)

Dannager said:


> I meant marginalized by WotC. And yes, I know that Paizo is seen as a sort of safe haven for those disenfranchised customers. I worry about what that might do to Paizo down the line, though, when they make the inevitable mistake or two. A lot of their new customers don't strike me as the particularly forgiving type.




Alot? You mean like the completely rational and non-rabid 4E people here and on the wizards forum? 

This is the second time i've heard you trumpet that Paizo's fans might be fair weather. They are no more or less loyal than WOTC's fan base. We get it, you love 4E. You love it enough hang around on the Paizo boards just waiting for the slightest slight to be spoken against 4E and / or WOTC so that you can pounce in and tell everyone how wrong they are. We get it Scott. 

I like Pathfinder alot. And if 4E were a slightly different game i'd like it alot too.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 5, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> The idea that the game that I liked and played was irrevocably broken and the I would play the new one because it was D&D, really, REALLY rubbed me the wrong way.




QFT.

WotC didn't listen to player feedback about problem areas for 3.5 and then set out to fix those problem areas. If they had, 4E would be compatible with 3.5. Rather, they listened to player feedback, and then released a new game system that obsoleted the previous system.

Maybe 4E is a great game system. I neither know nor do I care to know. But 4E wasn't designed to fix the "areas of the game needed the most work" unless one is of the opinion that the entire 3.5 engine needed to be scrapped.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 5, 2010)

I think that if they started talking about 5E and said something like:
"4E was a good game, but we really didn't appreciate many player's desire for simulation and the value of not having to make certain a brand new DM can handle everything in the game"  or a whole "proud nails" article on things being too gamist, or so on, then I would not find any of that offensive.  And yet a lot of current 4E fans would.  

Clearly there is a division between people who don't like 4E and found statements offensive and those who did like 4E and can't see it.  I do not claim this is everyone.  I don't much care for 4E, but I don't think the term offensive applies.  To me it is more just clear evidence of a stark divergence in game philosophy.

But, still the don't like and offended vs. like and not offended division holds rather true.  And some on the like side are claiming that the offense is just sour grapes from people that don't like the game.  In effect they are saying that the dislike for the game is a cause and taken offense is a resultant effect.

I think it is more reasonable to say that these are both effects of the same cause.  If someone liked the philosophy changes of 4E, then they very likely agreed with the comments and thus couldn't imagine finding offense.  Whereas someone whose game preferences run contrary to the 4E changes is going to find that critical comments against the alternative that they did like are going to irritate them.

It is kinda like accusing someone of not liking a politician's positions because they are just upset because the guy they voted for lost.  The fact of the matter is going to be that they probably voted for the other guy because they didn't like this guy's position in the first place.  Unhappiness with the election outcome and dislike of policies are not cause and effect, but instead they go hand in hand.


Mearls did say on these boards that players who really like world building would not find 4E to be their thing.  That isn't remotely offensive.  But I do take it as validation that 4E was never designed to appeal to my tastes in gaming in the first place.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 5, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Alot? You mean like the completely rational and non-rabid 4E people here and on the wizards forum?
> 
> This is the second time i've heard you trumpet that Paizo's fans might be fair weather. They are no more or less loyal than WOTC's fan base. We get it, you love 4E. You love it enough hang around on the Paizo boards just waiting for the slightest slight to be spoken against 4E and / or WOTC so that you can pounce in and tell everyone how wrong they are. We get it Scott.
> 
> I like Pathfinder alot. And if 4E were a slightly different game i'd like it alot too.



Actually, I hang around Paizo's board primarily for a completely different reason. It just happens to be a nice little side benefit that I can step in as the (normally missing) other side of arguments against WotC and 4e there.

Most telling, however, is that on those boards it's not the ones who make (often outlandish) attacks on WotC and 4e that are chastised by the community. It's the handful of us (loyal enough fans to continue buying Paizo products even after they decided not to support our edition of choice!) who speak up in another company's defense that receive the dogpile.

But ooooh, personal, cross-board stalking attacks! Excellent!


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 5, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Ooooh, personal, cross-board stalking attacks! Excellent!




Scott I've been both here and at Paizo long before you started posting under your current aliases. So no I'm not stalking you, you just happen to post in two places I frequent with the same kind of behavior in both places. 

Seriously, dont flatter yourself. You're special, but not THAT special.


----------



## Xyxox (Feb 5, 2010)

I'll tell you what I'm still mad about...

Snit's Revenge.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Feb 5, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Most telling, however, is that on those boards it's not the ones who make (often outlandish) attacks on WotC and 4e that are chastised by the community. It's the handful of us (loyal enough fans to continue buying Paizo products even after they decided not to support our edition of choice!) who speak up in another company's defense that receive the dogpile.




Now that I think about it that's not what I've seen at Paizo. I've seen Erik or James step in and tell EVERYONE in the thread to CHILL OUT. I've NEVER seen them step in and jump on the 4E fans only. There's enough system douchebaggery to go around both there and here. 

Still if you really feel that way then it's kinda like the reverse of ENworld! 
You should feel right at home here then.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I think that if they started talking about 5E and said something like:
> "4E was a good game, but we really didn't appreciate many player's desire for simulation and the value of not having to make certain a brand new DM can handle everything in the game"  or a whole "proud nails" article on things being too gamist, or so on, then I would not find any of that offensive.  And yet a lot of current 4E fans would.
> 
> Clearly there is a division between people who don't like 4E and found statements offensive and those who did like 4E and can't see it.  I do not claim this is everyone.  I don't much care for 4E, but I don't think the term offensive applies.  To me it is more just clear evidence of a stark divergence in game philosophy.
> ...




Now this I totally agree with.  Well said.

Mark Chance, I think that there really was a fair segment of D&D gamers who thought that the 3e system needed to be entirely reworked, rather than keeping hold of elements from earlier edition.  While 4e might not be to everyone's taste, I think it's fair to say that it's pretty popular.  Obviously there were some people out there who thought the drastic change was needed.

3e drew heavily on earlier editions to draw lapsed gamers back into the hobby.  They also borrowed heavily from certain games of that time - Rolemaster being probably the biggest one I can think of.  4e went in another direction.  I think WOTC decided that they probably couldn't draw any more lapsed gamers back into the hobby thus they needed to go after new gamers.

New gamers have no ties to older editions.  They don't care about dryads or the ethereal plane or the Great Wheel or anything that we've played with for the past couple of decades.  

Was it a good idea?  I have no idea.  None.  No opinion at all to be honest.  But, I am sure it wasn't done as an attack on anyone.  Just a shift in focus for the game away from one segment to another.

((Gonna avoid the marketing bit here, I started another thread for that, so, I won't pollute this one anymore.   ))


----------



## renau1g (Feb 5, 2010)

re: backwards compatability

Has any of the new editions been backwards compatible? I only started with 2e, but when 3e came out you can't just play using the 3e rules combined with 2e. Thaco's out, percentile strength is out, etc. 2e wasn't any more compatible with 3e than 3e is with 4e. Can't speak to the OD&D to AD&D or AD&D to 2e.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I think that if they started talking about 5E and said something like:
> "4E was a good game, but we really didn't appreciate many player's desire for simulation and the value of not having to make certain a brand new DM can handle everything in the game"  or a whole "proud nails" article on things being too gamist, or so on, then I would not find any of that offensive.  And yet a lot of current 4E fans would.



I suspect some current 4E fans would find that offensive, and they may well complain loudly about it. Doesn't mean it's a reasonable interpretation though.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 5, 2010)

renau1g said:


> re: backwards compatability
> 
> Has any of the new editions been backwards compatible? I only started with 2e, but when 3e came out you can't just play using the 3e rules combined with 2e. Thaco's out, percentile strength is out, etc. 2e wasn't any more compatible with 3e than 3e is with 4e. Can't speak to the OD&D to AD&D or AD&D to 2e.



2E is very compatible with AD&D. I'd say 2E/3E is more compatible than 3E/4E, but I think you're right that the disparity between 2E/3E is greater than most people allow in these discussions.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2010)

renau1g said:


> re: backwards compatability
> 
> Has any of the new editions been backwards compatible? I only started with 2e, but when 3e came out you can't just play using the 3e rules combined with 2e. Thaco's out, percentile strength is out, etc. 2e wasn't any more compatible with 3e than 3e is with 4e. Can't speak to the OD&D to AD&D or AD&D to 2e.




2e and 1e were pretty mechanically compatible and, with a bit of flinch factor thrown in, Basic/Expert was as well.  I found that taking 1e modules into 2e meant that you had to beef up the module considerably though since 2e characters were generally a LOT more powerful than 1e characters.  Except perhaps, 1e characters using Unearthed Arcana.  

The combination of the (to use a 3e ism) arcane and divine spell lists really jacked up the power level of 2e casters.  Also, standard was specialization for fighter types, not just fighters.  Add in some of the splats (Complete Fighter for example) and 2e characters were probably a level or two ahead of the curve of a 1e character.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 5, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Has any of the new editions been backwards compatible?




Not really, but that wasn't the bulk of my point.

Some people make the claim that (1) WotC listened to player feedback about 3.5 so that (2) WotC could fix 3.5's problem areas, and that (3) 4E is the result. I don't buy that. Never did. If WotC wanted to fix 3.5 problems areas, something akin to _Pathfinder_ or _Trailblazer_ would've been the way to go.

WotC wanted to make more money. That's what businesses do. They figured the best way to do that was to completely scrap 3.5 and put out a new game system that would quickly repeat the same "book-a-month" marketing strategy that drove 3.5.

Also, THAC0 didn't go anywhere. It just got shifted to a new location. BAB is the new THAC0. I played 1E using a character-class-and-level based "to hit" bonus instead of THAC0 before 2E ever saw the light of day.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 5, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Some people make the claim that (1) WotC listened to player feedback about 3.5 so that (2) WotC could fix 3.5's problem areas, and that (3) 4E is the result. I don't buy that. Never did. If WotC wanted to fix 3.5 problems areas, something akin to _Pathfinder_ or _Trailblazer_ would've been the way to go.



If they wanted to fix the problems *and* maintain backwards compatibility, sure. If compatibility was a low priority, then 4E could be the result. Your argument also rests on the premise that Pathfinder fixes 3.5's problems, which many people would not agree with.

Some people consider 3.5's problems to be systemic, and require an overhaul of the system to correct. To them, 4E can be seen to fix 3.5's problems.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 5, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Some people consider 3.5's problems to be systemic, and require an overhaul of the system to correct. To them, 4E can be seen to fix 3.5's problems.




That sounds familiar. It's almost like I already said it:



Mark Chance said:


> But 4E wasn't designed to fix the "areas of the game needed the most work" unless one is of the opinion that the entire 3.5 engine needed to be scrapped.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2010)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Some people make the claim that (1) WotC listened to player feedback about 3.5 so that (2) WotC could fix 3.5's problem areas, and that (3) 4E is the result. I don't buy that. Never did. If WotC wanted to fix 3.5 problems areas, something akin to Pathfinder or Trailblazer would've been the way to go.






			
				Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Mark Chance View Post
> But 4E wasn't designed to fix the "areas of the game needed the most work" unless one is of the opinion that the entire 3.5 engine needed to be scrapped.




So, isn't it possible that, instead of:



			
				Mark Chance said:
			
		

> WotC wanted to make more money. That's what businesses do. They figured the best way to do that was to completely scrap 3.5 and put out a new game system that would quickly repeat the same "book-a-month" marketing strategy that drove 3.5.




WOTC honestly thought that the problems with 3.5 were systemic and required a complete overhaul?

Why the automatic assumption of making money being the primary motivation and not that they were trying to make the best game in their opinion?

Sure, all businesses want to make money.  WOTC does.  Paizo does.  Of course.  But, why is overhauling 4e automatically all about the money and Pathfinder about making a better game?  Isn't that your own personal biases showing more than any real objective fact?

Or, to put it another way, why can I not turn around your statement and say that Paizo wanted to suck dry the already heavily bled D&D gaming population by producing the same old, same old without any innovation?  After all, isn't that about as "objectively true" as what you said?


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 5, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Why the automatic assumption of making money being the primary motivation and not that they were trying to make the best game in their opinion?




Combining a false dilemma with a strawman. Impressive.


----------



## Dannager (Feb 5, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Now that I think about it that's not what I've seen at Paizo. I've seen Erik or James step in and tell EVERYONE in the thread to CHILL OUT. I've NEVER seen them step in and jump on the 4E fans only.



I'm not talking about the staff. Paizo's staff has always, as far as I can remember, been very even-handed in their moderation and is often supportive of WotC even when their fans choose not to be - their moderate voice is one of the reasons I consider myself such a strong Paizo supporter. The dogpile I was referring to involves the regular forum users, not the staff.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 5, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Combining a false dilemma with a strawman. Impressive.




So, exactly what did you mean by:



			
				Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Mark Chance
> WotC wanted to make more money. That's what businesses do. They figured the best way to do that was to completely scrap 3.5 and put out a new game system that would quickly repeat the same "book-a-month" marketing strategy that drove 3.5.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 5, 2010)

Man, leave this place alone for a day and suddenly you're way behind...

Hussar et al, I'll get into youth/adult marketing in the other thread.

Compatibility: 0e, BECMI, 1e, and core 2e (to a lesser extent) are all reasonably compatible with each other at least on the surface; and it doesn't take much tweaking to convert something from one to another.

3e is not really backwards-compatible with any prior edition, though in some ways it sort-of tries; to their credit, WotC did put out a free 2e ==> 3e conversion guide although some of the suggested conversions didn't really give the desired results (multi-class, front and center!).

3e ==> 4e didn't even get graced with a conversion guide, and 4e - as far as I can tell - isn't backward-compatible with any previous D+D version.

As far as the changes to FR go, I really liked the setting until the 3e version, which lost me...too much development, too many roads and towns where there weren't before, and too much canon one had to filter out.  I haven't bothered with the 4e version as I'm not using FR as the basis for my setting these days.

Lanefan


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 5, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> 2E is very compatible with AD&D. I'd say 2E/3E is more compatible than 3E/4E, but I think you're right that the disparity between 2E/3E is greater than most people allow in these discussions.




I've never had to spend more than a few seconds figuring out what race/class a 2e character would be in 3e. Now, 3e to 4e...


----------



## SteveC (Feb 5, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Not really, but that wasn't the bulk of my point.
> 
> Some people make the claim that (1) WotC listened to player feedback about 3.5 so that (2) WotC could fix 3.5's problem areas, and that (3) 4E is the result. I don't buy that. Never did. If WotC wanted to fix 3.5 problems areas, something akin to _Pathfinder_ or _Trailblazer_ would've been the way to go.



I can't disagree with this enough. A 4E system akin to Pathfinder, or even Trailblazer would have not been significantly different from 3X to warrant being called a new edition. It certainly wouldn't have earned any money from me. And as someone who participated in several surveys conducted by WotC--and having my concerns largely addressed, I'll say that they certainly did address this gamers concerns, as well as the concerns of a lot of other gamers. Your mileage may vary, and obviously does. That does not mean that they didn't listen and attempt to make a game with as broad an appeal as possible.



> WotC wanted to make more money. That's what businesses do. They figured the best way to do that was to completely scrap 3.5 and put out a new game system that would quickly repeat the same "book-a-month" marketing strategy that drove 3.5.
> 
> Also, THAC0 didn't go anywhere. It just got shifted to a new location. BAB is the new THAC0. I played 1E using a character-class-and-level based "to hit" bonus instead of THAC0 before 2E ever saw the light of day.



And here we are back to this "it's all about the money argument." What's the point of this comment, exactly?

To answer the original poster's question: I think the answer is "yes, people are still angry." I have no idea why, as Pathfinder, Trailblazer, Fantasy Craft and countless other OGL games are still out there. Is there that much to not playing the "official" game to generate this venom? Why not play the game you love and be happy with that? Oh, and why not simply let those who are pleased with 4E enjoy their game as well?


----------



## Vartan (Feb 5, 2010)

WotC betrayed and gunned down my father, poured sugar in my gas tank, stole my girlfriend, made me look bad at work and called my mom a name that I can't type in this post because of the profanity filter.

No, seriously. None of that actually happened. WotC publishes games.

When I worked as a supervisor at a large law firm I was often called upon to serve as a buffer between the firm's partners, the associate attorneys to whom I answered, and the various non-attorneys who answered to me. The job exposed me to an unbelievable amount of office politics. One of my managing attorneys was extremely effective and seemed to stay out of the petty intra-office spats which bogged down so many of our colleagues. He told me something that has served me well in all walks of life:

"I'm not looking to be offended."

It seems to me that this entire thread is born of a desire to be offended. "Designer X said something mean about fairies. That's bad marketing. Designer X was promoting Product Y, and I don't like Product Y, so the corporation that employs Designer X and produces Product Y obviously knows nothing about running a successful business. Designer X insulted me and Product Y disappointed me so not only will I take my money elsewhere, I'll complain _ad nauseam_ about it on the internet."

Really? 

"Are people still mad about..."

I mean, really?

We could just rename this thread "All of the trolling with none of the bans!"


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2010)

SteveC said:


> Oh, and why not simply let those who are pleased with 4E enjoy their game as well?




Who's stopping you? For that matter, who's stopping you from leaving threads like this alone? This is one reason threads degenerate into edition wars. No matter what someone says, even if it's clear that it's a subjective opinion like being cheesed off by WotC decisions or marketing, some one else feels the need to argue it.

If you want to be left alone to enjoy your game, why not leave other people alone to express their opinions? If you want people to respect your right to enjoy your game, perhaps you had better respect other people's right to not enjoy the same game.


----------



## Starfox (Feb 5, 2010)

Some expressions can be translated to others, keep their meaning, and yet deliver completely different values:

All for the money = Want the broadest possible appeal 

What is wrong with a commercial company wanting to make a popular, commercially viable product? Trying to come up with support products (floor plans, minis, power cards, whatever) that customers want and use? And how would this translate into making them want to create a product that alienates a large portion of their customer base?

Do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 5, 2010)

Vartan said:


> It seems to me that this entire thread is born of a desire to be offended. "Designer X said something mean about fairies. That's bad marketing. Designer X was promoting Product Y, and I don't like Product Y, so the corporation that employs Designer X and produces Product Y obviously knows nothing about running a successful business. Designer X insulted me and Product Y disappointed me so not only will I take my money elsewhere, I'll complain _ad nauseam_ about it on the internet."




I don't think the thread was born of a desire to be offended.  It looked (to me, at least) to be a genuine query as to whether folk around here were still miffed about this & that.

The answer seems to be...some of us are, though few are as ticked off now as we were then.  Time does grant new perspectives.

That the thread functioned to open those old wounds a bit...well, I'm not going to ascribe any motives to the OP on that.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 5, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> To be fair, I've seen that same attitude of entitlement for every single edition of the game except for one. 4e, 3.5, 3e, 1e, and (ahem) OD&D - there's always someone who thinks their game is the One True Way (tm).
> 
> (Hi, Diaglo!  )






Davey "I, too, have seen it" Jones


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 5, 2010)

Xyxox said:


> I'll tell you what I'm still mad about...
> 
> Snit's Revenge.





www.tomwham.com

Tom regularly appears at Gen Con (esp the auctions) and will be at GaryCon II this year.

A very accessible guy.


----------



## Ferrety (Feb 5, 2010)

I don't think that the OP was looking to restart the old and tired _WOTC stole my fun _spiel. I'd say the thread started fine, and some different, and new to me, things to be mad about were mentioned. But some people just are still so mad about all things related to the 4ed, that this kind of thread will explode. 




Vartan said:


> "I'm not looking to be offended."




This is actually what I am still mad about. When 4ed was released, I got this strong feeling that lot of people were punishing the designers for opening up the design process. There seemed to be, and still is, very strong feeling that by telling their motivation for the new edition, the designers were some how personally insulting people and belittling their experiences. 

You could say that there were lot of people looking to be offended. And thats OK, people have right to be offended. 

But still, I am mad about it, as it seems that the only smart option left for commercial entities working in the "nerd-space" is to shut-the-pleep-up. 

Well, not really, but still, things might be heading towards that, as lot of companies have been closing their design processes from their customers. And well, that also OK, can't say that I am entitled to know their processes, it just would be nice. And hey, I can be mad about that if I like, can't I?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 5, 2010)

Ferrety said:


> I don't think that the OP was looking to restart the old and tired _WOTC stole my fun _spiel.



Actually, I think he may have been going for the old and tired, _anything critical is just "wotc stole my fun"_.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 5, 2010)

Ferrety said:


> I don't think that the OP was looking to restart the old and tired _WOTC stole my fun _spiel. I'd say the thread started fine, and some different, and new to me, things to be mad about were mentioned. But some people just are still so mad about all things related to the 4ed, that this kind of thread will explode.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That sums my own feelings, too.

The designers were willing to describe their thought processes, how they work, what their goals were. But people seemed to have taken offense by what the designers where thinking, what their goals were. 

But is that something to be mad about? Isn't it more something telling you that this game is not aimed at you?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Actually, I think he may have been going for the old and tired, _anything critical is just "wotc stole my fun"_.




Yes, well, one might just as easily say you're going for the old, "suggest uncomplimentary things as someone else's aim, so as to have them dismissed."

But no, you're above that, right?  Right?  

Please, everyone, whatever naughtiness it is, show us that you're above it.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 5, 2010)

Vartan said:


> It seems to me that this entire thread is born of a desire to be offended. "Designer X said something mean about fairies. That's bad marketing. Designer X was promoting Product Y, and I don't like Product Y, so the corporation that employs Designer X and produces Product Y obviously knows nothing about running a successful business. Designer X insulted me and Product Y disappointed me so not only will I take my money elsewhere, I'll complain _ad nauseam_ about it on the internet."
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...




Ouch.  

I mean, ouch.  As the OP.  Ouch.  

All I can say is that I wasn't offended by any of the points that have been brought up in this thread and I was genuinely curious if people were still mad about things, specifically the one I brought up.  Again, I was thinking external to DND and that was my example.  However, it's obvious that some people are still not happy about the decision for ***2E*** much less 4E.  

I was honestly amused at the time of White Wolf's attempt to capitalize on WotC coming out with a new edition.  Reminded me of the Pepsi vs Coke stuff.  I remembered people not liking it and was wondering about that, nearly two years later.  

I have recused myself from most of the discussion, except a bit about FR with HiD, as it seems to have taken a life of its own.  There is a bit of me, after posting and being on these boards for over a decade that is tickled to have a thread that has lasted as long as it has, had as many views as it has, had several admins have to comment about civility and the generally interesting and positive responses it has received.  I am also embarrassed for starting a thread that has turned into an edition war, that the edition war has lasted for several pages, had admins need to step in to comment about civility and potentially left people angry.  

For those that are angry and this didn't help, I apologize.  

To everyone who has commented, thanks for the interesting discussion.  

edg


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 5, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The designers were willing to describe their thought processes, how they work, what their goals were. But people seemed to have taken offense by what the designers where thinking, what their goals were.




You know, I didn't realize how thoroughly this game was not aimed at me from the design blogs, but they did start me thinking about the problems of 3e and what my solutions would be.....something I am in debt to the designers for, because it turned me away from making 3e _*even more complicated*_, which was the route I was walking down.

And there is no doubt that I took offense at shadows.  I didn't see clearly that I wasn't being addressed _*at all*_.  I am so far removed from the target market that we are not even talking the same language.  I failed to realize just how *wide and deep* the game philosophy divide is between 4e and what came before.

Seeing that, I can appreciate 4e more.  It is not a game system that meets my needs, but it is a thing of beauty in its own light.

Some of the Dungeon 4e adventures I actually quite like, and are easily converted to other systems.  Less so the published modules.  It seems almost as though some of the Dungeon adventures straddle philosophies....rather like the recent suggestion about designing adventures for OD&D to convert and play in 4e.

I haven't read through the Underdark book yet, but a glance-through didn't really grab me.  I have picked it up due to the good press it got here on EN World, to see if there's anything in it worth using.

So, no, not mad at WotC anymore.  Grateful, in some ways, indifferent in others.  Very sorry I let any of it get under my skin at all.


RC


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 5, 2010)

evildmguy, your good. You can't help it if feels flare on both sides(and they do) or what other people say or do. You asked some things it's not your fault if people (myself included here) sometimes get out of hand with it

I don't think you are trolling or asked anything wrong at all. Wotc make a lot of bad blood and offended a lot of folks (rightly or wrongly does not matter) So folks like to vent is all


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Actually, I think he may have been going for the old and tired, _anything critical is just "wotc stole my fun"_.




Again OP here.  

I have been thinking about this a lot and I think the problem is that "mad" can be seen negatively.  For myself, after years of talking about this with therapists and my wife, "mad" doesn't have to be negative.  So, that's my interpretation of mad, with no negativity attached to it.  

Perhaps I should have asked, "who is still emotional about . . . " because that's most of what I have read.  People had an emotional reaction and once that happens, it's my understanding it will be very tough to convince them otherwise.  That's fine!  That's up to them!  And maybe the word "emotional" wouldn't have been seen as negative.  

The problem does go back to me, though, in that I was interested in who is still "emotional" about things they have seen in gaming.  That interests me.  People interest me.  But, in asking a question like that, it's probably more likely to go poorly than taken well.  I still asked, though.  I probably shouldn't have.  

Again, my apologies to those that were offended by my post.  

Happy Gaming!

edg


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 5, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Anyhow as I said all it showed me was 4e could not be used to enjoy the game I wanted to run without reworking my fav setting. Which was a mistake, as I think it turned more FR fans away from the system then it gained back




This is true of myself and so many other realms fans.  I was enthusiastic at launch of 4e.  Then I played it, and realized, for me it was not quite as good as 3rd edition.  I ran KotSF, and then made an adventure.  Some of my players liked it but I did not.  I was still willing to give it a try if FR was worthwhile.

Then when FRCG was released, it showed 4e was truly NOT for me as the rules system did not fit the way my campaign was played before.  Not only that everything had to CHANGE to accomodate the rules.  

I don't like the 4e system, but it might have grown on me if Forgotten Realms was done better.  Instead, I needed to take my gaming elsewhere as it was the proof that 4e could not accomodate my playstyle.


----------



## evildmguy (Feb 5, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> evildmguy, your good. You can't help it if feels flare on both sides(and they do) or what other people say or do. You asked some things it's not your fault if people (myself included here) sometimes get out of hand with it
> 
> I don't think you are trolling or asked anything wrong at all. Wotc make a lot of bad blood and offended a lot of folks (rightly or wrongly does not matter) So folks like to vent is all




Thanks!

And I still disagree with you on the evolution of the Realms and how safe it is.  But I do agree that since 3E, the maps for it were not the same as what came before.  The 3E maps don't even match up with the FR Atlas, which I consider the definitive source on maps for the Realms.  Too bad they still don't do those!

edg


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I've seen lots of D&D ads in comic books over the years.  And while many comics are assumed to be "kids" stuff, the fact of the matter is that there have always been a lot of adults who read them.  And unlike Adults who watch Lost, Adults who read comics has a fairly reasonable cross section with adults who might play D&D.  Posters on the comic store wall, books on the shelf, and ads in appropriate periodicals are the the old school mainstays of D&D marketing.  None of these can be objectively proclaimed as aimed at children only.




I read comics as fanatically now as I did in the 80's.  Have you seen comic ads recently?  Honda, Kia, and insurance angencies.  There are the younger ads, but advertisers have definitely seen that comics is largely an adult market compared to kids.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 5, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> They didn't say your games sucks.
> 
> They said some things that people interpreted that way.  Others did not interpret them that way.  Everyone agrees they never used the words "your games suck".




No they just used more politically correct ways of saying it.  Their phrases did not come out literally as "your game sucks", that is obvious.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The designers were willing to describe their thought processes, how they work, what their goals were. But people seemed to have taken offense by what the designers where thinking, what their goals were.




I'd like to interject here that doing this sort of thing isn't necessarily a bad idea. I like designer notes and sidebars in the rulebooks. But there are ways to go about it that make for better marketing. Podcasts, as popular as they are, make for terrible marketing compared to carefully edited writings. People say things inartfully and BAM there it is. Taking the time to write it allows you to work over your nuances.

Mind you, putting it in writing isn't foolproof as we've seen a number of people get kind of upset about a blanket statement of what D&D is not. But it gives you more opportunities to rethink and edit.

I'd even say that podcasts are even worse than open seminars because at least there people can ask questions and ask the designers to elaborate on what point they're making which, I think, leads to a better mutual understanding.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 5, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> Thanks!
> 
> And I still disagree with you on the evolution of the Realms and how safe it is.  But I do agree that since 3E, the maps for it were not the same as what came before.  The 3E maps don't even match up with the FR Atlas, which I consider the definitive source on maps for the Realms.  Too bad they still don't do those!
> 
> edg




I found they matched up pretty well, the difference is in the artstyle which is more modern and less detail then the old massive maps. But it's just a style difference unlike the 4e maps which are vast changes to the landscape not just different style of map making


I agree on the atlas, but to much detail was a "flaw" of the setting it seems. I never thought so myself


----------



## Scribble (Feb 5, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I dont think that I literally heard that "3.5 sucked". But it was the tone at the time that rubbed me the wrong way coming from some of the developers and the marketing. The idea that the game that I liked and played was irrevocably broken and the I would play the new one because it was D&D, really, REALLY rubbed me the wrong way. And even then I bought the gift set and ran a few games to give it a fair shot. Still, it was things like the video I posted earlier that kind of annoyed the crap out of me.




A little while back everyone in my department had to take this training class that, among other things, dealt with written interactions. 

One of the things they taught us was that a lot of how we interpret the "tone" of an email,  letter, article, etc... is heavily influenced by our own current mood., and heavily so when our mood is one of intense emotion.

If we're really angry, for instance, something as simple as "Hey, how are you?" can be misread as an attempt to belittle our feelings.  We'll picture the person sarcastically saying it with a smirk on his face- laughing as they watch our reaction.  When really, all they wanted was to know how we were doing (or at worst it was just a formality and they had no real involvement with the statement one way or the other.)

Was this what happened here? I don't know- I think maybe in a lot of cases it was. 

(I also think Wizards kind of inadvertently fueled the fire with some of those videos... I don't think they intended to insult anyone though. I think they were going for a "We're all gamers here, so we can tease ourselves" thing- but combined with the above, it just didn't work.)


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Clearly there is a division between people who don't like 4E and found statements offensive and those who did like 4E and can't see it.  I do not claim this is everyone.  I don't much care for 4E, but I don't think the term offensive applies.  To me it is more just clear evidence of a stark divergence in game philosophy.
> 
> But, still the don't like and offended vs. like and not offended division holds rather true.  And some on the like side are claiming that the offense is just sour grapes from people that don't like the game.  In effect they are saying that the dislike for the game is a cause and taken offense is a resultant effect.




This is the core of the matter there.  Good job.  Obviusly people that are in line with the philosophy of 4e would not take offense.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 5, 2010)

Vartan said:


> "I'm not looking to be offended."




QFT.  This single incisive comment cuts the to the core of the issue.  I personally subscribe to a similar outlook on life as you do Vartan- it just makes life so much more enjoyable.  Someone might come up to you and say "You're an incompetent idiot with no fashion sense."  My response depends on whether I'm looking to be offended.  If I am, I'll have an emotional response that likely results in me getting in the person's face about their comment, and potentially things can get ugly.  If I am not looking to be offended, then I just shrug, say "thats your opinion", step around them and walk on past.

What really boggles my mind is that during the 4e rollout, not ONCE did the 4e designers attack any single individual personally, as the example phrase above did.  Instead, they said they found problem areas in the game, and tried new workarounds to remedy them.  Some people would like their solutions, others might not- I think they knew that.  Yes, they tried to be cute about some of their criticisms, with the attitude that we, as gamers, can laugh at ourselves.  While that decision was questionable (as was the assumption that people wouldn't become offended), they were trying to highlight what had been pointed out by people at conventions and in the online community as problems and flaws in the existing system.  Now,  I can sort of understand getting offended if someone attacks you personally, but for criticism of a game rule or a playstyle?  Really?  A GAME is the most important things some folks have to be concerned about in their lives?  Kinda puts things into perspective.

No game system is perfect, and there is a high degree of subjectivity in what works for each individual.  Valid criticism of a game or its rules is fine- criticism in and of itself can be a good thing if it is done rationally and ideas are exchanged- thats the model for how ideas, theories, or in this example a game system should evolve over time.  But when emotionally laden arguements like "they totally screwed the multiverse model", "wizards suck because they aren't like they used to be", "they dumbed the game down for the MMO crowd with the attention span of a gnat", "WotC betrayed the D&D legacy" etc. are tossed around we go from valid debate and criticism of an issue to simple trolling.  No discussion of ideas are possible because some people are simply looking to vent emotionally and be agitators.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 5, 2010)

Actually, I don't think WotC really opened up the design process with 4Ed...they did it with 3Ed.

I still remember them doing visible market research for that edition.  I never saw any of the stuff for 4Ed.

Well, more accurately, I have no recollection of having seen it.  The first I remember hearing of 4Ed, it was nearly a done deal.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 5, 2010)

Gothmog said:


> No discussion of ideas are possible because some people are simply looking to vent emotionally and be agitators.



Can you offer an example of an idea that could not be discussed?  

I'm certainly in a group that finds 4E less appealing because "the math works" and "easy to DM" were the trumps of the design approach.  

I've seen plenty of emotionally venting and agitation flow toward 4E.  But just try to start a conversation about removing the negative consequences of these issues and every bit as much emotional venting and agitation comes flowing back the other way.  

(And no, I'm not interested in starting the conversation over at this point.  I'm not mad about anything at all.  To the contrary, I'm really happy with the alternatives I have.)

All I'm saying is, one way to know for certain that you are wrong, is if you are saying it is all the other side's fault.


----------



## Axolotl (Feb 5, 2010)

Gothmog said:


> A GAME is the most important things some folks have to be concerned about in their lives?



Why are people not allowed to get annoyed by changes that decrease they're enjoyment of a game? I play DnD to have fun and whether or not I have fun in life is fairly important in my mind.

As for people only being offended I personally certainly wasn't trying to be offended I was and still am a fan of 4e. But alot of the developers comments still rubbed me the wrong way for various reasons. The one that sticks out in my mind being a column that said Planescape was boring and unfun, I forget the exact wording and am currently unable to look at it again but it sticks out in my memory.


----------



## Mark (Feb 5, 2010)

Axolotl said:


> Why are people not allowed to get annoyed by changes that decrease they're enjoyment of a game? I play DnD to have fun and whether or not I have fun in life is fairly important in my mind.
> 
> As for people only being offended I personally certainly wasn't trying to be offended I was and still am a fan of 4e. But alot of the developers comments still rubbed me the wrong way for various reasons. The one that sticks out in my mind being a column that said Planescape was boring and unfun, I forget the exact wording and am currently unable to look at it again but it sticks out in my memory.





Well said.  It is sad that the online feedback that might positively effect the development of a game is largely stunted by the more vocal factions of messageboards that see any comments that could be perceived as dissatisfaction as injurous to their own person.  I think this often creates a bubble in which development proceeds in directions that can be less than useful.  Of course, your example highlights what happens when group think on a design project fails to catch a bias before it is revealed to the public but perhaps after it has already left its mark on a project.  One has to wonder how long that anti-Planescape bias influenced the project and how things might have been different if it had been refuted earlier.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2010)

Gothmog said:


> Now,  I can sort of understand getting offended if someone attacks you personally, but for criticism of a game rule or a playstyle?  Really?  A GAME is the most important things some folks have to be concerned about in their lives?  Kinda puts things into perspective.




People get passionate about their hobbies, their avocations, their interests. And lots of people use them to help define their identities whether it's as a Civil War reinactor, a home brewer, a Packer fan, a DAR, a club rugby player, a model train collector, a kite flyer, a fan-fic author, a blogger, a marathoner, or a gun collector. Get critical of or suggest a substantial change in any one of these passtimes and you're likely to see people get a little vocal in their reactions.

It's rarely a question of people having nothing else important in their lives (as if you could even tell what the *most* important thing anyone has in their life from postings on a messageboard), but with voluntary passtimes, as opposed to the obligations and responsibilities of life, people have chosen to participate and can make the passion even stronger.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 5, 2010)

Mark said:


> One has to wonder how long that anti-Planescape bias influenced the project and how things might have been different if it had been refuted earlier.




I'll be honest, I'd have loved to see the office situation the day after the one podcast was released where Wyatt and Mearls were awkwardly giggling and making fun of Guardinals - because their coworker Rich Baker was the guy who wrote the book that they first appeared in (Planescape Monstrous Compendium II). Awkwardness.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 5, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> I'll be honest, I'd have loved to see the office situation the day after the one podcast was released where Wyatt and Mearls were awkwardly giggling and making fun of Guardinals - because their coworker Rich Baker was the guy who wrote the book that they first appeared in (Planescape Monstrous Compendium II). Awkwardness.




Probably depends on how Baker feels about Guardinals now?


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 5, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Can you offer an example of an idea that could not be discussed?
> 
> I'm certainly in a group that finds 4E less appealing because "the math works" and "easy to DM" were the trumps of the design approach.
> 
> ...





Ah, ok- I think we have a miscommunication here.  What I should have said is once the emotional hotbutton topics start being thrown around, where subjective opinions are stated as fact or outrageous statements are made simply to provoke people, then further discourse on that particular topic is pretty pointless- it just gets derailed by folks on both sides of the issue.  Thats why the mods tend to lock down edition war threads around here.

And I'm in no way saying the emotional responses are one way.  Whenever one side fires a volley with ill-informed arguements or things that aren't true, it typically gets the ire of the defenders up, and they fire back.  Its a sort of mutually assured destruction that will have one hell of a hard time generating anything positive from it.

What we're dealing with here is a sort of confirmation bias.  Here is the definition from Wikipedia:

"Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true.  People can reinforce their existing attitudes by selectively collecting new evidence, by interpreting evidence in a biased way or by selectively recalling information from memory."

Thus, for example, some folks interpret the 4e design team's (or other people's) criticisms of 3.x as an attack, and are more likely to interpret further statements from them as an attack, even if they are not.  Their biases might even alter their recollection of an event or discussion to mean something it doesn't.  Likewise, after a first volley of anti-4e arguements are made, some 4e supporters are likely to interpret anything someone who is criticizing 4e says as an attack, even if what was being stated was a valid and well thought-out criticism.  

Its no one's "fault"- in fact is basically how people process and integrate information.  We use our own viewpoints and beliefs to interpret events and give them meaning.  Maybe by being aware of this fact, and realizing that most of the time no personal offence was meant by critical comments (excluding the hotbutton ones MEANT to provoke a fight or emotional response), useful critical discussion can go on about 3.x AND 4E.


----------



## WizarDru (Feb 5, 2010)

Mad?  Really only about one thing.

That the switchover caused ENworld to be such an angry, angry place.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 5, 2010)

billd91 said:


> People get passionate about their hobbies, their avocations, their interests. And lots of people use them to help define their identities whether it's as a Civil War reinactor, a home brewer, a Packer fan, a DAR, a club rugby player, a model train collector, a kite flyer, a fan-fic author, a blogger, a marathoner, or a gun collector. Get critical of or suggest a substantial change in any one of these passtimes and you're likely to see people get a little vocal in their reactions.
> 
> It's rarely a question of people having nothing else important in their lives (as if you could even tell what the *most* important thing anyone has in their life from postings on a messageboard), but with voluntary passtimes, as opposed to the obligations and responsibilities of life, people have chosen to participate and can make the passion even stronger.




I understand people are passionate about their hobbies, just as I am (and most of us here are) about gaming.  However, criticism of an edition of D&D (in our example) is NOT a personal attack or criticism on the person who enjoys the pastime.  However, quite a few folks seem to take it that way, and get far too riled up about something that isn't even directed at them.  This typically escalates into more ridiculous arguements, hyperbole, and misunderstandings of what was intended to be said.  What I'm trying to say is before getting angry and firing back, take a deep breath, think about it, and decide if what was said merits the vitriolic response that was considered, or if the point that is being made could, in fact, be a valid criticism which was NOT meant to provoke an emotional response.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2010)

Gothmog said:


> What I'm trying to say is before getting angry and firing back, take a deep breath, think about it, and decide if what was said merits the vitriolic response that was considered, or if the point that is being made could, in fact, be a valid criticism which was NOT meant to provoke an emotional response.




That would also be good advice to people who respond back the other way, would it not? Someone venting a spleen about the latest dig at their game doesn't really need someone coming in and telling them they're wrong to get worked up or that their reaction is overblown. That's not for anybody else to decide. The emotional reaction doesn't need to be refuted, particularly when doing so is a personal criticism and could be expected to make matters worse rather than improve them.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 5, 2010)

billd91 said:


> That would also be good advice to people who respond back the other way, would it not? Someone venting a spleen about the latest dig at their game doesn't really need someone coming in and telling them they're wrong to get worked up or that their reaction is overblown. That's not for anybody else to decide. The emotional reaction doesn't need to be refuted, particularly when doing so is a personal criticism and could be expected to make matters worse rather than improve them.




In my opinion, its good advice no matter who you are, or what "side" you are on.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 5, 2010)

Regarding confirmation bias, _it's not that simple_.

I don't doubt that many people looked at 4e already wanting to hate it and, lo and behold, they did.  But there was also a large group that wanted to like 4e, and was _still turned off by the marketing_.  Sure, some people wanted to be offended.

But I didn't want to be offended.  I wasn't, either.  But the marketing was dumb, and, yes, at times, insulting.  I wasn't offended, and I certainly still don't "hate" them for it, but it was terribad marketing that insulted many of their own customers.  And again, I'm sure they didn't do it on purpose, but people say stupid things, and when they do say something stupid, you don't just shrug and go "Well, if you get insulted, it's your own fault."

*Yes, we get it.  Some of you loved the marketing*.  But that has absolutely no effect on those that didn't.  Stop thinking and acting like you're the only ones with the "right" opinion.

Get over yourselves, goddamn.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 6, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Eh I really don't care if you think they used such words or not. I recall being told my games must be unfun or not as fun as they could be..




To me, there is a huge difference between "Your games are not as much fun as they could be" and "your games suck".

I don't recall anyone at WOTC saying your games suck, and I don't think it's good to try and throw that meme against the wall and see if it sticks.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 6, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> To me, there is a huge difference between "Your games are not as much fun as they could be" and "your games suck".
> 
> I don't recall anyone at WOTC saying your games suck, and I don't think it's good to try and throw that meme against the wall and see if it sticks.




But not much difference between calling something "the antithesis of fun" and "your games suck".

It's amazing how some people simply refuse to accept that yes, some of the developer statements and the tone of many things in the marketing of 4e was insulting to the audience. Dismissing the possibility of dissent isn't going to make your favorite game go away; you shouldn't feel threatened by it, nor feel the need to ardently, virulently defend it.


----------



## Axolotl (Feb 6, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> But not much difference between calling something "the antithesis of fun" and "your games suck".



That as the phrase used to describe the elemental plane of Vacuum wasn't it? I remember being annoyed by that. Especially given how dull 4e planes were.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 6, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> But not much difference between calling something "the antithesis of fun" and "your games suck".




They also didn't call all of 3.x the antithesis of fun, or your game the antithesis of fun.  Again, lets not throw false memes out there.  Best to stick to what was actually said, and I believe what they said was that one single relatively small element of 3.x was the antithesis of fun - not the whole game, and not your game.  They did not say all of 3.x or your game itself was the antithesis of fun, nor did they say your games suck.  Those are the claims being made here, and they are false.



> It's amazing how some people simply refuse to accept that yes, some of the developer statements and the tone of many things in the marketing of 4e was insulting to the audience.




It was interpreted as insulting to the audience by some, and not by others.

That's my point, and it's what I said.

Nothing amazing about my viewing what happened differently than how you view what happened.  You view it as insulting, I didn't, and we both (I think) acknowledge that some felt one way and others felt another way and there were I am sure a hundred different reactions by different people.



> Dismissing the possibility of dissent isn't going to make your favorite game go away; you shouldn't feel threatened by it, nor feel the need to ardently, virulently defend it.




I didn't dismiss the possibility of dissent.  I acknowledge the dissent up front, that some people view it that way, and others didn't.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  I don't feel the need to ardently and virulently defend anything, I am just chiming in the same as you with my opinions.

Nor do I in any way feel threatened by it.  Again, please don't speak to what you think my emotions or feelings might be behind the screen.  I didn't say I felt threatened, so don't put that on me and claim it's true.


----------



## Turtlejay (Feb 6, 2010)

I'm still mad that my gaming group is/was acting like juveniles about the whole edition thing.  Two guys hated it before it was out.  Three of us tried to run the game as soon as we had the basic information to do so (pdfs of the preview characters, etc).

So, in the end, two guys hated the game, and two swore of 3.5 forever.  What the hell to do?  One left the group, the other grudgingly played 4e, and now, a year or so later, he still hates it.  He bought in 100% to the 4e=wow argument (solos are bosses, the game is all grind, powers are cooldown, the whole bit).  So much so that the newly reformed group was flirting with Pathfinder for awhile.

I hate that there has to be this gut reflex to like or hate something without giving it a shot.  I'd be happy to play most any RPG that I've tried, because I tried and liked them.  I don't understant the hate without a grounds to do so, and I'm sad that our gaming had to suffer for it.

Now, because of unrelated work reasons I play in a different 4e game, but I stil regret some of the drama and wish I could join up with my old friends and play, no matter WHAT the edition.

I hate that some people would like to make judgements about the type of person that I am because of the hobby that I have.  While this applies to gaming in general (nerd, outcast, loner), it applies to edition in specific.  I never played wow, and I am not an overactive teen.  I play the game I play because that is what my friends play, and we enjoy it.  Why judge someone for something silly...

That is just ignorance.

Jay


----------



## Stoat (Feb 6, 2010)

WizarDru said:


> Mad?  Really only about one thing.
> 
> That the switchover caused ENworld to be such an angry, angry place.




Worse.

The switchover is causing ENWorld to be a boring, boring place.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 6, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> They also didn't call all of 3.x the antithesis of fun, or your game the antithesis of fun.  Again, lets not throw false memes out there.  Best to stick to what was actually said, and I believe what they said was that one single relatively small element of 3.x was the antithesis of fun - not the whole game, and not your game.  They did not say all of 3.x or your game itself was the antithesis of fun, nor did they say your games suck.  Those are the claims being made here, and they are false.





So if that one antithesis of fun. part is a big part of your play style or game then your game was just called the antithesis of fun as that horrible part that sucks the fun out of the game is a big part of your game. So is it a big jump that folks took it as "your game sucks"?


----------



## SteveC (Feb 6, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> So if that one antithesis of fun. part is a big part of your play style or game then your game was just called the antithesis of fun as that horrible part that sucks the fun out of the game is a big part of your game. So is it a big jump that folks took it as "your game sucks"?




I hope you'll forgive me for asking this, but what exactly was it that was described as the antithesis of fun? It's been a long time, at this point and my google-fu wasn't up to the challenge. Is this the fairy-ring thing? I'd really like to know the source of all of these complaints, and I'm asking this with no snark whatsoever.

Color me confused by this whole thing, and also hoping that my 3x games were not the antithesis of fun. To be honest, at the end they were for me to run, but that's hardly the same thing.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 6, 2010)

That term if I recall was talking about the plans, salt and vaccum and a few others it touched on. Unfun was used  a few times Skill checks and profession skill and out of combat skills being the ones I recall most. As I was told they were never used and an unfun drain on the game. So color my games unfun.

It's just they went out of the way to snip at 3.5 a game they just a month before were pushing books for as hard as they could, yet after 4e announcement it was garbage. Again they could have used some PR the dev team cost wotc and cost em alot, I think.

We shall not go into the amount of podcast blunders the FR dev team made.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 6, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> Lots of stuff




They don't like 4e.

That's really not a big deal.

If you lost your friendship over that, all I can say is, _wow_.



Hunter In Darkness said:


> That term if I recall was talking about the plans, salt and vaccum and a few others it touched on. Unfun was used a few times Skill checks and profession skill and out of combat skills being the ones I recall most. As I was told they were never used and an unfun drain on the game. So color my games unfun.




Yeah, one of the comments that really rankled me was something along the lines of "If you use craft or profession in your games, they must be *really* boring!"

Funny enough, almost immidiately after 4e came out, the one thing I saw most cry for homebrew was...craft rules


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 6, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> That term if I recall was talking about the plans, salt and vaccum and a few others it touched on. Unfun was used  a few times Skill checks and profession skill and out of combat skills being the ones I recall most. As I was told they were never used and an unfun drain on the game. So color my games unfun.




  I believe the precise quote is "When was the last time you saw a PC make a profession check that had a useful impact on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is probably not as much fun as D&D should be.)" 

  Not the most felicitous phrasing, but I can see what they were getting at: By RAW shudder: ), profession checks weren't really useful for anything more than making money--so the skills either went largely unused, or if they were used, were probably a sign that the PCs needed something more interesting to do. 

   Are there groups that were able to make good use of them and weave them into an exciting game? Sure. But those groups were probably the exception, and were going beyond the rules--and groups that do that probably don't need official rules that much to start with.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 6, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> I believe the precise quote is "When was the last time you saw a PC make a profession check that had a useful impact on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is probably not as much fun as D&D should be.)"
> 
> Not the most felicitous phrasing, but I can see what they were getting at: By RAW shudder: ), profession checks weren't really useful for anything more than making money--so the skills either went largely unused, or if they were used, were probably a sign that the PCs needed something more interesting to do.
> 
> Are there groups that were able to make good use of them and weave them into an exciting game? Sure. But those groups were probably the exception, and were going beyond the rules--and groups that do that probably don't need official rules that much to start with.




The problem is, they were *still* making a flat negative judgement about someone else's game.  They were telling you: "Do you use this skill?  Then your game sucks."


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 6, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> I believe the precise quote is "When was the last time you saw a PC make a profession check that had a useful impact on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is probably not as much fun as D&D should be.)"




Translation :If you use profession your game is unfun" 
Translation 2: If you use profession , your game must suck"

No your right that statement can't be taken wrong or as a negative comment on someones playstyle at all.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 6, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> So if that one antithesis of fun. part is a big part of your play style or game then your game was just called the antithesis of fun as that horrible part that sucks the fun out of the game is a big part of your game. So is it a big jump that folks took it as "your game sucks"?




Wasn't the "antithesis of fun" comment made about the quasi-elemental plane of vacuum in 2e?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 6, 2010)

It could be, that wasn't my term y'all were using it. But I do recall it being said. Like I said before the Dev team needed fitted with muzzles and some spin control should have been brought into play at once.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 6, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> That term if I recall was talking about the plans, salt and vaccum and a few others it touched on.




Pretty sure it was a snip at 2e, not 3e.



> Unfun was used  a few times Skill checks and profession skill and out of combat skills being the ones I recall most. As I was told they were never used and an unfun drain on the game. So color my games unfun.




No, not out of combat skills.  Profession and craft were commented on (and I do not think those were the antithesis of fun comments).  Was profession and craft really the basis of your campaign? I feel pretty confident in saying for 99% of people playing 3.x didn't think they were the basis of their campaigns, or even an important aspects.  Those were relatively minor skills.



> It's just they went out of the way to snip at 3.5 a game they just a month before were pushing books for as hard as they could, yet after 4e announcement it was garbage. Again they could have used some PR the dev team cost wotc and cost em alot, I think.




They never called it garbage.  Again, what's with you and Shemeska adding stuff that was never said in order to make your point? It's fine you didn't like their marketing - I get that.  It's not fine to misrepresent the things WOTC actually said to make your point.  They didn't say you games suck, they didn't say your game was the antithesis of fun, and they didn't call 3.x garbage.

Some of what they said was interpreted to be a negative by some people at the time.  In retrospect some people who thought it was negative have since gone back and read the things they thought were negative at the time and decided they had misinterpreted it.  Others, like yourself, are still firmly of the belief it was negative.

That's fine, but I think given some people are changing their minds about it, it's good to stick to what was actually said so everyone has the information they need to decide if they still think it was negative or positive or whatever.


----------



## booboo (Feb 6, 2010)

pissed I spent money on a game I ended up not liking (not the first time that happened)
happy that I'm now playing 1E-D&D


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 6, 2010)

They did say my game was not as fun as it should be, they did call things I enjoy the antitheses of fun. And I never said they called it garbage, I said they acted like it was garbage


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 6, 2010)

booboo said:


> pissed I spent money on a game I ended up not liking (not the first time that happened)
> happy that I'm now playing 1E-D&D




Ah yeah I have done that, GURPS was the worst. Still pissed over that one even if the books are very long gone


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 6, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> They did say my game was not as fun as it should be




I think they said "could be".  You see the difference, right?



> they did call things I enjoy the antitheses of fun.




2e.  Unless you have a 3e quote?



> And I never said they called it garbage, I said they acted like it was garbage




You interpreted it that way.  Many many others did not.  Which is one of the reasons this topic exists I think - in retrospect, going back over what was actually said, do people still feel that way.  You obviously do, but your memory was based on thinking they called your games sucky.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 6, 2010)

Funny thing if i said "Your 4e game is unfun or not as fun as it could be if your using X" I would get frothing fanboys just as bad if not worse dogpiling me


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 6, 2010)

I'm not angry about WotC pulling past edition PDFs anymore, though I am still flummoxed about the whole ordeal.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 6, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I think they said "could be".  You see the difference, right?




Could be, should be. Neither matters. The point is: how the bloody hell would they know if they're not playing in my game and where would they get off presuming such? It's a badwrongfun comment from someone who should know better and, not personally hearing it, if it was said it deserved any trashing it got.

Edit: Now, if someone can actually find a statement like this, will it put to rest the argument?


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 6, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Pretty sure it was a snip at 2e, not 3e.




Based on other comments at the time, I gathered that it was a snip at the Great Wheel cosmology in general, as was being done elsewhere. The quasi-plane and things in it were referenced during the 3.x period. Not very much, but it was there.



> Again, what's with you and Shemeska adding stuff that was never said in order to make your point?




Pardon? What precisely did I add that was never said?


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 6, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Edit: Now, if someone can actually find a statement like this, will it put to rest the argument?




Statement was quoted above 



Matthew L. Martin said:


> "When was the last time you saw a PC make a profession check that had a useful impact on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is probably not as much fun as D&D should be.)"


----------



## Mikaze (Feb 6, 2010)

Don't forget the digs on aasimar.

I love aasimar. And classic heterogeneous tieflings.  And the variety of good outsiders.

The Plane of Vacuum has been a useful tool in my games in the past. 

Damn. Now I'm longing for more 2E Planescape material...


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 6, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> Pretty sure it was a snip at 2e, not 3e.



Either way, the song remains the same: trashing the old in order to promote the new; and therein lies the issue.

The only difference is there's not as many diehard 2e fans left to roar in protest as there are diehard 3e fans.

Lanefan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 6, 2010)

Re: People being insulted by the 4Ed ad campaign.

Its kind of like a verbal/linguistic version of mechanical resonance.

Each individual negative statement may have been minimally perturbing, but as each new one popped up, it reinforced the perturbations generated by previous statements.

Statement A gets me interested in the game.
Statement B gets me mildly miffed at a certain aspect of what has been revealed.
Statement C gets me a little annoyed at another aspect of the forthcoming design, but also makes me more negative at B.
Statement D is neutral.
Statement E is negative, and while mildly so, it amplifies my negative perceptions of statements C and B.

By the time statements X, Y, and Z rolls around (whatever their nature), the rhetorical oscillations caused by negative statements have reached a certain magnitude that renders the positives of the game almost...secondary.

All in all, we really don't need to recount _each and every_ particular phrase or statement that annoyed us about the 4Ed rollout- we'll only annoy ourselves needlessly, and no matter how many we recount, we won't convince anyone that our perceptions were valid.

We saw things differently then, and we still do today.  Let the details of the squabble rest.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 6, 2010)

WizarDru said:


> Mad?  Really only about one thing.
> 
> That the switchover caused ENworld to be such an angry, angry place.




I'm mad that you're mad about that.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 6, 2010)

*Annoyed with ToEE*



Starbuck_II said:


> I'm pissed that the makers of the video game Temple of Elemental Evil aren't making a sequel/new game. I loved there combat system, but the game is laggy certain areas are corrupted (Nulb) to save in, etc.




Oh, big yes to this!

Even more annoyed that ToEE stopped working for me (and at least one other EnWorld user), and even when I bought the game a second time (thinking it might be a faulty disk), it still didn't help.

Edit: Also didn't fix it to download the official patches, nor the Circle of Eight patches, nor running it on Windows in emulator mode as if it were earlier versions, nor changing the graphics settings in various ways. Argh!

Also annoyed that when I tried it on my wife's new PC with Windows 7 cleanly installed, it still wouldn't work -- so maybe not a software problem, maybe just two sets of bad disks?

Even more annoyed that I finally the Read Me file last weekend, and discovered their help center was in the same city I live in (Woodinville, WA) but the phone number has been disconnected . . . along with the website being long gone but archived . . . still, one of these weekends, I will have to drive to the address and see if some help desk guy is lurking there, by some miracle!


----------



## BryonD (Feb 6, 2010)

Hunter in Darkness said:
			
		

> yet after 4e announcement it was garbage






Mistwell said:


> They never called it garbage.  Again, what's with you and Shemeska adding stuff that was never said in order to make your point?



See, right there is a good example.
Hunter in Darkness did not say they "called it garbage".  He simply made a statement of his perception and you immediately amplified it into him "adding stuff that was never said".  You are biased in your perception of his comments and it comes through in how you reflect back what he said.

If someone is a Planescape fan and perhaps not liking what they see so far in 4E mechanics, then a promo for 4E that talks about things they are ditching and using terms like "antithesis of fun" is easily going to get amplified into "They said my game is an antithesis of fun".

The main difference is that six months from now Hunter in Darkness isn't going to be trying to sell products to Mistwell and wondering why Mistwell is reluctant.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 6, 2010)

haakon1 said:


> I'm mad that you're mad about that.




You're mad I tell you! *MAD!*

The Auld Grump


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 6, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> You're mad I tell you! *MAD!*
> 
> The Auld Grump




We have always known he was a bit touched in the head, but that's ok he still fits in.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 7, 2010)

Stoat said:


> Worse.
> 
> The switchover is causing ENWorld to be a boring, boring place.




Wouldn't go quite that far and 100% for being committed to RPGs. It's just that a massive amount of time, some thought and some ill feeling, goes into going round in circles.

If the same time went on how 'blue sky' thinking on gameplay or working out how to get more players into the hobby . . .


----------



## Turtlejay (Feb 7, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> They don't like 4e.
> 
> That's really not a big deal.
> 
> If you lost your friendship over that, all I can say is, _wow_.




It's like every time I post you have to run in and crap all over it.  Thanks for being consistent?

Without going into lots of boring personal details, the two guys split for a few reasons, but the straw that broke the camel's back was the change in editions.  Nobody is angry or not friends with anyone anymore, but the gaming group was forever fundamentally altered.

Basically there is a year's worth of drama drama drama and I tried to seperate it down to what I felt was the germane parts.

Feel free to misinterpret this post, too.  I'll not jump in to correct you again.

Jay


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 7, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> It's like every time I post you have to run in and crap all over it.  Thanks for being consistent?
> 
> Without going into lots of boring personal details, the two guys split for a few reasons, but the straw that broke the camel's back was the change in editions.  Nobody is angry or not friends with anyone anymore, but the gaming group was forever fundamentally altered.
> 
> ...




Whoh whoh whoh, easy there.

I didn't know anything about pre-existing drama.

If your friends split because a bunch of crap was going on and then the edition war caused the final blow, then it sucks.  Sorry to hear about it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem is, they were *still* making a flat negative judgement about someone else's game.  They were telling you: "Do you use this skill?  Then your game sucks."






Hunter In Darkness said:


> Translation :If you use profession your game is unfun"
> Translation 2: If you use profession , your game must suck"
> 
> No your right that statement can't be taken wrong or as a negative comment on someones playstyle at all.




That's only the translation if it is true in your game.  Again, it's not "Using profession skills makes your game suck".  That's not what's being said, although I think that's how it's being interpreted.  What's being said is, "if your game hinges on a profession skill, then you are not having as much fun as you could be."

Is that really an out of line statement?  Really?  How many of your sessions HINGED on a profession or craft skill?  Used by RAW.  Out of all the years you played 3e, how many sessions, never mind adventures, how about just sessions, HINGED on a profession or craft skill check?

Even if the answer is not zero, it's probably close enough to see zero on a clear day.  

Yet, despite the fact that the statement in all likelyhood does not apply to the overwhelming majority of gamers, it's suddenly offensive?  



Hunter In Darkness said:


> Funny thing if i said "Your 4e game is unfun or not as fun as it could be if your using X" I would get frothing fanboys just as bad if not worse dogpiling me




Really?  I'm told all the time to use the DDI, that my game will be much better if I use the DDI.  I've never once heard anyone at WOTC say anything like, "Well, this book isn't all that good, you really shouldn't use it."  

Never mind that what they're saying isn't "your game isn't as fun as it could be", but, "If you belong to this TINY fragment of players who we believe  no one actually is, then your game might not be as fun as it could be."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Is that really an out of line statement?  Really?




Yes.

It's still a judgment about other peoples' games.

Coming from you or I, it's rude and dismissive.

Coming from the people making your game, it's insulting.

That's what you seem to be missing.  It doesn't matter if the statement is _popular_ - it's still insulting.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 7, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re: People being insulted by the 4Ed ad campaign.
> 
> Its kind of like a verbal/linguistic version of mechanical resonance.
> 
> ...



I note that nobody seems willing to take this excellent post into account.  Nitpicking individual items ignores the true big picture.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2010)

If a statement doesn't apply to you or anyone you know, how is it rude and dismissive to you?

"If you are playing wearing purple beaver tails pinned to your ears, you are not having as much fun as you could be" is about as dismissive as this particular statement.  

If I make a disparaging statement that applies to no one, how can anyone take offence?

"People with purple beaver tails pinned to their ears are silly"!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> If a statement doesn't apply to you or anyone you know, how is it rude and dismissive to you?
> 
> "If you are playing wearing purple beaver tails pinned to your ears, you are not having as much fun as you could be" is about as dismissive as this particular statement.
> 
> ...




Strawman.  That's a completely different argument that has no basis in the rules - or, for that matter, in reality.

If in 5e they stated "If your game has a lot of combat, it's not as much fun as D&D SHOULD be," I guran-freaking-tee that a lot of people would be upset.  What if they said the same thing about skill challenges?

These are all in-game mechanics.  And these are all judgmental statements about other peoples' games.

We even had a full discussion here on how profession could be used to influence and enjoy the game further.

*Popularity and insulting are not on the same line.*

Once again, I'm glad you weren't insulted.  Other people were.  Get over yourself.  You're feelings are not the "one true feelings that everyone should feel."


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I note that nobody seems willing to take this excellent post into account.  Nitpicking individual items ignores the true big picture.




But, is there really a big picture?  That's my question.  Is there a "big picture" or simply a group of people who were already emotionally invested in creating one?  Is it a case that WOTC made all these comments and insulted large swaths of players, or that a group of gamers who had already mostly decided that they were not going to like the new edition, agitating and reinforcing their own memes to the point where the "big picture" comes into being?

To me, I think it's the latter.  I think that people were actively trying to be insulted, and that every possible comment that could be spun into something negative was jumped on and expanded to the point where it became "truth".

IMHO, there is no "big picture" beyond what some people have painted for themselves.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 7, 2010)

I normally stay out of these, but...

In your example above, at least in my case and the people I know, for what its worth, we think it's the prior.  We were excited for 4th, and in fact we still play it.  But the comments they made (re: all the above) felt like they were judging our play and it wasn't meeting standards.  We did feel insulted and we were not looking for it.

I still think it was pretty poor statements to make and disparaging to boot.  We didn't look for it, it jumped out at us.

Nonetheless we pressed on and enjoy the game.  Despite poor judgement in marketing or their stated intentions.

Your viewpoint about "no big picture" is what you see and understand from your paradigm.  It's not what others saw.  Our seeing it and your not are both valid.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, is there really a big picture?



Yes, there is.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 7, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> In your example above, at least in my case and the people I know, for what its worth, we think it's the prior.  We were excited for 4th, and in fact we still play it.  But the comments they made (re: all the above) felt like they were judging our play and it wasn't meeting standards.  We did feel insulted and we were not looking for it.
> .




See same way here, I was not super excited about 4e but they kept saying Saga like, and I so did like SAGA and though it be a great next step. The insulting comments turned me off, but it was the system that made me decide It was not for me. It was the comments that made me decide wotc needed PR people

Seems like some people think anyone that was insulted had to be trying to twist and wrap it into an insult, and thats simply not true.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2010)

Well, obviously, I have to take your word for it.  Fair enough.

Like I said, I'm one of the "some people" that HID is talking about.  I looked at the same Dev blogs and whatnot that you guys did and saw pretty much nothing that was worth getting insulted about.  To me, I still think that there was a very vocal group of people that were looking to get insulted and took every and all opportunities to spin anything they could to make it look like WOTC was teh evil corporation.

But, I do realize that we're not going to agree on this.  All I can do is continue to ask, "How is this insulting?"  Yes, I understand that you feel insulted by X.  In order that you are not insulted again, can you explain how X offends you?  And, time after time, I find that the answer is "Well, it's obvious isn't it?  They hating on my game style!"


----------



## Vartan (Feb 7, 2010)

evildmguy said:


> Ouch.
> 
> I mean, ouch.  As the OP.  Ouch.




EDG: I apologize for my last post because it (implicitly) made you out to be a bad guy or troll. While I'm not crazy about the topic of this thread I think you've carried yourself well: my rant wasn't against you but against the general air of discussion that has dominated this post. I'm frustrated by what I perceive to be as a hostile vibe on this board: I've lurked here for some time, and it seems like some of our best ENWorlders only speak up when there's a flame-worthy debate. That's not your fault, and I apologize for singling out the thread's title as a point of contention. My sense of rhetoric got the better of my common sense (which, ironically, I think can be said of some of the responses I've read here to WotC's pre-4E marketing). 

From everything I've seen you're a class act. These threads take on a life of their own: I didn't mean to point you out as a culprit or cause of the "bad behavior" I see in this thread, but my post definitely made it look like I did. Mea culpa. Seriously. 

So far as the discussion here is concerned I think I've said more than my piece. I've been an RPG consumer for long enough to have seen plenty of editorials, statements and web postings that might make me angry at a given game designer or company. I choose to not be angry or hold grudges. If WotC sent out a press release to declare that "Our games aren't for anyone over the age of 30" then I would look at the statement cock-eyed...and then proceed to playing whatever WotC game I want. 

Grognard, Old School-er, Pathfinder, 4E deveotee...we all have more in common with each other than we do with at least 90% of the population. There's plenty of room for rational debate about the merits of this or that game system, publisher or style, but what does it say about our community when divisive arguments draw so much attention?

Now I've said more than more than my piece 

Respect to all ENWorlders. 

Peace and gaming,

- Eric (a/k/a Vartan)


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, I do realize that we're not going to agree on this.  All I can do is continue to ask, "How is this insulting?"  Yes, I understand that you feel insulted by X.  In order that you are not insulted again, can you explain how X offends you?  And, time after time, I find that the answer is "Well, it's obvious isn't it?  They hating on my game style!"




Some one who has 1: never seen your game run, 2: has no info on your game and 3: has never even meet you. Telling you your playing wrong is a bit insulting yes.


If they had said something like "We have taken the feedback from 8 years of game play and it seems that in most games profession and craft skills are often not used or handwaved. " Then I am guessing many people that were insulted would not have been

The "your game is not as fun as it should be"  is like me stating "People with red hair are bad  public speakers" with the same amount of data they had about my game As I do about the ability of red heads to speak in public


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, is there really a big picture?  That's my question.  Is there a "big picture" or simply a group of people who were already emotionally invested in creating one?  Is it a case that WOTC made all these comments and insulted large swaths of players, or that a group of gamers who had already mostly decided that they were not going to like the new edition, agitating and reinforcing their own memes to the point where the "big picture" comes into being?
> 
> To me, I think it's the latter.  I think that people were actively trying to be insulted, and that every possible comment that could be spun into something negative was jumped on and expanded to the point where it became "truth".
> 
> IMHO, there is no "big picture" beyond what some people have painted for themselves.




No, there really is a big picture.  As I've stated numerous times in the past, I was stoked about 4Ed enough to pre-order it a couple of days after my game store was allowed to take my money- effectively buying it sight unseen.

It wasn't until I heard the press releases that I got ticked.

And I'm not alone in this.

Yes, there were people who were opposed to 4Ed's release from the get-go.  But most of the ones I heard who objected immediately did so on the grounds that it was "too soon", a "blatant cash grab" and so forth.

They didn't feel insulted, they felt they were being milked as a herd of cash cows.

And when you place that into the larger context of unpopular moves that preceded the 4Ed rollout- the ending of the print editions of Dragon and Dungeon; WotC's decisions against renewing several of the various licenses they had out there, etc.- BOTH groups of the dissatisfied really felt that WotC didn't have them in mind with the 4Ed release.


----------



## Axolotl (Feb 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, I do realize that we're not going to agree on this. All I can do is continue to ask, "How is this insulting?" Yes, I understand that you feel insulted by X. In order that you are not insulted again, can you explain how X offends you?



I'll post the professions quote again with the operative part highlighted 







> "When was the last time you saw a PC make a profession check that had a useful impact on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, *your game is probably not as much fun as D&D should be*.)"



If you don't see how people would be offended by that statement then I don't think anyone will ever be able to explain it to you. People don't like being told how a game should be done, they didn't like in 1st edition and the don't like it now. Also these statement aren't isolated statements, they're all part of a contiued tone that was throughout the columns previewing 4E.

Just to reiterate I'm a fan of 4e now and was then, but I still found the marketing insulting at times.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Some one who has 1: never seen your game run, 2: has no info on your game and 3: has never even meet you. Telling you your playing wrong is a bit insulting yes.
> 
> 
> If they had said something like "We have taken the feedback from 8 years of game play and it seems that in most games profession and craft skills are often not used or handwaved. " Then I am guessing many people that were insulted would not have been
> ...




But, does the quote ACTUALLY apply to you?  Does it apply to anyone you game with or have gamed with?  And, if it does apply, is it wrong?

See, no, they did not say "People with red hair are public speakers" because, obviously, there are numerous people out there with red hair.

What they said was "People with purple beaver tails pinned to their ears are bad public speakers".

See the difference?



			
				Axolotl said:
			
		

> I'll post the professions quote again with the operative part highlighted
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My point is, it's only insulting if you emphasize that particular interpretation, and even then, not so much.  Again, does this quote ACTUALLY apply to you or anyone you know or have known in the past?

Everyone is focusing on the fact that they had the temerity to suggest that a particular game might be less fun than it could be while entirely ignoring the context of the statement.  Pretty much how every one of these things has gone.  

Yes, they did say that a game might be less fun.  Oh shock and horror.  But, they did so in a context which, in all likelihood applies to an extremely small number of people, if anyone at all.

Yet, oh my god, they criticized a GAME!!!! BURN THEM!!!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 7, 2010)

Isn't it funny.  Twenty or thirty years ago, Gary Gygax states that if you aren't playing the rules that he wrote, you aren't playing D&D.  And some people still applaud that sentiment.

Thirty years later, a Dev suggests that you "could be having more fun" and gets pilloried.

The times do change no?


----------



## Axolotl (Feb 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Yes, they did say that a game might be less fun. Oh shock and horror. But, they did so in a context which, in all likelihood applies to an extremely small number of people, if anyone at all.



You really don't get it do you? The thing people have a problem with is the implication that styles of play are not as fun as they should be. Do you realy not see why people dislike that sentiment?



Hussar said:


> Isn't it funny. Twenty or thirty years ago, Gary Gygax states that if you aren't playing the rules that he wrote, you aren't playing D&D. And some people still applaud that sentiment.
> 
> Thirty years later, a Dev suggests that you "could be having more fun" and gets pilloried.
> 
> The times do change no?



Only a small set of peopl applaud Gygax for telling people how to play and even then they're mainly agreeing wth his style of play. I've seen far more people critisi him for telling people how to play than I've seen any other comments on Gygax.


----------



## Mark (Feb 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Twenty or thirty years ago, Gary Gygax states that if you aren't playing the rules that he wrote, you aren't playing D&D.





Stated where, when?




Hussar said:


> Thirty years later, a Dev suggests that you "could be having more fun" and gets pilloried.





Where is this quote?  Link?


I do not recall either of the above attributions?


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Isn't it funny.  Twenty or thirty years ago, Gary Gygax states that if you aren't playing the rules that he wrote, you aren't playing D&D.  And some people still applaud that sentiment.
> 
> Thirty years later, a Dev suggests that you "could be having more fun" and gets pilloried.
> 
> The times do change no?




To be honest with you, we laughed (in fun) at Gary when we saw that quote because we had so many house rules.  DnD was our beginners toolbox and we added to it.  

And no, I can't remember where we read/heard it...there's some implications for you.


----------



## nedjer (Feb 7, 2010)

Clearly the need to hack on about editions, what Gary did or didn't say and generally embed daggers in the back of the lumbering zombie that is what remains of the tabletop industry is almost inexhaustable.

I feel driven to direct your collective fury to an even greater evil that may let you purge all this internal hatred. Go here, and they dare to suggest that AD&D isn't the best game in the universe for everything. Yeah, they even post again and suggest that other games could be better for your brain. Surely 3.5 and 4e can unite to contain this 'clear and present' heresy?


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 7, 2010)

Mark said:


> Stated where, when?



I was standing in my high school lunch room, reading Dragon Magazine with my friends, when we read it in one of his editorials. That puts it between September '81 to May '82.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 7, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I was standing in my high school lunch room, reading Dragon Magazine with my friends, when we read it in one of his editorials. That puts it between September '81 to May '82.




You were allowed to stand in the lunch room? 

We got in trouble if we were standing for anything other then walking to/from te lunch lines... (But we could go outside to stand.)


----------



## Mark (Feb 7, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> I was standing in my high school lunch room, reading Dragon Magazine with my friends, when we read it in one of his editorials. That puts it between September '81 to May '82.





If the wording being used here is anything like the original quote, I'm guessing there is a context to it that doesn't become apparent when taken on its own.  At the heart of all variations of the rules was that they are guidelines and that a DM needed to do much of the adjudicating on the fly.  Such a sentiment as attributed above runs counter to this.

Anyone else have the quote and article in question?


----------



## Mark (Feb 7, 2010)

Coming back to this, albeit without the actual quote in hand, I am guessing that what is happening here is that the above Gygax quote was meant to stave off brand dilution and trademark confusion given that by the early Eighties there were half a dozen fantasy roelplaying games as well as many non-fantasy rulesets on the market, and people were already beginning to generically call any RPGing "D&D" rather than refer to them individually.  His statement is unlikely to have been meant as a cudgel against innovation in the game or house ruling or adjudication on the fly with the rules being meant as guidelines.  Given other things he wrote regarding rules as guidelines, such characterization of that statement rings false.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 7, 2010)

*I think that quote is pretty much accurate*

I remember reading it too.   Guys, Gary wasn't perfect... he was like that cranky wierd uncle that you loved anyway.  And he mellowed out A LOT as he got older.  The thing to remember about Gary, is he (with Dave Arneson) pretty much invented the whole idea of a roleplaying game .  He earned the right to be cut a lot of slack.

The thing that annoyed me about the pronouncements from the 4E dev team is that they hadn't earned the right to make pronouncements like they were making and have them accepted without challenge.  I still think the core books were the best part of 3E, and when I look at the authors of those books, well, Hasbro let them go. 

 The people they kept were mostly people who came in later, after the brilliance of 3E had been accomplished, and wrote splatbooks, some of which were good, and some of which were terrible.  

And when you're Van Gogh's understudy, and you announce that the Master's paintings are ok and kindof fun to look at, but have many flaws that you can fix, and that people would be better served by trading in his paintings for one of yours... well, you'd better be able to pull it off.

Ken


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2010)

We said this thread wasn't useful for rehashing the same old arguments.

But you're doing it anyway.

You want to know why we have edition wars?  Well, the evidence of the moment seems to be that listening and comprehension are not high on your lists of priorities.  No wonder you argue.

THUNK.


----------

