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



## innerdude

If you've read some of my ideas/opinions on this board, you'd know that I've never particularly been a fan of 4th Edition. Yes, I've played it, though sparingly, and I've read enough about the design theory of the system to understand what it was trying to accomplish, and I appreciate what it does bring to the table. 

But it's definitely not my "first choice" of RPGs, and is likely somewhere near #5--after Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Warhammer FRPG, and GURPS.  

But even more than the system itself, I've been completely turned off to Wizards of the Coast's marketing tactics, business strategy, and PR. 

Over the past 24 months or so, they've been mediocre at best, and outright bunglers at worst when comes to PR, [and only a staunch Wizards defender would disagree.] 

_Admin here. Well, no, that's not correct -- and your discussion is going to be a lot more productive if you don't preemptively label everyone who might not agree with you. Try to avoid that in the future, please, and PM me with any questions.  ~ Piratecat_

Yanking PDF distribution with zero prior warning, the generally clumsy marketing of 4e, the GSL nearly killing third-party development for 4e . . . all in all, it has really turned me off to WotC as a business entity, to the point that even if I had a GM I really respected come to me and say, "Come join us for an awesome 4e campaign," I'd have serious reservations, because I don't think Wizards of the Coast is particularly worthy of my money at the moment, when there's far more independent and non-"mainstream" RPGs that I think could use my attention. 

So, here's my real question--

If you're anything like me, and just generally disenchanted with WotC, what would they need to do to bring you back into the fold? 

I'd like to think that I'm the type of consumer that they should be dying to bring back--early 30s, lots more disposable income than when I was in my teens and 20s. I've spent more on RPGs this year alone than in any other year since about 1992. 

So how could Wizards best extend an olive branch to us, the Disenchanted? 

I'd like to hear your thoughts, but here are mine: 

1. I'd like to hear just once from someone at Wizards issue a public statement to the effect that, "Hey, we screwed up." I'm not asking them to apologize for 4th Edition, or the fact that they're in business to make money, but generally to just say, "We offended a lot of our loyal, paying customers, and we're sorry." 

Now I realize a lot of you are going to say, "Oh boo hoo, cry me a freakin' river and get over it already, the big bad corporation hurt your feelings." And I understand the sentiment. 

But the fact is, if they want customers like me back, I'd like them to show just a little bit more appreciation for the people that kept D&D alive before 4th Edition arrived. 

2. Bring back PDFs. 

If I wanted to pirate your crap, WotC, I would, but I don't, and I'd love to PAY YOU MY HARD EARNED MONEY for material that is no longer in your "current library," but continues to have tremendous value to the gaming community. 

But, oh yeah, even though I WANT to give you my money, you won't let me because you're afraid that some kid in Singapore is cutting what amounts to a tiny fraction of your profits with his massive Torrentz Librariez......

3. Make DDI what you said it would be. 

The character builder is useless to me, because I don't play 4e. But if you were to put a working tabletop system into play, and charge the small premium for it? Now we're talking. DDI as it currently stands has zero interest to me. 

4. Incentives to play that DON'T include living FR, or D&D game days, or whatever RPGA schlock you're hocking. 

Give me a 25 percent discount coupon on any three core rulebooks. Give me an online coupon code for any purchases of $50 or more of my choice. Give me some incentive to come back to you, and see you as something other than a faceless corporate entity out to make a buck.


----------



## Pseudonym

innerdude said:


> But the fact is, if they want customers like me back ...




This assumes they want customers like you back.


----------



## Sammael

I've said it before: WotC needs to turn DDI into a repository of all that is D&D - both past and present. This way, all D&D players would have an incentive to subscribe, regardless of their edition preference. Since the addition of older edition stuff would be a one-time-only endeavor, WotC could focus on the current edition and still make money off of its older products from those who prefer them.

For starters, take the AD&D core rules 2.0 and integrate them with the DDI database. Since it's all in a reasonably portable electronic format, this project shouldn't take more than 2 employee/months (if that much).


----------



## pawsplay

1. Sell PDFs
2. Release D&D 5.0 sometime around summer 2012, remixing some of the best ideas from 4e with classic tropes that have worked for decades
3. Get the miniatures line going as viable support for the RPG, rather than a sideline run on a shoestring budget. 
4. Support the OGL by opening 4e and authorizing open content from 3e releases


----------



## Dandu

For a start, they could get around to fixing the ToB errata so the latter half of it is not Complete Mage errata.


----------



## Runestar

Nothing. They need to continue being arrogant and continue with things as they currently are. Sooner or later, you will realise that things aren't going to change and have little choice but to jump on the bandwagon as well.


----------



## pawsplay

Runestar said:


> Nothing. They need to continue being arrogant and continue with things as they currently are. Sooner or later, you will realise that things aren't going to change and have little choice but to jump on the bandwagon as well.




History says otherwise.


----------



## rgard

Agreeing with Pawsplay and Sammael...

1.  Start selling the PDFs again.  It really annoys me that I can't download the Veiled Society here after purchasing it.  I think I did download one copy, but can't find it anywhere.
2.  OGL the rest of the 3.X stuff.
3.  DDI the previous editions.  That would get me to subscribe.

Cool, created two new verbs!


----------



## pogre

I'm not "disenchanted" or angry at Wizards in the least, but I no longer play 4e. It's a good game, but an OGL similar to 3rd might tempt me back into the game.

I think that WOTC understood full well they would lose some folks. They had to make the decisions they felt were best for the company. I cannot begrudge them that. I hope 4th continues to be a big success for them.

I will certainly try 5th edition, but there are a lot of cool games to play right now.


----------



## mhensley

It's pretty easy- make a game that I want to play.


----------



## amerigoV

Pseudonym said:


> This assumes they want customers like you back.




Perhaps a flippant comment, but there is a kernel of truth in my opinion. 3rd edition was about bring us old timers back into the fold. They fixed tons of broken stuff from older editions and made the bucks repacking everything from 1st and 2nd edition ("Return to" and "Expedition to", Fiend Folio, etc). I am not complaining - I happily gobbled this stuff up as I left the Fold fairly early in 2e.

4e is not about us old timers, its about the kids and getting new generations into the brand. If you are a Star Wars fan of old - 4e is Episode I from Star Wars. Jar Jar was not meant for you, it was meant for a new generation of fans.  An just like the Star Wars fans went back to see Episode II and cringe at the half-assed attempt at a love story (which really cut into the action scenes), you will go back to give 5e a try when it comes out. Again, you may not stick to it, but you will buy the core and come into the Holographic Bulletin Boards and complain, but they will have the initial surge of money to carry them through to 6e.

And if Lucas comes out with Episode 7, you will go and watch it and you will buy 6e D&D.

So for me, what keeps me away is that there is really nothing innovative for 4e. Yes, things are different. But nothing that gets the blood flowing. I mentioned in another thread that moving to 4e from 3.5 is like upgrading from Office 2003 to 2007 - some interesting new features but they moved all my buttons around. Ok, but I am not running out to Best Buy to purchase an upgrade. (Office 2010 is here no? Not sure, and I will not really care until it shows up on some future computer that I will own).

The OP mentioned Savage Worlds. That is my go-to these days. Why? Many reasons, but one is that when I buy a SW book it is bursting with new ideas (Deadlands, Weird War II, Realms of Cthulu, Day after Ragnorak....). When I buy a 4e book, it generally is "yet another Fighter" or "the new and improved Beholder". I will admit that I will get Darksun as I never got it on the original go around (po' college boy back then). So that is "new to me", but not "new to everyone."

So, just like the Star Wars Lemming that I am, I will probably buy 5e and hope that it is not another Episode I. And if Eps I is on the tube when I am flipping through the channels, I'll watch it just like I'll play 4e if that is what a group is playing.


----------



## Runestar

pawsplay said:


> History says otherwise.




You mean like what they did with 3.5e?


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

For the most part, I am skeptical that anything realistic could bring the disenfranchised back.  From what I have seen, most of the people that have become disenfranchised with WotC, as opposed to somebody who just feels 4e isn't the game for them, would not likely accept any kind of olive branch.  They would see almost any gesture short of giving away lots of stuff for free as a money grab or some other negatively motivated ploy.


----------



## pawsplay

Runestar said:


> You mean like what they did with 3.5e?




I was thinking more along the lines of the decade in which I did not play AD&D, along with many others who left D&D a while back and only returned when 3e came out.


----------



## IronWolf

innerdude said:


> 2. Bring back PDFs.




I like having PDFs available, but with my preferred game (not WotC 4th edition) having them readily available, I don't really need WotC to produce PDFs as I don't even purchase their hardback books these days.



			
				innerdude said:
			
		

> 3. Make DDI what you said it would be.
> 
> The character builder is useless to me, because I don't play 4e. But if you were to put a working tabletop system into play, and charge the small premium for it? Now we're talking. DDI as it currently stands has zero interest to me.




I have working character generators for my system of choice via PCGen if I want free or Hero Lab if I want a paid option.  So no real need for a character builder.

MapTool works great for a VTT - anyone waiting on WotC to put one out should take some time to try it and view the video tutorials.  It is a great tool and supports a lot of systems through various frameworks.  And no subscription fee.



			
				innerdude said:
			
		

> 4. Incentives to play that DON'T include living FR, or D&D game days, or whatever RPGA schlock you're hocking.




I think they've been doing well with their encounters.  I don't play 4th edition as noted before, but these bite sized chunks of gaming are a great way to get more people playing.  So I think WotC is doing fine with that.



			
				innerdude said:
			
		

> Give me a 25 percent discount coupon on any three core rulebooks. Give me an online coupon code for any purchases of $50 or more of my choice. Give me some incentive to come back to you, and see you as something other than a faceless corporate entity out to make a buck.




My system of choice offers discounts to subscribers of any of their product lines, so I don't really need to wait on WotC for that either.

Definitely not trying to pick on you - just using your examples of how there is already a lot of this stuff out there from other gaming companies that make a great product.  So I really don't feel a need to have WotC gain me back as the void has already been filled - without WotC.




pogre said:


> I'm not "disenchanted" or angry at Wizards in the least, but I no longer play 4e.  ....
> 
> I think that WOTC understood full well they would lose some folks. They had to make the decisions they felt were best for the company. I cannot begrudge them that. I hope 4th continues to be a big success for them.




Exactly.  I think WotC knew they would lose some people with 4th edition but that some of us simply weren't the target audience and we were acceptable losses.  It seems there are lots of people playing 4th edition still and WotC seems to be doing okay all things said and done.  I am fine with that and not angry with them.

Luckily another company stepped up to fill the void for me and I am more than satisfied with their product and company and they provide me a lot of things WotC doesn't. So it's really sort of a win-win.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

The fact is that currently WotC is irrelevant to my D&D game.  I'm not mad at them or disappointed with them; I just don't care about them.  My tastes in D&D run in a different direction than WotC has been going, and I don't expect that to change.

Probably the easiest thing WotC could do to turn me into a customer is start selling PDFs of out-of-print material.  I already own most of what I want, but there are a few things I'd pick up.  And I know there's demand from others who play the out-of-print editions, too.

Another possibility is releasing new material for older editions.  I don't think that's "splitting the market," because I think the market is already split.  It would be entering into a portion of the market that already exists and that they're not currently servicing.  However, the market for older edition adventures may not be big enough for them to worry about.  That's a business decision they'd have to make.  I don't expect this to happen, I'm just throwing it out as a possibility.  Another possibility (especially if they deem the older edition market to be too small to devote resources to) would be to license the D&D trademark to a different company that puts out adventures and such for the older editions.  That way WotC keeps their development resources focused on their current game, benefits from license fees in a market they're not otherwise tapping and is too small to worry about, directly, and the separate company would get the benefit of releasing official AD&D material under license, which would be a big publicity/marketing boon.


----------



## Steel_Wind

For starters?

Well, for one, they could *try*.  And then maybe have the brand manager show up on ENWorld and say hi?

But we've been down that road already a few months back and she doesn't seem to be interested in that approach. 
I infer that WotC prefers to control the message and manage the delete key.


----------



## AngryMojo

IronWolf said:


> Luckily another company stepped up to fill the void for me and I am more than satisfied with their product and company and they provide me a lot of things WotC doesn't. So it's really sort of a win-win.




This is how I see it.  With the dissolving of a current OGL, other companies have had to step up to the plate with their design, and we're seeing some really top-notch products being released.  Companies aren't obsessed with shoehorning everything into the d20 mold, and by making their products stand on their own we're seeing the rise and popularization of things like WFRP, Dresden Files, DC Adventures officially dropping anything OGL that's just baggage, and the like.  Not to mention Paizo is doing a real bang-up job with Pathfinder.
It's easy to remember the OGL days with rose-covered glasses, but I distinctly remember seeing the huge glut of absolute garbage that was released under the d20 label.  Yes, there was some good third party d20 material, but for every gem there was a bucket of crap.  I remember the product in my store that the owners ordered, hoping it would be gold, sit on the shelves for years.  They had books discounted to a dollar, and the product still wouldn't move.
The OGL was a good thing for a while, but I think it ran it's course.  We got some good stuff out of it, but it needed to go away.


----------



## pawsplay

AngryMojo said:


> Companies aren't obsessed with shoehorning everything into the d20 mold, and by making their products stand on their own we're seeing the rise and popularization of things like WFRP, Dresden Files, DC Adventures officially dropping anything OGL that's just baggage, and the like.  Not to mention Paizo is doing a real bang-up job with Pathfinder...
> 
> The OGL was a good thing for a while, but I think it ran it's course.  We got some good stuff out of it, but it needed to go away.




You seem a little confused. Pathfinder and DC Adventures are both OGL products.


----------



## AngryMojo

pawsplay said:


> You seem a little confused. Pathfinder and DC Adventures are both OGL products.




And without 4e and the decision not to keep the OGL going, neither would be around.  The developers for DC Adventures have specifically stated that they've dropped any baggage from the d20 system that is only there to make it d20.  There's no need to identify with the system anymore, so they can move on with their design.


----------



## pawsplay

AngryMojo said:


> And without 4e and the decision not to keep the OGL going, neither would be around.  The developers for DC Adventures have specifically stated that they've dropped any baggage from the d20 system that is only there to make it d20.  There's no need to identify with the system anymore, so they can move on with their design.




Mutants & Masterminds never was d20-licensed. That decision was made before the first edition ever saw print.

What do you mean about the OGL dissolving, and what do you mean about it running its course, if you like DCA and Pathfinder?


----------



## Verdande

Although I'm certainly not a big consumer by any means, I don't know if it'd be easy to get my money again. I don't like the direction they're headed- towards a game where it's more explosions and powers and races and settings all at a breakneck speed, all clockwork and crunch and flavorless mechanics. D&D as a game is veering towards being a combat simulator first and foremost, which just isn't the way I like to play the game. Some people love it, and that's really cool, but I'm not a big fan.

With the free retroclones and the OSR, there's really no reason why I'd buy anything that WoTC puts out. I have my old gaming books, I have message boards, there's really nothing they try and sell me that me or my peers can't produce for free.


----------



## AngryMojo

pawsplay said:


> Mutants & Masterminds never was d20-licensed. That decision was made before the first edition ever saw print.
> 
> What do you mean about the OGL dissolving, and what do you mean about it running its course, if you like DCA and Pathfinder?



Mutants and Masterminds was certainly a d20 product, albeit a heavily modified one.  If it wasn't for the OGL and the development of the d20 system, it never would have seen the light of day.  Read the design articles Green Ronin has on their website about it.  There's an entire thing about no longer referring to feats as such, and changing their role in the game.  Even without the d20 logo on the books, M&M was a d20 product, and Green Ronin would have been foolish to keep a popular brand completely out of their books.
As for Pathfinder, it's a good product.  If 4e wasn't such a divergence from 3e, and if 4e had the same OGL as 3e, I highly doubt the fellows down at Paizo would have made Pathfinder, instead making more modules for the existing, current system.
The OGL was revolutionary when it came out, but like all revolutions, it lost steam and eventually petered out.  It was a good thing, but it's done and it had it's time.


----------



## Ahnehnois

The only really meaningful thing they could do would be rereleasing older material by pdf and opening up all earlier edition content. An online SRD of _every single 3.5e book ever published_ would see a lot of use.

In theory they could change personnel and release a new version of the game that fit my needs, but that's quite unrealistic.


----------



## Lanefan

I wouldn't say I'm specifically disenchanted with WotC - I still buy far too many of their Magic cards, for one thing; and as a company they do a decent job of promoting the D+D brand in its current iteration and keeping it "out there".

But - and of course there's a but - they could still win me back as a *D+D brand* customer by simply releasing new material for old editions e.g. 0e-1e to which they already own the rights; particularly adventures.  And by continuing the minis line as a D+D accessory (I bought lots of minis for use in D+D but never played the minis game they were designed for), but with non-random box contents and at a reasonable price.

Lan-"if WotC announced at GenCon '11 they were re-releasing 1e in printed form they'd never get me out of their booth"-efan


----------



## IronWolf

AngryMojo said:


> As for Pathfinder, it's a good product.  If 4e wasn't such a divergence from 3e, and if 4e had the same OGL as 3e, I highly doubt the fellows down at Paizo would have made Pathfinder, instead making more modules for the existing, current system.
> The OGL was revolutionary when it came out, but like all revolutions, it lost steam and eventually petered out.  It was a good thing, but it's done and it had it's time.




I think what pawsplay is getting at is that the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game was released under the OGL.


----------



## AngryMojo

IronWolf said:


> I think what pawsplay is getting at is that the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game was released under the OGL.




I know.  What I'm getting at is it wasn't released under the OGL while WotC was making d20 books, the heyday of the OGL.  I really don't think Pathfinder would have the steam it does if there was an OGL for 4e in the same way.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Thornir Alekeg said:


> For the most part, I am skeptical that anything realistic could bring the disenfranchised back.  From what I have seen, most of the people that have become disenfranchised with WotC, as opposed to somebody who just feels 4e isn't the game for them, would not likely accept any kind of olive branch.  They would see almost any gesture short of giving away lots of stuff for free as a money grab or some other negatively motivated ploy.



I'm probably somewhere in the middle of 'disenfranchised' and 'feeling 4E isn't the game for me'.
Bring me back in the fold is fairly easy.  Make or sell something I want. 



Philotomy Jurament said:


> The fact is that currently WotC is irrelevant to my D&D game.  I'm not mad at them or disappointed with them; I just don't care about them.  My tastes in D&D run in a different direction than WotC has been going, and I don't expect that to change.
> 
> Probably the easiest thing WotC could do to turn me into a customer is start selling PDFs of out-of-print material.  I already own most of what I want, but there are a few things I'd pick up.  And I know there's demand from others who play the out-of-print editions, too.
> 
> Another possibility is releasing new material for older editions.  I don't think that's "splitting the market," because I think the market is already split.  It would be entering into a portion of the market that already exists and that they're not currently servicing.  However, the market for older edition adventures may not be big enough for them to worry about.  That's a business decision they'd have to maket.  I don't expect this to happen, I'm just throwing it out as a possibility.  Another possibility (especially if they deem the older edition market to be too small to devote resources to) would be to license the D&D trademark to a different company that puts out adventures and such for the older editions.  That way WotC keeps their development resources focused on their current game, benefits from license fees in a market they're not otherwise tapping and is too small to worry about, directly, and the separate company would get the benefit of releasing official AD&D material under license, which would be a big publicity/marketing boon.



PDF's, release of limited runs, new material.  You ask so much.

Really though if they did a limited run release of old stuff, I would bet there would be a surge in purchases.

If they updated the DDI to include older editions, yup I would be sitting there sending them money to use their CB.
I used it building a 4E character I played and really loved it.



Steel_Wind said:


> For starters?
> 
> Well, for one, they could *try*.  And then maybe have the brand manager show up on ENWorld and say hi?
> 
> But we've been down that road already a few months back and she doesn't seem to be interested in that approach.
> I infer that WotC prefers to control the message and manage the delete key.



It could also be the fact how many times did we rake Scott over the coals around here for stuff.  Could it be our own olive branch is a wee bit rotten. 


So really to get my money:
1. PDF's not so important as I have most I want.  But would help in filling out some holes I have.  And it would generate the most good will throughout the community.

2. Older Edition Character Builders.  Heck they could contract it out if they wanted to, with the stipulation that it must be done through DDI.  I bet many of us Non-4E'ers would jump on the bandwagon to get it.  And once you have us, who is to say we don't stick around and maybe try out that new fangled 4E thing the kids are playing these days.  It's a one time cost with possible huge rewards.  
I disagree with starting with 2E.  I would start with the 3.0E/3.5E Books.
Why you ask, simple you have the greatest number of players in that demographic that are computer literate and more likely to have a laptop at the table.  This is also the same demographic that would have to be won over with the most return of investment possible.
To those that say we have PCGEN or others of the free ones, I say you have to enter all the datasets on your own.  And lord help you if you get caught typing it all out and sharing the dataset.  Your average player is lazy, WotC needs to take advantage of that fact.

3. Classic Limited Reprints - Each year select an edition, reprint the core as a single mega book. (include errata)  This run would not be of 3.0E/3.5E.  Reason being I don't consider that Classic D&D and it would be counter productive to the 4E line, while the Basic/1E/2E lines would fall more into nostalgic buys for the occasional game with or for folks wanting to replace their aging books.

That's my two coppers on the matter.
You have to show WotC there is some profit to be made if you want them to do something.


----------



## pawsplay

AngryMojo said:


> Mutants and Masterminds was certainly a d20 product, albeit a heavily modified one.  If it wasn't for the OGL and the development of the d20 system, it never would have seen the light of day. ... The OGL was revolutionary when it came out, but like all revolutions, it lost steam and eventually petered out.  It was a good thing, but it's done and it had it's time.




I just don't understand what you're saying, and I suspect it's because you're not making logical sense. DCA is a continuation of the OGL "revolution," it is an OGL game, based on an OGL game, and still has an OGL declaration. 

If by "petering out" you mean the OGL is no longer a force in gaming, you are incorrect. DC Adventures is an OGL game with a major license and is a continuation of a thriving M&M fanbase. I can't think of any way it could be less petered out.


----------



## scourger

They will be getting me back with the new *Gamma World*.  I'll buy the first release and the others if it plays the way I think it will.  And this from one who has never purchased a single 4e product--I thought I was off the ride and out of the amusement park when 3.5 ended.  I think *Gamma World* will be a concise but complete game experience, which is what I'm looking for these days.  I want good rules, a fun story and easy minis (or counters).  Again as the OP mentioned, *Savage Worlds* really hits all those elements for me right now.  If *Gamma World* can do it, too; then I'm in.  

They could also get me back with a CD or DVD of all the printed Dungeon Adventures magazines.  That would be cool.


----------



## Olaf the Stout

Bring back PDF's from editions prior to 4E would get me to give them some of my money.  The fact that the only way to get the older edition stuff is via eBay or torrents is frustrating to me.

Heck, if they added all of the older edition stuff to the DDI it may even get me to sign up for a subscription, even though I don't play 4E.

Releasing some more D&D pre-painted minis will get me buying them.  Dungeon Tiles will probably perk my interest too (although I haven't bought the last few sets).

Other than that though I don't plan on buying 4E.  It's not that I think WotC is doing anything wrong at the moment.  It is just that I'm happy enough with the 3.xE stuff I have.  What I currently own for 3.xE is enough to keep my group playing for several years.  When 5E eventually gets released X years from now they will probably get my business again.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Theo R Cwithin

Old PDFs would bring me in on occasion.
DDI 3e almost certainly would.
Cheaper softcover manuals would make me more likely to check out 4e.  New Red Box almost had me when it was 3 levels, but now it sounds like it's 2 levels again (?) so I'm backing off the fence.  GW is sounding less intersting to me for some reason, too.

So, meh.  Frankly, I've got enough to game with for a long time, and my imagination is vaster than any company could ever hope to be.    If I end up in a group interested in new WotC stuff, I'll take a look.  Otherwise, I'm likely done for good.  :shrug:


----------



## bagger245

Thing is, they do want lapsed players to come back being a customer again, but to play their current edition..


----------



## Ourph

innerdude said:


> But even more than the system itself, I've been completely turned off to Wizards of the Coast's marketing tactics, business strategy, and PR.
> 
> Over the past 24 months or so, they've been mediocre at best, and outright bunglers at worst when comes to PR, and only a staunch Wizards defender would disagree.



I'm not much of a Wizards defender (I was more of a striker during the 3e era  ), but I think "the past 24 months" is inaccurate. During the 24 months surrounding the the 4e launch (before and after), perhaps. But I think the last year has seen a lot of really positive things (DM rewards programs, the Encounters program, Robot Chicken videos, solid e-tools, etc.) and few if any bungles on the scale of Gleemax or pulling the .pdfs. I realize a lot of those things might not appeal to you personally, but for people who aren't actively angry at WotC I think those things have done a lot to create goodwill and loyal customers.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

innerdude said:


> So how could Wizards best extend an olive branch to us, the Disenchanted?




In all honesty, while I'm one of the people who _really_ disliked 4Ed's rollout (it violated a lot of principles I learned getting my MBA), and I don't particularly care for 4Ed (I've bought a few books, mostly on deep-ish discounts, in order to maintain my status as the librarian for my group- currently playing a startup 4Ed game), I'm not particularly anti-WotC.  So basically, there really isn't anything they could do to change my opinion of the company.

I will say that the idea to have D&D's entire history available through DDI would be pretty damn smart, though.  Sammael gets XP for that.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

To get me back, they'd need to publish something that gives me ideas, fills me with a sense of wonder, and makes me excited about reading or playing D&D. I'm pretty easy about that too: 1e, 2e to a lesser extent, and 3.x all do that for me. So do Traveller in almost all its incarnations, ASOIF, WHFRPG, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Master, Savage Worlds, Exalted, CoC, Unhallowed Metropolis, even Nicotine Girls.

What can I say, I'm a pushover. I *want* to believe in your RPG world. I *want* to have fun in it. I believe, like Kurt Vonnegut, that a critic is someone who attacks a hot fudge sundae while wearing a full suit of plate armor.

And yet I find myself a 4e critic. I'm sure the people making it tried to make a hot fudge sundae. But to me, it's like they made it out of mustard and mushroom ice cream.

To win me back, WOTC would have to show me what I consider intelligence. (Note: This is my own opinion, yours may differ, and yet we can still both agree that the world is a great place and that Gen Con should have vuvuzelas in the RPGA hall.) The way that 4e has been designed, written, and marketed demonstrates to me (maybe not you) muddy, weak, and often misguided thinking.

So WOTC needs to show me something smart. Maybe use more than an 8th-grade level vocabulary in their books. Maybe not make bone-headed marketing moves. Maybe try to have some themes, foreshadowing, character depth, or challenging ideas in their adventures. Maybe some allusions. I'm not sure. But to bring me back, I'd need to see something that makes me feel like the person writing the book is a smart guy and has something to say that is worth listening to.


----------



## Indagare Nogitsune

Personally, I do not think there's much they can do to get people back. After what they did to the Forgotten Realms, I think it's pretty clear they'd rather destroy all that came before than ask what their players actually want.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I hear sex sells.

They could try including more of that?

But I guess the BoEF didn't do so well...


----------



## hutchback

I am honestly curious, so please don't think I am trying to be snarky.

Doesn't Paizo more or less offer all of what you are asking for through their Pathfinder line? I don't know much about Pathfinder, so perhaps I have an inaccurate perception.

I there something about Pathfinder that makes one reluctant to jump on board?


----------



## Dandu

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I hear sex sells.
> 
> They could try including more of that?
> 
> But I guess the BoEF didn't do so well...



Couldn't get a rise out of the sales. The book was a bit of a flop. Came up a bit short in the sex department, felt a little forced at some points.


----------



## Stormonu

I'd been moving away from WotC since at least the PHB2, if not earlier.  They've simply gone in a direction that I no longer care to follow.  Luckily, other publishers have laid down track that goes in the direction I'd let to get to.  But, if WotC wanted my business back, what I'd be looking for is:

- A system that is less about the mechanics and more about having fun while telling a good story.  My recent brush with Savage Worlds (and WoD) has shown me I'm just not into heavy mechanics.

- Quick combat.  4E's combat system is fine if you like DDM tournaments; I don't; my combats are a small part of the story, not the whole enchilada.

- Bring back not only the D&D PDF's, but also release PDFs for all the other old systems - Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Alternity, Boot Hill, etc.

- Put balance in the back seat, or better yet, lock it up in the trunk.  I'm sick of hearing about how balanced the 4E game is supposed to be.  I just want something fun, and I've had plenty of fun with all the prior editions regardless how much moaning and groaning people have done about the old game's "imbalance".  Just take the rule lawyers and Charop junkies and let them drag behind the car.*

That's all I can think of for me.

* In fact, I think the sorry state of D&D has been because of these two groups.


----------



## Wild Gazebo

I'm a simple man.  I'd gladly jump into the fold if they could take me back twenty years.  Back when my eyes were bright and my ideas were new...yup, that would do it for sure.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dandu said:


> Couldn't get a rise out of the sales. The book was a bit of a flop. Came up a bit short in the sex department, felt a little forced at some points.




Are you saying sales figures were limp?
****


One thing that WotC could do that might genuinely "win some people back" is come up with a new setting.

Pretty much each edition of D&D has added a new setting to the game's history.  But as yet, 4Ed has added only reworked versions of old settings.

And the thing is, for all of the things I dislike about 4Ed, not a one of them would bug me in a setting designed from the ground up to support the new races, classes & mechanics.

(Assuming, of course, that it was WELL designed.)

Why?  Because people's expectations would be different.

Consider a classic song.  Say...The Rolling Stones' _Sympathy for the Devil._  If you try to copy it exactly, odds are high you're going to get criticized, or at best, damned with faint praise.  If you try to radically alter the song, you're going to get criticized unless you really do a great job.  See Jane's Addiction's version...not only is it not a good cover of the song, its not even good in the context of the band's other work.

And that's all because the Rolling Stones did it right the first time.

OTOH, if you start from scratch and create a new song, it will stand or fall on its own merits.

That's what 4Ed needs- a completely new setting where 4Ed's design decisions don't butt up against past expectations.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Well, one sure way to win back some of the disenchanted it to disenchant current customers. That usually works well.

WOTC has to make choices, and they know that people are going to leave with every one, no matter how it is made. But with every choice, the yare goingto gain mroe people.

Nothing is stopping me from playing older editions but my players and myself. WOTC has no say in what edition I play. They do have a strong say in what I BUY, butthat is their problem, they definitely should bring older PDFs back.

NEWS FLASH WOTC!!! ALL of yoor old pdfs are ALREADY out there on torrents.  You are not stopping the illegal downloading people a bit.


----------



## jefgorbach

*. Prior editions focused on coherent stories with overall maps and even occasionally included details where that particular dungeon fits into the overall campaign world ... creating a detailed framework upon which to build. This is what originally brought me into RPGs and why I continue to support Pazio. 

*. Books degrade over time bc of accidents, transportation, and routine usage. WOTC's decision to "ban" .PDFs was simply their declaration they didn't WANT my cash so I should either scan/retype them myself or seek alternative sources to legally backup my original books as allowed under the existing copyright laws since I wont be able to purchase replacement copies.

*. Reinstate the OGL - sure, many 3rd party suggestions were unbalanced, poorly edited, or otherwise flawed ... but many weren't and most (even if poorly executed) provided inspiration, innovation to the game. 

*. Either incorporate prior editions/games into DDI or setup a separate area for the old-timers.


----------



## Philosopher

I'm generally unimpressed with WotC, but that's not why I don't play 4e. I don't play 4e because I'd prefer to play either Pathfinder or Castles & Crusades (and a few others, although these are the games I'm currently quite interested in). If they make a game that suits my tastes, I'll invest in it. Given the direction they're heading, that doesn't seem likely.

Having said that, it _would_ be nice if they were to change their practices. People have already raised many points about this, so I won't repeat them. What I'll add is that I'd like it if WotC would stop revising the history of D&D. I know that they don't want to support Greyhawk right now, and that's fine because it's their choice, but they should at least acknowledge its existence and its significance in the history of D&D. For example, when referring to "the first campaign settings" in "The History of D&D" (p. 7 of the 4e PHB), they should refer to Greyhawk, not to mention Blackmoor and Mystara/Known World, and not just the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance. This is not the only time they've gotten the history of the game wrong.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes

*For starters*

They'd have to be a better company than Paizo.  

Ken


----------



## Dandu

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Are you saying sales figures were limp?



All I'm saying is that very few people felt motivated to get their hands wrapped around the book.



> One thing that WotC could do that might genuinely "win some people back" is come up with a new setting.



Or release Richard Burlew's setting that they have locked in a filing cabinet somewhere. I bet it would be awesome.


----------



## innerdude

Wow, lots of good, thoughtful posts, folks. 

I'm glad to know that I'm not alone in feeling like Wizards could address some of these issues and generate some good will. 

As for the comment about maybe they don't want us back as players-- LOL, it's entirely possible that they don't, and I suppose that's okay too. 

I'd like to think from a business and community perspective, though, that Wizards would love to have more of the "old school" crowd back in the fold, to create new, exciting DM experiences for players, to build brand equity and loyalty, and generally just showcase how fun RPGs really are. 

(I know that a lot of "old school" D&D players feel like D&D 4e has already done that, but I think there's a lot more still out there.) 

I'd like to think, too, that there are enough "disenfranchised" D&D'ers out there like me who really still want to connect with _the brand_ of D&D. 

We do want D&D to be magical again, like we know it could be.


----------



## Hussar

Dandu said:


> All I'm saying is that very few people felt motivated to get their hands wrapped around the book.




Heard that a lot of people found it hard to swallow.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Heard that a lot of people found it hard to swallow.




Perhaps the timing was off...premature.  Thus nobody wanted to splurge on it.

One thing is for sure: we'll probably never see a leather-bound edition of it.


----------



## Dire Bare

I know many of us are wishlisting and realize that some of what we would love would not happen . . . could not happen . . . but . . .

I see a lot of folks asking for the resumption of PDF sales of older material.  Would that really bring you back as a significant customer?  I mean, sure, you might pick up a few titles you are missing in your collection . . . and maybe you might even pick up EVERY title if you have no collection as of yet, but then . . . wouldn't your patronage of WotC end?  If you aren't interested in 4e, why would WotC want to spend any money (and yes, releasing existing PDF copies of older material would cost money) trying to win you back?

Plus, WotC has stated multiple times that they DO plan on releasing the older material again.  They haven't promised WHEN they will do this, or HOW, but considering the Gleemax debacle, WotC has learned not to promise electronic goodies until they are truly beta ready.

I also noted a few people asking for D&D minis that support the RPG line . . . uh, they do that.  Right now.  Really!  The D&D skirmish game is dead, and WotC continues to produce minis that support the current edition of their game.  I know some folks don't care for random packaging, but that hasn't come up in this thread as much . . .


----------



## The Human Target

Put me in the "I hope they don't do anything to bring back the disenchanted" camp.

The simple fact is, you're going to lose some people every time you switch editions.

And you're going to gain some people.

I'm very worried the Essentials line is going to try too hard to bring back the lapsed DnDers and end up changing the game in ways I myself no longer want to support.


----------



## Dire Bare

Philotomy Jurament said:


> Another possibility is releasing new material for older editions.  I don't think that's "splitting the market,"




If WotC spent any manpower/money on releasing new material for older editions that would be splitting the market . . . and it would be a bad business decision.  Licensing is a possibility, but WotC has already made the decision that licensing aspects of D&D to other companies is not a direction they want to go anymore (Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Kalamar, Hackmaster, Oriental Adventures).  I wouldn't mind if WotC did produce material for older editions either themselves or through a license, but I don't begrudge them for choosing not to do so (not that you are, I'm just saying).

One thing I'd love to see that I think would work would be for WotC to have a unique license with Paizo for Pathfinder to use any official D&D 3e material and have some sort of low-key "Official Classic D&D" logo or phrase or something like that.  I'm not sure if Paizo would want to do that, and I doubt that WotC would, but I think it would work out well for WotC, Paizo, and the consumers.  And I dig it.  

But, I play 4e, so WotC doesn't have to win me back!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dire Bare said:


> I know many of us are wishlisting and realize that some of what we would love would not happen . . . could not happen . . . but . . .
> 
> I see a lot of folks asking for the resumption of PDF sales of older material.  Would that really bring you back as a significant customer?  I mean, sure, you might pick up a few titles you are missing in your collection . . . and maybe you might even pick up EVERY title if you have no collection as of yet, but then . . . wouldn't your patronage of WotC end?  If you aren't interested in 4e, why would WotC want to spend any money (and yes, releasing existing PDF copies of older material would cost money) trying to win you back?




I think that the call for older material in electronic form works on 2 levels:


It satisfies the drive for ease of storage & use as more players become increasingly technophillic
The rebuilding of corporate goodwill that was lost in the waning months of 3.5 and the early months of the 4Ed rollout.  Many people didn't like the way WotC handled the expiration of licenses with other companies, the way 4Ed was marketed, and clearly, the removal of downloadable legal PDFs.

The second point is important.  The mere fact of the PDFs returning to the market may soothe enough people that they continue to patronize WotC's site- the reason for _their_ "boycott" would be over.

Plus, as noted before, it lets them continue to profit from extant material.


----------



## Dire Bare

pawsplay said:


> I just don't understand what you're saying, and I suspect it's because you're not making logical sense. DCA is a continuation of the OGL "revolution," it is an OGL game, based on an OGL game, and still has an OGL declaration.
> 
> If by "petering out" you mean the OGL is no longer a force in gaming, you are incorrect. DC Adventures is an OGL game with a major license and is a continuation of a thriving M&M fanbase. I can't think of any way it could be less petered out.




Just because you don't understand someone, doesn't mean they are not making logical sense.  No need to be an ass about it.  Besides, he was making perfect sense, you just didn't get it.  Which is fine, no fault on you.

Mutants & Masterminds (both 1e and 2e) were clearly OGL games.  Heavily modified, of course, but also designed with the intent to stay within OGL bounds.  Not for licensing reasons, but because GR felt at the time that keeping the game close to D&D 3e (or the d20 system) was an important design goal.

DC Adventures (and M&M 3e) is still an OGL game.  It's derived from M&M 1e and 2e of course!  But the designers have actually stated in their design journals that with the demise of the d20 system as a driving force in the RPG market, they are more comfortable dropping tropes of d20 and moving away from the system.

What would have happened if 4e had gone the way we all thought it would a year before it released, with a new d20 license and new OGL as open as 3e?  Would the eventual DC Adventures and M&M 3e be 4e D&D based?  Would it stick closer to the original 3e OGL than it is currently?  We will never know, of course, but there's a good chance things would have played out differently.

Also, Pathfinder would not likely exist.  Pathfinder is essentially D&D 3.75e and is clearly an OGL game . . . but Paizo was seriously considering going 4e and (new) d20 before they got a hold of the more restrictive GSL.  Again, if WotC had from the start given the industry an open 4e, things would have played out differently.

_Edit:  _The (D&D 3e) d20/OGL boom is not "dead", but it is mostly over and waning.  The boom has come and gone.  The success of Pathfinder is a unique case and DCA is only OGL because M&M 1e & 2e were.  GR has dropped all other d20/OGL product lines.


----------



## TarionzCousin

They could include a coupon in every new book:


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TarionzCousin said:


> They could include a coupon in every new book:




I'm sure that polls would show that that coupon would have firmed up the sales of the BoEF, for sure!

Yep.  Polls would show that.


----------



## Dandu

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One thing is for sure: we'll probably never see a leather-bound edition of it.



That would whip up a storm of controversy.


----------



## AngryMojo

pawsplay said:


> I just don't understand what you're saying, and I suspect it's because you're not making logical sense. DCA is a continuation of the OGL "revolution," it is an OGL game, based on an OGL game, and still has an OGL declaration.
> 
> If by "petering out" you mean the OGL is no longer a force in gaming, you are incorrect. DC Adventures is an OGL game with a major license and is a continuation of a thriving M&M fanbase. I can't think of any way it could be less petered out.






			
				DC ADVENTURES Design Journal #2 said:
			
		

> Another key reason for putting a new iteration of M&M in DC ADVENTURES was the change in the d20 System market. M&M Second Edition had long since established its independence from its Open Game License "ancestor" so why not go the rest of the way towards making it a truly independent system? That involved looking closely at what really worked in the game, and what was merely a holdover from the System Resource Document(s), whether it was terminology (*cough*feats*cough*) or mechanics (ability scores vs. ability modifiers; the scores didn't actually do much of anything).




DC Adventures is, as directly stated by Green Ronin, a truly independent system, spurred by a change in the d20 market.

As for the OGL petering out, examine the number of OGL products released over the past year, and compare them to the number of products released in 2005.  The products released over the past year are a much smaller number, but of much higher quality.  Pathfinder alone blows most all third party d20 products released up to the 2008 mark out of the water.  That's my point ,the current market change of the OGL separated the wheat from the chaff.  Weak products are no longer propped up by the overwhelming popularity of the system, while those games that belong in other systems are no longer pressured into d20 to stay relevant.

_Edit_


Dire Bare said:


> Snip



Exactly what I was trying to say.  Thank you for reminding me I'm not crazy.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Dire Bare said:


> If WotC spent any manpower/money on releasing new material for older editions that would be splitting the market . . . and it would be a bad business decision.



It might.  Or it might not; a company addressing the demands of two related but separate markets isn't unheard of.  If we were talking about a TSR D&D vs. 4e split, then I think we're talking about two related, but different games.  That can be a contentious position to take, but consider this thread, where Mike Mearls said "OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs."  I agree with Mr. Mearls on that one.  Game companies have sold more than one game at the same time, before, especially when the games are so different that they cater to very different needs.  So maybe it wouldn't be such bad business, after all.  Hard to say, for certain.



> Licensing is a possibility…



Yeah.  While I don't think any of these possibilities are likely (with the exception of out-of-print PDFs coming back, at some point), I think licensing is more likely than WotC directly releasing new material for out-of-print D&D.

So would I become a WotC customer, again, if they did any of this?  I'd buy some more TSR D&D PDFs.  As for new material for TSR D&D (whether from WotC or through a third-party company with a license), that depends on the quality of the new material and how well it fit my preferences and my game.  I tap all sorts of sources for my D&D games, so I'd certainly give WotC a chance, too.


----------



## scruffygrognard

To come back into the fold, I'd need WotC to:
1] Re-release pdfs, particularly of older edition materials.
2] Ditch 4th edition and go back to D&D's roots to create a game that strongly resembles the D&D that I've played for the past 30 years.  There is room for innovation and streamlining (I'm thinking of d20/OGL games like _Star Wars: Saga Edition_ and _Castles & Crusades_) while still keeping the classic D&D tropes.

The following would sweeten the pot, but aren't requirements:
3] Make the DDI a repository of all D&D goodness, including the Dragon Archives, the AD&D 2nd edition Core Rules, all D&D pdfs, and so on.
4] Make the pdfs and both Dragon and Dungeons magazines available in print through a print-on-demand partnership with Lulu or a similar outfit.


----------



## howandwhy99

I'd like to be purchasing in-print D&D products again.  But I think there is an absolutist belief system about "What roleplaying games are" that is so exclusionary it may keep designs far away from my own preferences.

My advice to Wizards of the Coast would be to deny any single viewpoints, to design and sell more RPGs than only 4E, and then to create both cutting edge story and pattern finding games.

With some education the latter could be done well enough to bring back into the WotC customer base many lapsed and no longer updating, D&D-specific players.  Designs of this sort are eminently suited to computer-aided gaming with subscription-based payment models.

Here are two useful sites for inspiration in design:
Conway's Game of Life
(the applet specifically)
RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service
(but with dice notation ability of course)

I also suggest they write or pay an academic to author a history of roleplaying (not just RPGs) before someone else in the hobby does, if only to control the presentation and message of it.  Both how roleplaying and roleplaying games came to be and how these are changing in contemporary forms are topics which have generated a great deal of discussion across many opposing circles within the hobby.


----------



## JediSoth

Like many others, I would like to see the PDFs brought back, especially those of the older editions. If WotC made DDI the repository of all D&D, historical and current, that would definitely get my subscription money back. And if they made the electronic tools like the Encounter Builder compatible with the older edition...as George Takei would say..."Oh...my!"

As far as a new edition goes, I'm not sure they could win me back. As I get older, I tend to prefer more rules-light systems to the more tactical and simulationist systems that seem to be preferred for D&D. Somehow, I don't see WotC making D&D rules-light; it wouldn't be  D&D for so many people. I'm not a fan of the direction 4E went, but I don't hate it either. In the last couple of years, my enthusiasm for 3.X has dampened somewhat, too, and I've actually rediscovered what I appreciated about older editions like BECMI and 2E.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

I pre-ordered the Castle Ravenloft board game from Amazon but outside of that I havent bought a WOTC product since the 4E Core rulebook box that I ordered from Amazon. There are parts of me that want to pick up the Dungeon Tiles as I did pretty much faithfully through 3.5, but instead if I need something specific I just make it myself using Fat Dragon games, WorldWorks or Empty Room Tiles. 

I think that there are a few people here who might be saying that since someone like me who didnt adopt 4E is in fact not wanted by WOTC as a customer. That's fine, Paizo gets most of my RPG dollars these days. They get more of my money overall than WOTC would have ($20 a month for AP subscription + subscription to their RPG line, never mind the money spend on item cards and flip mats.) 
If WOTC decides to bring back PDF's at a decent price I would most certainly become a customer of theirs again. The fact that I wouldn't be buying new stuff isnt the point. I'd be filling out the gaps in my collection (mostly interested in 3.5 and AD&D modules...) and they would be getting my money. And if they allowed Paizo to at least release the rest of the Savage Tide Dungeon AP's in PDF that would be awesome as well.

You know what would be even better? IF some how WOTC (or Paizo) released some sort of classics line with Hardcover versions of the complete Age of Worms and Savage Tide AP's like they did with the Shackled City. It's a dream, I know but even if they were priced at $60 - $75 a piece they'd be worth it for me. 

The fact is with the exception of the Ravenloft board game (which the more I think about it I might cancel that pre-order...) WOTC doesn't make a product that I'm interested in buying. I'll also be honest, I wasnt a big fan of how they rolled out 4E to begin with, so that's part of it. but it's not like they're Mel Gibson or any thing, it's entirely possible for them to win me back. Just give me something that I actually want.


----------



## Desdichado

innerdude said:


> Over the past 24 months or so, they've been mediocre at best, and outright bunglers at worst when comes to PR, and only a staunch Wizards defender would disagree.



I'm hardly a staunch Wizards defender and I disagree.  I don't even play 4e.  I've never even _read_ 4e, or played a single trial game of it, or anything.

That said, I think most of the complaints about Wizards' PR job come from spoiled, entitled fanboys with wildly unreasonable expectations.  The interenet is one of those funny things where a handful of people willing to make a lot of "noise" can give the false impression that there's some huge blunder happening, when in reality most people are either indifferent, or even happy with the state of affairs.

I happen to be one of the indifferent ones.  But most gamers I talk to are the happy ones.


----------



## Raven Crowking

AngryMojo said:


> I know.  What I'm getting at is it wasn't released under the OGL while WotC was making d20 books, the heyday of the OGL.  I really don't think Pathfinder would have the steam it does if there was an OGL for 4e in the same way.




Personally, I think that the "heyday of the OGL" is just begining, as more and better open source games are being produced......Many for free.



RC


----------



## El Mahdi

Raven Crowking said:


> Personally, I think that the "heyday of the OGL" is just begining, as more and better open source games are being produced......Many for free.
> 
> RC




Quality-wise I'd definitely agree.  There's some very good OGL stuff out there now.  I think the last couple of years have produced some of the best mechanical innovations for D20/OGL games.  I feel 4E's mechanics have inspired some of those innovations, but there's a plethora of unique mechanical innovations out there now.  D20/OGL seems to be the tinkerers system of choice.


----------



## scruffygrognard

JediSoth said:


> Somehow, I don't see WotC making D&D rules-light; it wouldn't be  D&D for so many people. I'm not a fan of the direction 4E went, but I don't hate it either. In the last couple of years, my enthusiasm for 3.X has dampened somewhat, too, and I've actually rediscovered what I appreciated about older editions like BECMI and 2E.




If WotC were smart, the next iteration of D&D would be modular enough to allow for rules-lite D&D.  The core books would present classic races, monsters and classes, and the fundamental rules needed to run the game, as was the case with 3.X.  

The fundamental rules could easily be pared down from what they were in 3.X, with sidebars for adding complexity.

Later volumes could add funky class and race options, as well as more complicated rules for expert players.


----------



## DaveMage

My ire is directed at the team that set the vision for D&D 4e, which changed many, many of the things I like about D&D.

If WotC makes products I want to buy, I'll buy them, but since both the 4e timing and changes made greatly annoyed me, there's not much that can be done at this point to change my mind.


----------



## UniversalMonster

Well, I'm agreeing with Hobo. 

The only people that say Wizards has bad customer service or public relations are people who aren't customers in the first place. They have _incredible _public relations. They have amazing customer service. They literally have a help desk phone number if you have a rules question. You sign up for Organized Play and they'll send you free adventures and stuff. You think you get that kind of service anywhere else? Anywhere?

"Ditch 4E entirely" is even less likely. I also don't think selling the old stuff OR the PDFs will help in any way, either. The market for old stuff exists and it's called Ebay. And I know that some people will have a problem hearing that there's a ton of people that absolutely love 4e (and I'm one of them). I think* 4E is easily the best version of the game that has ever been published. *Opinions are like that though. I realize that mine isn't universal. 

Now these almost seem like cruel and hurtful things to say, but they really aren't. They aren't personal or hurtful, they're simply facts. (or in my case, opinions. That 4e is awesome, I mean. Which it totally is.)


----------



## Doug McCrae

The concept of having a personal relationship with a company, of being owed an apology is one that is alien to me. Maybe I'm too much of a sociopath, I dunno.

I've bought tons of crap from TSR and WotC over the years but I never felt they owed me anything other than the product. They get the money, I get the game or book or boxed set. We are even now, that's how it works.

The only way I could understand is if you were buying products you didn't really like just to support the company. You felt the product wasn't actually worth the money but by being a customer you were somehow paying for a say in how the company was run. Thing is, I don't think that's how TSR or WotC ever saw it. You never got a vote.


----------



## El Mahdi

I wasn't going to comment on the OP, as this thread has been done so many times (some of them by me), but I could only resist for a day (I'm so weak)...

My answers would be the same as they've been since April 8, 2009:

I don't play 4E.  I don't hate it, or think it's a bad system, but it just isn't my preference.  However, I did buy the 4E Core Set (Box) when 4E first released.  I also purchased a DDI account.  However, I cancelled it after the events of 8 April.

It's not effective to target me as a purchaser of their print products.  I may pick up the occasional book, in order to plunder something from it for my houserules/campaign, but not enough for it to be worthwhile to court me.  But here's the kicker, I'd only buy the occasional book if exposed to them (which I no longer am because of cancelling my DDI account).

The most lucrative product WotC has (as far as D&D) is DDI.  It's consistent, self-renewing revenue (as opposed to the one time purchase of a book).  How could WotC get me back (as a DDI customer)?  By doing the following (in order of importance):

Resume sales of older edition materials in some electronic format...whether .pdf or other, doesn't really matter to me, but do it NOW!
Include some occasional older edition material in Dragon and Dungeon.  Maybe one article and one adventure a month in a rotating format (from OD&D through 3E).
Include Character Builders, Encounter Builders, and Compendiums for the previous editions of D&D.
Include the promised Character Visualizer and Virtual Table Top so I can finally use DDI for what I originally got an account for.
Without the above, I have no reason as a customer to patron WotC.  They just don't currently have anything I need or want.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Honesty and respect.

Also, PDFs. 

Otherwise, my money continues to (only) go elsewhere. Simple as that.


----------



## Cwheeler

I don't want them to win me back; I'm enjoying Savage Worlds too much!

Thank you Wizards, for driving me away and causing me to try other products. I owe you a debt of gratitude...


----------



## Remathilis

...I'm not sure.

Seeing as I don't have much inkling to play the current D&D offered (while Essentials is tempting, I fear the changes won't be radical enough to correct all my misgivings about the system) and these days other companies offer me a decent alternative to Dungeon Tiles and DDM (for what little I still need of the latter) that WotC has become largely irrelevant to my gaming these days. Heck, I wouldn't even need older-edition PDFs since I own on PDF almost every book I'd ever need!

That said, I do miss the idea of playing "D&D", just for the sake of brand loyalty. I call my Pathfinder game "D&D" informally, but something just ain't the same. 

Perhaps if Essentials does enough changes under the hood, I'd look at 4e again. Beyond that, I fear WotC probably won't get my money until 5e comes out (if even).


----------



## TheYeti1775

The Human Target said:


> Put me in the "I hope they don't do anything to bring back the disenchanted" camp.
> 
> The simple fact is, you're going to lose some people every time you switch editions.
> 
> And you're going to gain some people.
> 
> I'm very worried the Essentials line is going to try too hard to bring back the lapsed DnDers and end up changing the game in ways I myself no longer want to support.



Why wouldn't you want more customers for WotC?  Honestly that doesn't make any kind of sense at all to me.
I agree with you that you will lose people/gain people with every new edition, but if a company can minimize it's customer base lose during that switch why wouldn't that?



Dire Bare said:


> If WotC spent any manpower/money on releasing new material for older editions that would be splitting the market . . . and it would be a bad business decision.  ...snip...



The only split in that would be on the R&D side of the house.  Those who refuse to go to 4E, aren't part of the current customer base now.  Catering to their whims even at say one module a year (1 per year for each prior edition released quarterly), could actually be the small token of goodwill that pushes them to try other WotC products that are offered just on an impulse buy.



Dire Bare said:


> Licensing is a possibility, but WotC has already made the decision that licensing aspects of D&D to other companies is not a direction they want to go anymore (Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Kalamar, Hackmaster, Oriental Adventures).  I wouldn't mind if WotC did produce material for older editions either themselves or through a license, but I don't begrudge them for choosing not to do so (not that you are, I'm just saying).



The question though is, are there any companies willing to subject themselves to WotC's licensing departments after the fiascos of the past?  And outside of two or three companies, who has the money, the interest, and the skills needed for it.



Dire Bare said:


> One thing I'd love to see that I think would work would be for WotC to have a unique license with Paizo for Pathfinder to use any official D&D 3e material and have some sort of low-key "Official Classic D&D" logo or phrase or something like that.  I'm not sure if Paizo would want to do that, and I doubt that WotC would, but I think it would work out well for WotC, Paizo, and the consumers.  And I dig it.



To me that would be the spliting of the market, as Paizo is an outside company with it's own version of the game.  You want those Paizo customers to be WotC customers, not give more ammo to Paizo in which WotC customers become Paizo customers instead.



Dire Bare said:


> But, I play 4e, so WotC doesn't have to win me back!



Then really the thread isn't for you. 




Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think that the call for older material in electronic form works on 2 levels:
> 
> 
> It satisfies the drive for ease of storage & use as more players become increasingly technophillic
> The rebuilding of corporate goodwill that was lost in the waning months of 3.5 and the early months of the 4Ed rollout.  Many people didn't like the way WotC handled the expiration of licenses with other companies, the way 4Ed was marketed, and clearly, the removal of downloadable legal PDFs.
> 
> The second point is important.  The mere fact of the PDFs returning to the market may soothe enough people that they continue to patronize WotC's site- the reason for _their_ "boycott" would be over.
> 
> Plus, as noted before, it lets them continue to profit from extant material.



PDF's are the cheapest and quickiest way for WotC to garner 'boycotting' customers back.
Think about it, they already have the PDF's.  They already still have the saved web pages that contained them for sale.  There only additional cost is turning it back on and maintaining the e-commerce site for them.



cperkins said:


> To come back into the fold, I'd need WotC to:
> 1] Re-release pdfs, particularly of older edition materials.
> 2] Ditch 4th edition and go back to D&D's roots to create a game that strongly resembles the D&D that I've played for the past 30 years.  There is room for innovation and streamlining (I'm thinking of d20/OGL games like _Star Wars: Saga Edition_ and _Castles & Crusades_) while still keeping the classic D&D tropes.
> 
> The following would sweeten the pot, but aren't requirements:
> 3] Make the DDI a repository of all D&D goodness, including the Dragon Archives, the AD&D 2nd edition Core Rules, all D&D pdfs, and so on.
> 4] Make the pdfs and both Dragon and Dungeons magazines available in print through a print-on-demand partnership with Lulu or a similar outfit.



As I said number one has the easiest ROI (Return of Investment) for WotC.
Number 2, though is just unrealistic at this point.  You would sooner see a 5E come out than a return to 1E days.

Number 3, your right, it would sweeten the pot so much it would get tooth rot.
Even if they went the PCGen method and just created the shell with the directions in how to create your own datasets, the goodwill and ROI of this could be much greater than expected.    Add a release method of one book per month to be added to it, you will have continous customers for it.
Start with the 3.0E/3.5E books first.  Like I said earlier this is your more likely greatest return area.



Hobo said:


> I'm hardly a staunch Wizards defender and I disagree.  I don't even play 4e.  I've never even _read_ 4e, or played a single trial game of it, or anything.
> 
> That said, I think most of the complaints about *Wizards' PR job come from spoiled, entitled fanboys with wildly unreasonable expectations*.  The interenet is one of those funny things where a handful of people willing to make a lot of "noise" can give the false impression that there's some huge blunder happening, when in reality most people are either indifferent, or even happy with the state of affairs.
> 
> I happen to be one of the indifferent ones.  But most gamers I talk to are the happy ones.




The PR blunders to me are pretty straight forward ones.  Many of them smelled of rank amateurness.  D&D is one of those hobbies where there is an abnormal amount of 'nerdrage'.  Add in the fact many of us are technoweanies, you will get the 'large outcry'.
Examples:
PDF's - Pirates have existed always.  When WotC said they were stopping PDF's because of Pirates it was laughed at by them.  What the first book that came out, was found in whole bad scans by day 3 and by day 7 there were high quality OCR'd/bookmarked PDF's available.  WotC in the meantime loses all the possible legal customers they had for said PDF.
Gleemax - we all loved Gleemax didn't we.  Heck even their new forum format there is something I don't like.  I think I might log on over there once every few months and leave rather quickly.
4E Release - Really the only thing wrong here is with the DDI release not living up to its hype.  Many had been burnt on Vaporware before (looking at you Code Monkeys) and were quite cynical.  Even now there are things that were promised that haven't appeared yet.

Far as a WotC presence wanted here, yeah that would be great.  But really does that suit their interests of bringing us all into there world (forums).  Technically we (EnWorld) is a competior for them (EnWorld Publishing/Forums).  
That and as I said before, we have raked WotC employees over the coals around here.  I'm guilty just as well of it.  So any WotC official presence here would have to go through a legal mother may I before it is ever posted anymore.

Now someone mentioned how much of a customer would you be for just the PDF's.
My answer, unknown really.  I might buy 2, I might buy 50.  I don't have a lot of holes left that I know of, luckily.


----------



## hutchback

Remathilis said:


> That said, I do miss the idea of playing "D&D", just for the sake of brand loyalty. I call my Pathfinder game "D&D" informally, but something just ain't the same.




Honestly I think this is the heart of the issue. The brand that is D&D long ago transcended the companies that publish its material and became the identity of a sub-culture. I believe this where the sense of self-entitlement comes from. People who play D&D feel as responsible for the brand as any other entity. And in a lot of ways they are right.

But, I am puzzled by gamers making demands of WotC when other companies have already heard their pleas and are delivering solutions. Is the brand that important? Do you feel ripped off because its D&D you want to play, because well its D&D.

I used to drive nothing but Hondas. I loved them. They were everything I wanted in a car. Small, reliable, peppy and stylish. Recently Honda has made some turns that I don't agree with (primarily in the category of style). I don't hang out at the dealership lamenting about how things used to be or how hard it is to find parts to my old civic. I haven't written any letters to Honda, demanding they manufacture the older cars I love. I bought a Subaru and I really like it.

Think about what you are asking of WotC... to provide all things to all people. I cannot think of a single company in any industry that operates on this kind of model. The few that even come close (Comcast, Verizon, Walmart, Best Buy) do such an awful job of it and are generally reviled by the public they serve.

But rather than lapse further into a rant, I have a question. What is it about PDFs that make them so desirable?


----------



## Ulrick

In my case, I'm not sure if there is much to "win" back in their eyes.

WotC is targeting younger gamers. Simply put. After 4e coming out I realized I was no longer the "target market" demographic. I'm not sure how successful 4e has been in drawing in newer, younger, players. I can only observed what it happening in my local area and comments online. From what I'm seeing is 3.5e and Pathfinder being played. 4e seems to not be as popular. 

Even if sales are down, I doubt WotC would re-release stuff from older editions on PDF or whatever format. Older editions are competition for the newer edition. I'd like to see PDFs of older stuff, but I doubt its going to happen--after all, requests like that seem to come from the older demographic in WotC's eyes. 

WotC already got my money. I purchased the first three core books, DDI, Adventurers Vault, and Open Grave. I played the game, liked it at first. But then I wasted about three months running a campaign with it. 4e goes against my gaming philosophy of being creative, giving players many options both for character building and ingame, and the threat that your character could die. But then again, WotC is targeting people who don't have time to be creative, who want limited options to get on playing in one hour encounter blocks, and who expect their characters to not die. No. I am not part of that demographic at all. 

My only regret with 4e is buying all those books and wasting three months running a 4e campaign before realizing that 4e is just not for me.


----------



## scruffygrognard

TheYeti1775 said:


> As I said number one has the easiest ROI (Return of Investment) for WotC.
> Number 2, though is just unrealistic at this point.  You would sooner see a 5E come out than a return to 1E days.




I should have stated that a bit more clearly.
--------------------------------------
2]  WotC should ditch 4th edition and its design goals to create a 5th edition that strongly resembles the D&D that I've played for the past 30 years. There is room for innovation and streamlining (I'm thinking of d20/OGL games like Star Wars: Saga Edition and Castles & Crusades) while still keeping the classic D&D tropes.
--------------------------------------

I don't want to go back to AD&D at all.  I'd like to see 5th edition D&D use the best bits from AD&D, 3.X and 4th edition, plus some new innovation to fill in the cracks.


----------



## Pig Champion

I'd be happy with an edition that doesn't suffer from rules glut especially in character creation and battle. I'm hoping essentials is the key because I like 4E.


----------



## Mark CMG

hutchback said:


> But rather than lapse further into a rant, I have a question. What is it about PDFs that make them so desirable?





Rather than risk derailing this thread, I'll start a different thread for that question because I am curious, too.


http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...4-what-makes-gaming-books-pdfs-desirable.html


----------



## ExploderWizard

Peter said:


> Well, I'm agreeing with Hobo.
> 
> The only people that say Wizards has bad customer service or public relations are people who aren't customers in the first place. They have _incredible _public relations. They have amazing customer service. They literally have a help desk phone number if you have a rules question. You sign up for Organized Play and they'll send you free adventures and stuff. You think you get that kind of service anywhere else? Anywhere?
> 
> "Ditch 4E entirely" is even less likely. I also don't think selling the old stuff OR the PDFs will help in any way, either. The market for old stuff exists and it's called Ebay. And I know that some people will have a problem hearing that there's a ton of people that absolutely love 4e (and I'm one of them). I think* 4E is easily the best version of the game that has ever been published. *Opinions are like that though. I realize that mine isn't universal.
> 
> Now these almost seem like cruel and hurtful things to say, but they really aren't. They aren't personal or hurtful, they're simply facts. (or in my case, opinions. That 4e is awesome, I mean. Which it totally is.)




There are a lot of people who couldn't care less about whatever direction the company wants to take, and does not really expect or even want any kind of apology (raises hand).

What we do want is access to older products and it doesn't matter if WOTC sells directly or licenses someone else to carry the products so they don't have to waste resources on products they don't wish to support. 

By doing neither they _are _in fact making themselves look bad. Sitting on material that they don't seem to want anyone to have easy access to makes them look like angry kids who have taken their football and gone home. 

The last thing I want is to see is product from a company produced just as a halfhearted way to try and mend PR fences. Who wants stuff designed by people who may not even understand the style of game they are writing for. 

So let WOTC just produce the material they really to want to support and allow others to do the same.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder

If Hasbro wants my money they'd release pdf's of earlier editions (at the old pricing scheme). I'd prefer dead tree versions but I can't pay eBay prices for some of them.


----------



## doctorhook

WotC can do nothing to bring some people back. A tiny, noisy proportion of players wouldn't be happy even if WotC did their household chores and mailed them a weekly income. Some of these people want nothing less than for WotC to use unsustainable business practices to support old-fashioned products. WotC wisely doesn't bother catering to these "unpleaseables", and most of the gamering community realises it. WotC does a fine job running its business, no matter what a noisy handful think.

PS: I have no idea why some folks expect 5E to be both soon and reactionary; wishful thinking for some people, I suppose.


----------



## gamerprinter

Having not read the entire thread - as these threads start to sound the same eventually. Only one thing could improve things and it will never happen. That WotC becomes bought out by someone other than Hasbro, someone with a love of the game, more so than the bottom line. Then products that fit the need of the audience not in the need of shareholders becomes the superior issue. Since bottom line books make more money than adventures, books are produced not adventure - etc., etc.

Not gonna happen, but if WotC was owned by any non-corporate entity, it would serve its customer base better. That's the only solution I see.

GP


----------



## UniversalMonster

Ulrick said:


> WotC is targeting people who don't have time to be creative, who want limited options to get on playing in one hour encounter blocks, and who expect their characters to not die. No. I am not part of that demographic at all.




Insulting and untrue.


----------



## scruffygrognard

doctorhook said:


> PS: I have no idea why some folks expect 5E to be both soon and reactionary; wishful thinking for some people, I suppose.




I have no expectation that it will be soon and/or reactionary ... but the point of this thread is to see what would make lost customers return to WotC.

For me 4th edition would need to go away and 5th edition would need to reacquaint itself with many classic D&Dism to bring me back.  

Until then WotC won't get my money unless they re-release earlier edition products, such as as pdfs.


----------



## Crothian

I want Rodney Thompson to come to Origins and play some games with us!


----------



## rogueattorney

My tastes and the tastes of those that make D&D split sometime in the late 80's and they've never really ever converged again.  I have a lot more venom for the TSR of the 90's than for WotC, and stopped being a regular customer of D&D material in about 1994.

I respect WotC as a gaming company.  I thought Everway was a great game, I still buy an occasional Magic card, and I really love Heroscape.  However, I was so far out of the mainstream D&D loop at the turn of the Century that I was completely oblivious to 3e's release.  I caught back up with things with 3.5e because one of my players wanted to DM the new version.  I think after the short run of that 3.5 campaign (which stopped due to non-game, real life related reasons) that's when I really made peace with the fact that the makers of D&D simply weren't interested in making the kind of product I was interested in using for my game.

So now, the rule book I'm using might say "Labyrinth Lord," the campaign setting might say "Points of Light," and the adventure I'm running might say "Advanced Adventures" on it, but I'm still playing D&D, and it's by and large the exact same D&D I've always loved playing.  Over the last 5 years, there have been more cool products for _my_ D&D than the 15 years prior.  It's just that none of those products have been made by the company that now owns the D&D brand.  I'm comfortable with that fact and content with the resources out there right now for my game.

So, what could WotC do to get my money...

1.  They already do get my money with Heroscape.  The D&D/Heroscape crossovers are cool and are the first new D&D branded products I've purchased from WotC in 7 years.  They're decent figures that are completely usable in my D&D games.  They're not random; you know what you're buying, and they're priced reasonably.  

More utilitarian high quality system-neutral peripherals like this might get my money.  I'm not a big dungeon tiles guy, but those are still the right kind of idea.  I haven't payed too much attention to the Ravenloft board game yet, but that also might be along the right track and tie in with my point #3 below.

2.  Bring back the oop .pdfs.  I bought them on a fairly regular basis.  That would at least pull me onto a marketplace where I would see what WotC has to offer in new product.  Personally, I just don't see the downside to offering the pre-4e stuff for sale in electronic format.  

3.  An occasional limited edition reprint would also be nice.  It's not like WotC hasn't done this in the past:  The Silver Anniversary box set, for example.  I believe the Dragon CD-Rom Archive was a Paizo product, but that's another example of the type of product I'm talking about.  Throw us a neat little bone every once in a while just to make us keep paying attention.


----------



## doctorhook

gamerprinter said:


> Having not read the entire thread - as these threads start to sound the same eventually. Only one thing could improve things and it will never happen. That WotC becomes bought out by someone other than Hasbro, someone with a love of the game, more so than the bottom line. Then products that fit the need of the audience not in the need of shareholders becomes the superior issue. Since bottom line books make more money than adventures, books are produced not adventure - etc., etc.
> 
> Not gonna happen, but if WotC was owned by any non-corporate entity, it would serve its customer base better. That's the only solution I see.
> 
> GP



I've seen this argument many times, and it still rings hollow (read: sounds like BS) to me. WotC "doesn't love the game enough" since they got bought out? So, the golden age of D&D was from what, 1997-1999? :rollseyes:

"Oh noes, Hasbro is Teh Evil Empire!" they cry, as if Lorraine Williams was the patron saint of gamers.

EDIT: This sounds unnecessarily harsh, upon reflection. That said, I don't want you to take this personally; I'm trying to address your argument, not you yourself. I have very strong feelings about your argument, and I think it's got more holes than a spaghetti strainer, and I think my response adequately entails my feelings about it. I just wanted to explain myself, lest you think me a common troll.


----------



## BryonD

For me:

Take this quote and reverse it:



> Question: So you want to bring back a lot of iconic elements – but what about team work?
> 
> Andy Collins: […Well, what changed is] how we approached class design. In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done. Well the problem with that is, that you get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience. A lot of the classes designed in the last 30 years are not interesting, are not compelling either in a fight or maybe out of a fight, but just pale compared to other characters on the table top. Who really wants to play a monk when you can play a rogue or a fighter, who can do all these things - ok, the monk gets to jump and run around a lot but what does he really get to contribute at the table that other characters don’t do better than him. The wizard can fly – so why do you need someone who jumps well?
> 
> So whenever we were approaching a new class we had to home in on what makes this guy special and unique within in the game - not just in the world of D&D but, since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece. It's got to have a hook (or multiple hooks, preferably) for every class because it’s got to be compelling for people to play it. Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming.



I play RPGs because it is appealing to create the simulation of being Gimli, or Milamber, or Conan.

And supporting that simulation must be a key priority for a game that will appeal to me.

Andy's comments compare the monk to the fighter and wizard as if they are chess pieces.  He concludes that the monk is less appealing than the wizard in way that is not far different than concluding that the knight is less appealing than the rook.

But the appeal for playing a monk does not reside within the game mechanics.  If I want to play a monk within a pseudo-fantasy environment, it is because that is the character type that is calling to me at that time.  I want to be the guy who jumps and kicks.  But, far more than that, I want to be the guy who masters his body and contemplates his place in the multiverse and through all of this achieves a supernatural ability to jump and kick, amongst other things.  But the details of the jumping and kicking and everything else is simply a secondary effect of the character.

Andy calls this :"not necessarily a compelling game play experience."  

And I know that people are going to try to spin this as me just saying that I have no imagination and I don't need rules for this.   blah blah blah

If you think that, then you are missing the point.  I agree 100% that I can roleplay a monk using the 4E ruleset.  No doubt about it.  But, my ability to roleplay is not impacted by the ruleset I choose.  And, as Andy states, other editions of the game put imagining the character first.  Given the choice between a ruleset that is built with fostering my playstyle in mind, and a ruleset that puts "being the character" as a secondary tier subservient to tabletop miniature equity, why in the world would I choose the latter?

The philosophy that Andy describes for 4E can make good games.  And they have achieved that.
The philosophy that Andy describes for prior games can make outstanding RPG experiences, or maybe even better stated, can take the imaginations of quality players and provide synergy for a highly rewarding experience that really doesn't have anything to do with math working.

Make the game about BEING the character first again.


----------



## TheYeti1775

hutchback said:


> Honestly I think this is the heart of the issue. The brand that is D&D long ago transcended the companies that publish its material and became the identity of a sub-culture. I believe this where the sense of self-entitlement comes from. People who play D&D feel as responsible for the brand as any other entity. And in a lot of ways they are right.
> 
> But, I am puzzled by gamers making demands of WotC when other companies have already heard their pleas and are delivering solutions. Is the brand that important? Do you feel ripped off because its D&D you want to play, because well its D&D.
> 
> I used to drive nothing but Hondas. I loved them. They were everything I wanted in a car. Small, reliable, peppy and stylish. Recently Honda has made some turns that I don't agree with (primarily in the category of style). I don't hang out at the dealership lamenting about how things used to be or how hard it is to find parts to my old civic. I haven't written any letters to Honda, demanding they manufacture the older cars I love. I bought a Subaru and I really like it.
> 
> Think about what you are asking of WotC... to provide all things to all people. I cannot think of a single company in any industry that operates on this kind of model. The few that even come close (Comcast, Verizon, Walmart, Best Buy) do such an awful job of it and are generally reviled by the public they serve.
> 
> But rather than lapse further into a rant, I have a question. What is it about PDFs that make them so desirable?



Your right the brand has transcended itself.  Some play Paizo D&D, some play Gygax D&D, etc, etc.
Most of us who have been playing since the red box, can honestly say we have helped shape D&D to what it has become today.
Everyone of us that every attended a Con, wrote into Dragon's Sage Advice, or had an interaction with a TSR/WotC employee has had some affect upon the game itself.  From the games we have DM'd to the ones we have played in.  Each shapes the game and our prespections of the game.  So I can understand where the self-entitlement mentality comes from.



Ulrick said:


> In my case, I'm not sure if there is much to "win" back in their eyes.
> 
> WotC is targeting younger gamers. Simply put. After 4e coming out I realized I was no longer the "target market" demographic. I'm not sure how successful 4e has been in drawing in newer, younger, players. I can only observed what it happening in my local area and comments online. From what I'm seeing is 3.5e and Pathfinder being played. 4e seems to not be as popular.
> 
> Even if sales are down, I doubt WotC would re-release stuff from older editions on PDF or whatever format. Older editions are competition for the newer edition. I'd like to see PDFs of older stuff, but I doubt its going to happen--after all, requests like that seem to come from the older demographic in WotC's eyes.
> 
> WotC already got my money. I purchased the first three core books, DDI, Adventurers Vault, and Open Grave. I played the game, liked it at first. But then I wasted about three months running a campaign with it. 4e goes against my gaming philosophy of being creative, giving players many options both for character building and ingame, and the threat that your character could die. But then again, WotC is targeting people who don't have time to be creative, who want limited options to get on playing in one hour encounter blocks, and who expect their characters to not die. No. I am not part of that demographic at all.
> 
> My only regret with 4e is buying all those books and wasting three months running a 4e campaign before realizing that 4e is just not for me.



You are both right and wrong in your assumptions.
Your right in that they are catering to that demographic, but you are definitely wrong in that 4E isn't made for those that have time for creativity.  I'd wager that there are at least 5 posters in this thread alone that play in a homebrew 4E world.




cperkins said:


> I should have stated that a bit more clearly.
> --------------------------------------
> 2]  WotC should ditch 4th edition and its design goals to create a 5th edition that strongly resembles the D&D that I've played for the past 30 years. There is room for innovation and streamlining (I'm thinking of d20/OGL games like Star Wars: Saga Edition and Castles & Crusades) while still keeping the classic D&D tropes.
> --------------------------------------
> 
> I don't want to go back to AD&D at all.  I'd like to see 5th edition D&D use the best bits from AD&D, 3.X and 4th edition, plus some new innovation to fill in the cracks.




That does make a little more sense now, thanks for clearing it up.
I think a better winner for WotC might be a few heavy fluff books, that are fairly edition neutral.  That might be another way to bring a few more back into the fold.
How many here would buy a fluff campaign setting book.  Where the only edition related information would be DM notes of something like:


			
				example said:
			
		

> Lord Yeti - Ruler of YetiBSland
> Recommended levels:
> 1E - 13th Level Fighter
> 2E - 15th Level Fighter
> 3E - 10th Level Fighter / 5th Level Aristocrat / 3rd Level Noble
> 4E - 12th Level xxxxxx (I don't know enough 4E to fake it right)
> Followed by a small history of Lord Yeti and YetiBSland.



You don't need their specific character builds, DM's around here I know could easily work up the above levels.  Even more so with the DDI Character Builders (makes another case for older editions in the Builders).


----------



## pawsplay

hutchback said:


> What is it about PDFs that make them so desirable?




They never go out of print.


----------



## pawsplay

Peter said:


> The only people that say Wizards has bad customer service or public relations are people who aren't customers in the first place.




I have a whole small bookcase of 3e materials. Then 4e rolled out, and in short order I was told I was a nerd for liking gnomes and Paizo was ordered to stop selling me PDFs of old D&D products. In what way that was good customer service and PR I am waiting to understand.


----------



## Imaro

TheYeti1775 said:


> You are both right and wrong in your assumptions.
> Your right in that they are catering to that demographic, but you are definitely wrong in that 4E isn't made for those that have time for creativity. I'd wager that there are at least 5 posters in this thread alone that play in a homebrew 4E world.
> 
> 
> 
> couldn't help but find your example a little ironic, since the 4e corebooks have little to no information on actually creating your own campaign world.
Click to expand...


----------



## pawsplay

Dire Bare said:


> Just because you don't understand someone, doesn't mean they are not making logical sense.  No need to be an ass about it.




Hey, I was trying to be polite. I allowed for the possibility maybe I was just tripping over some concept, and someone would be able to illuminate it. However,



> Besides, he was making perfect sense, you just didn't get it.  Which is fine, no fault on you.




... the fact the he nor you nor anyone else has been able to make it make sense strengthens my opinion the original ideas were simply illogical and unformed.



> Mutants & Masterminds (both 1e and 2e) were clearly OGL games.  Heavily modified, of course, but also designed with the intent to stay within OGL bounds.  Not for licensing reasons, but because GR felt at the time that keeping the game close to D&D 3e (or the d20 system) was an important design goal.
> 
> DC Adventures (and M&M 3e) is still an OGL game.  It's derived from M&M 1e and 2e of course!  But the designers have actually stated in their design journals that with the demise of the d20 system as a driving force in the RPG market, they are more comfortable dropping tropes of d20 and moving away from the system.




The "demise of the d20 system" has little to do with the health of the OGL.



> What would have happened if 4e had gone the way we all thought it would a year before it released, with a new d20 license and new OGL as open as 3e?  Would the eventual DC Adventures and M&M 3e be 4e D&D based?  Would it stick closer to the original 3e OGL than it is currently?  We will never know, of course, but there's a good chance things would have played out differently.




You are right. We will never know.



> Also, Pathfinder would not likely exist.  Pathfinder is essentially D&D 3.75e and is clearly an OGL game . . . but Paizo was seriously considering going 4e and (new) d20 before they got a hold of the more restrictive GSL.  Again, if WotC had from the start given the industry an open 4e, things would have played out differently.




Almost certainly. I don't know who would have continued the 3e lineage instead of Paizo in such circumstances. It is also fairly likely that 4e-based work would be done by 3pp that might have made 4e more palatable, but it would have meant a shift not only in the WotC's legal position but their marketing strategy.



> _Edit:  _The (D&D 3e) d20/OGL boom is not "dead", but it is mostly over and waning.  The boom has come and gone.  The success of Pathfinder is a unique case and DCA is only OGL because M&M 1e & 2e were.  GR has dropped all other d20/OGL product lines.





The OGL "boom" is dead. The OGL is just beginning. If you aren't on the train, you will be left at the station. There is no question in my mind that the gaming community as a whole can out-write and out-design the output of any one commercial, profit-based company in the long run. WotC made a serious strategic error, one which has count them immeasurable good will, long term brand strength, and the loyalty of fans and game designers. According to the doomsayers a while back, something like Pathfinder should have been impossible, and yet Pathfinder 3PP products are equalling or exceeding the sales of 3pp 4e products. Maybe that works just fine for WotC, but my feeling is that WotC's grab for the mass market succeeded much better than their attempts to win the hearts and minds of hobbyists.


----------



## UniversalMonster

pawsplay said:


> I have a whole small bookcase of 3e materials. Then 4e rolled out, and in short order I was told I was a nerd for liking gnomes and Paizo was ordered to stop selling me PDFs of old D&D products. In what way that was good customer service and PR I am waiting to understand.




Well, I guess you need to link to the exact quote where Wizards told you that you were "a nerd for liking gnomes". My guess is it never happened. You may have interpreted it that way, but that was your issue to deal with. 

This is probably even more controversial: Buying old D&D PDFs didn't make you a customer of Wizards, it made you a customer of Paizo. Or RPGNow. Or whoever else was selling old PDFs.  Wizards merely owned the original property and was allowing these 2nd parties to sell it. And then, just as arbitrarily, they disallowed it. But it doesn't matter because "Selling old PDFs of things from previous decades" does not in any way describe what Wizards of the Coast does for their business. 

Again, does this seem hurtful? Because it shouldn't be taken that way.


----------



## Crothian

pawsplay said:


> They never go out of print.




A PDF only product is not "in print"


----------



## pawsplay

Peter said:


> Well, I guess you need to link to the exact quote where Wizards told you that you were "a nerd for liking gnomes". My guess is it never happened. You may have interpreted it that way, but that was your issue to deal with.
> 
> This is probably even more controversial: Buying old D&D PDFs didn't make you a customer of Wizards, it made you a customer of Paizo. Or RPGNow. Or whoever else was selling old PDFs.  Wizards merely owned the original property and was allowing these 2nd parties to sell it. And then, just as arbitrarily, they disallowed it. But it doesn't matter because "Selling old PDFs of things from previous decades" does not in any way describe what Wizards of the Coast does for their business.
> 
> Again, does this seem hurtful? Because it shouldn't be taken that way.




How should it be taken? To me you're sounding frivalous, glib, and deliberately obtuse.


----------



## pawsplay

Crothian said:


> A PDF only product is not "in print"




Oh hell yeah it is


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ExploderWizard said:


> What we do want is access to older products and it doesn't matter if WOTC sells directly or licenses someone else to carry the products so they don't have to waste resources on products they don't wish to support.
> 
> By doing neither they _are _in fact making themselves look bad. Sitting on material that they don't seem to want anyone to have easy access to makes them look like angry kids who have taken their football and gone home.




How many other game companies continue to sell their out-of-print editions once new editions have been released?



gamerprinter said:


> That WotC becomes bought out by someone other than Hasbro, someone with a love of the game, more so than the bottom line. Then products that fit the need of the audience not in the need of shareholders becomes the superior issue. Since bottom line books make more money than adventures, books are produced not adventure - etc., etc.
> 
> Not gonna happen, but if WotC was owned by any non-corporate entity, it would serve its customer base better. That's the only solution I see.




I think it a bit naive to believe that any company that isn't two guys in their garage evening and weekends after their day job isn't thinking of the bottom line first. If you intend to make your living selling game materials it has to be your first concern. I also think it is wrong of you to assume that 4E does not meet the needs of the current "gaming audience" just because it does not meet your needs. The same system could have come out of the folks at WotC whether Hasbro had bought them out or not.


----------



## pawsplay

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> How many other game companies continue to sell their out-of-print editions once new editions have been released?




You mean besides ICE, Hero Games, Steve Jackson Games, Green Ronin, Palladium....?


----------



## Kaiyanwang

Er.. sorry to start a sort of rant as a first post... 

I second a lot of things people said (BTW, great thread)..
I'd say that BryonD stated very well what are my concerns about the "new" mindset behind game design at WotC.

One thing more: WotC needs to take more care in advertising his products. One example is the "Races and Classes" preview book. A lot of thing wrote there are awful. In many parts, designers express what is "fun" and "unfun", and why they designed the game in the way they did.

And this should maybe not be a problem.. barring the fact that they have shown, IMO, a very narrow view about WHAT is fun. 

As an example, in the book is stated that there is no need of Craft or Profession rules, because those can be backgroun only ("what was the last time you rolled a profession check".. something like this). This can be true for most games, but  in that moment me and my players were involved in a campaing based on trades, crafts, and half-homebrewed rules about magic reagents.

I ask: what we needed more: a book that streamlined those things, or a book stating that our was "badwrongfun"?

WOTC lost me, my players, and all gamers we know for this mindset


----------



## Doug McCrae

pawsplay said:


> I was told I was a nerd



Well, y'know, you do have almost 8000 posts on ENWorld.


----------



## Imaro

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> How many other game companies continue to sell their out-of-print editions once new editions have been released?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pawsplay said:
> 
> 
> 
> You besides ICE, Hero Games, Steve Jackson Games, Green Ronin, Palladium....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey and let's not forget White Wolf, who released their oWoD books on PDF because they  were smart enought to realize the fans of oWoD and the fans of nWoD were not necessarily the same since the game went through a major change in both mechanics and fluff... hmm, sounds like some other company I know... only, you know, without the release of previous editions on PDF.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

pawsplay said:


> You besides ICE, Hero Games, Steve Jackson Games, Green Ronin, Palladium....?




Yes, I see Rolemaster I & II availabe and M&M I & II, but neither of those editions made any major changes. I don't see any support from Hero before Champions 6th Edition. SJG is only supporting 3rd & 4th Edition, but I'm geussing that's because they haven't completely re-released the majority of 3rd Edition yet. And Palladium? Their bread and butter is Rifts, which really hasn't had an edition change.

I'll give the one example I think would be valid that you missed. Red Brick Games supports all editions of Earthdawn. Yet I still contend it is rare in the game publishing community and has not been the practice for D&D since the beginning.


----------



## Kobold Boots

The answer to the question at the subject of the thread is three-fold.

1. Buy Paizo and continue to support the 3.X game.  There's obviously a wide player base.  Software companies support multiple OS products all the time and continue to put out patches.  Go through a normal product life cycle instead of just orphaning people.

2. Recognize that it's not game mechanics or character first.  It's both first.  Reading this thread its obvious that a very large number of role-players don't want to "play" the 4e way.  I'd like to argue that it's not about how 4e is structured as much as it's about how poorly the message was received about the "game" of D&D.

Truth is that the characters are entirely separate from the mechanics, at least IMHO and the DM is the go-between.  I personally love that the character classes in 4e don't necessarily cancel out other character classes.  I also love that my players can't simply retcon their old tricks into new bags and cause the same gameplay issues they used to.

At the same time, if someone comes to me and says "I can't build this this way"  my answer is usually, "ok lets look at what you were trying to do before and work it out the new way."  Most of the time we end up creating something different but really cool regardless and everyone has fun getting to know the new character.

Last bit on mechanics.  Arguably, like a quarterback in football, the DM touches everything so if he or she is a douchebag then the whole game fails.  Not a lot has been said about players who are gaming douchebags that ruin the fun of the game because it used to be very easily possible to create a character that obsolesced someone else at the table.  This is table cancer.. and I'm willing to bet that the WoTC people have seen it and heard about it ad nauseum so the game shifted quickly to offset this and the designers are drinking the Kool Aid.  

That doesn't mean that players should stop being whatever cool image is in their head or that DMs should stop houseruling stuff.  Just saying.

3. Last, WoTC should realize that designers are rock stars for the company, but when they open their mouths they can inspire or roll a one with a significant number of their customers.  These articles and statements can force people into developing whole product lines that are entirely unnecessary.  Have the marketing suits closely work with the rock stars if they're not already doing it.

Minor thoughts.


----------



## MrMyth

BryonD said:


> And supporting that simulation must be a key priority for a game that will appeal to me.
> 
> Andy's comments compare the monk to the fighter and wizard as if they are chess pieces. He concludes that the monk is less appealing than the wizard in way that is not far different than concluding that the knight is less appealing than the rook.




"Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming."

It really bugs me whenever I see this attitude. I really hate the idea that trying to address the mechanical capabilities or limitations of a class is somehow _inherently_ treating it as though the story is uninmportant. And yet - despite the fact that _in his very quote_, Andy mentions the importance of story - many still seem to insist that he is putting flavor and character second. 

No, he's not at all. He's trying to ensure that anyone who enjoys playing for story reasons is not then _let down_ by mechanics that cater to another class or prevent the monk from doing all the amazing feats that one imagines such a figure can be capable of. He's not saying that you don't make any attempt to capture what one imagines a character can do - he's saying that you do that while working to assure those abilities work in the context of the game _as well as _the story. 

At no point does Andy state that 4E puts "being the character" or "imagining the character" second. _You _said that - you put those words in his mouth, and you put those limitations on the game. 

Because they certainly don't exist in the game itself. 

Now, if you want more encouragement of character elements and storytelling and devices to assist roleplay, whether in the form of skills or more elaborate backgrounds for magic items and monster, or whatever - ok, I can accept that. I can understand wanting to see more of those things. 

But talking about how the philosophy of 4E prevents one from having truly "outstanding RPG experiences" or can't provide a rewarding experience built around the imaginations of quality players - sorry, but that's pure nonsense.


----------



## Imaro

MrMyth said:


> "Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming."
> 
> It really bugs me whenever I see this attitude. I really hate the idea that trying to address the mechanical capabilities or limitations of a class is somehow _inherently_ treating it as though the story is uninmportant. And yet - despite the fact that _in his very quote_, Andy mentions the importance of story - many still seem to insist that he is putting flavor and character second.
> 
> No, he's not at all. He's trying to ensure that anyone who enjoys playing for story reasons is not then _let down_ by mechanics that cater to another class or prevent the monk from doing all the amazing feats that one imagines such a figure can be capable of. He's not saying that you don't make any attempt to capture what one imagines a character can do - he's saying that you do that while working to assure those abilities work in the context of the game _as well as _the story.
> 
> At no point does Andy state that 4E puts "being the character" or "imagining the character" second. _You _said that - you put those words in his mouth, and you put those limitations on the game.
> 
> Because they certainly don't exist in the game itself.
> 
> Now, if you want more encouragement of character elements and storytelling and devices to assist roleplay, whether in the form of skills or more elaborate backgrounds for magic items and monster, or whatever - ok, I can accept that. I can understand wanting to see more of those things.
> 
> But talking about how the philosophy of 4E prevents one from having truly "outstanding RPG experiences" or can't provide a rewarding experience built around the imaginations of quality players - sorry, but that's pure nonsense.




4e is unabashedly gamist first... yet you believe the mechanics don't come before the "story"? 

IMO, anytime you have mechanics that cause me or my players to have to struggle to come up with "what just happened" in a narrative fashion that doesn't strain versimilitude... the mechanics have definitely come first and the story, well that's basically been left up to you to figure out a way to construct around the mechanics.


----------



## Joshua Randall

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

Become a quint and crap Dark Matter.

Somewhat obscure Mass Effect 2 joke, but it seemed appropriate.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Imaro said:


> 4e is unabashedly gamist first... yet you believe the mechanics don't come before the "story"?
> 
> IMO, anytime you have mechanics that cause me or my players to have to struggle to come up with "what just happened" in a narrative fashion that doesn't strain versimilitude... the mechanics have definitely come first and the story, well that's basically been left up to you to figure out a way to construct around the mechanics.




Certainly a fine opinion, but could you give me an example of what exactly you're referring to that strains reality in a fantasy setting?  

Next, how do you propose that game designers develop generic mechanics and powers to fit your specific story?  

Honest questions, I'm not intending to be a troll.

Best, 
KB


----------



## Saint&Sinner

pawsplay said:


> Mutants & Masterminds never was d20-licensed. That decision was made before the first edition ever saw print.
> 
> What do you mean about the OGL dissolving, and what do you mean about it running its course, if you like DCA and Pathfinder?




And FATE, and ICONS, and probably others.


----------



## Wicht

It is incredibly depressing to me to walk into a bookstore, look at the RPG section and have no compulsion to make an "impulse" DnD buy. Paizo gets most of my money but they aren't yet as well represented in the bookstores, or at least, when I see their stuff I already have it.  I would dearly love WotC to try and win me back as a customer but I'm afraid its not going to happen with 4e or the current management. Nothing they produce sparks my interest. To win me back as a customer they would have to produce material I want again, but, as others have stated, their current approach to the game just leaves me cold. 

Still, after thinking about it and reading the whole thread, here is what I think they could do to get my money again:

1) Return to the OGL. This is the big one for me. I've heard all the naysayers about the death of the OGL and how its a lousy business model and yet Paizo is well positioned at the moment exactly because they have whole-heartedly embraced the OGL and foster a creative community that exceeds the borders of their lone company.  I am still waiting for a number of people, who, a couple of years back, were patiently explaining why Paizo was making a dumb move and destined to get smaller and smaller, to admit they were wrong.

2) Return to the creative roots of the game. Renaming high elves, Eladrin and stressing dragonborn, and downplaying alignment and getting rid of Vancian magic, and nerfing magic missiles and changing the meaning of dragon colors and altering a host of other stuff, (and doing it all at the same time) was a bridge too far for me. Incremental changes or changes in a specific campaign world are fine but making so many changes as to completely alter the fabric of the game world, requiring nixing old worlds (or blowing them up) is not, in my opinion, a move that fosters continuing brand loyalty (cf. New Coke). 

3) After creating a game world I like, and a rules set that is not off putting, I would dearly love to by really good, solid modules from WotC that support their game and which I enjoy reading. Even before 4e, WotC had more or less lost me as a customer because their modules were not fun to read. Paizo had the good sense to realize early on that many DMs never run a module after buying it but will buy them anyway if they are intriguing enough. WotC needs to ditch the Delve format and return to a better module style. 

4) Barring all that, rerelease their old 3e books under the OGL and sell them as PDFs and I will buy them. Currently, as someone breaking into the OGL freelance market, I realize I have absolutely no use for books that are not OGL, but I will, even now, when I can, buy old OGL 3e and 3.5e books to mine for OGL material I can reuse in new ways.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Imaro said:


> 4e is unabashedly gamist first



D&D has always been gamist. 2e is probably the least so, in terms of its DMing advice if not its mechanics. 3e's most gamist mechanics - CR/EL, wealth-by-level guidelines, better class balance, the ability to win the game with your build and general system mastery - were often criticised back in the day. 1e and OD&D are very gamist by intention - the game's about overcoming challenges both tactical and strategic and thus gaining treasure and going up levels. It's quite balanced over long term play, skilled players are supposed to prosper and poor players will lose their characters, once their luck runs out.

D&D's mechanics have always strained verisimilitude. Hit points, classes, levels. A 90 year old with str, dex and con of 3 has the same movement rate as a 25 year old with all 18s. Etc.

I admit that 4e introduces more verisimilitude breaking in order to make the game more balanced and to control challenge levels. But that kind of thing has always gone on, and to a pretty major extent. More powerful monsters are always on lower dungeon levels??! C'mon, why can't there be a dragon on level 1?


----------



## Saint&Sinner

cperkins said:


> If WotC were smart, the next iteration of D&D would be modular enough to allow for rules-lite D&D.  The core books would present classic races, monsters and classes, and the fundamental rules needed to run the game, as was the case with 3.X.
> 
> The fundamental rules could easily be pared down from what they were in 3.X, with sidebars for adding complexity.
> 
> Later volumes could add funky class and race options, as well as more complicated rules for expert players.




This would get my attention.  I haven't run D&D since the Blue Box but I would like to.  I just can't stomach the level of complexity and rules mastery needed to jump into a game.


----------



## Imaro

Kobold Boots said:


> Certainly a fine opinion, but could you give me an example of what exactly you're referring to that strains reality in a fantasy setting?
> 
> Next, how do you propose that game designers develop generic mechanics and powers to fit your specific story?
> 
> Honest questions, I'm not intending to be a troll.
> 
> Best,
> KB




First... I didn't say "reality" and I did this on purpose. See I've seen this discussion get mired down in the "There is no reality in a fantasy world... because it's not real" argument before and I want to avoid that particular tactic of discrediting this complaint against 4e. So again versimilitude is the word I am using. The illusion of realism in the game world through believable actions and consequences within the accepted norm of said world... barring magical intervention of course. 

Now, for my example...I'll trot out the ever popular... Come and Get It. This power, by RAW, forces a DM's characters to act a certain way... regardless of everything else that is going on, regardless of what makes the most sense for this character... regardless of the story. Then says... hey you figure out why your iron-willed and genius level tactician Big Bad has decicded to, against all common sense, rush up to the Fighter and leave his tactically advantageous position to get whacked... Why, again is this happening... why is my NPC acting totally against his nature, that I've built up in my game world and in the narrative session after session? Because it's a mechanic that doesn't consider narrative first.

My solution for this particular power (which is just one example of a larger issue)... would be for the designers to keep stuff like this similar to the Fighter's mark... there are consequences if ignored... but it doesn't force a character in the story to do something that may make no sense for that character to do (unless it's compulsatory magic). See this is where a mechanic is trumping story and you are left to decide how and why this happened in the terms of the narrative... even if it really shouldn't be happening.

I think Come and Get It is further complicated by the fact that it is an encounter power and has to give more bang for your buck than a fighter's mark... but again that's a mechanical concern that took precedence over narrative concerns.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Wicht said:


> I am still waiting for a number of people, who, a couple of years back, were patiently explaining why Paizo was making a dumb move and destined to get smaller and smaller, to admit they were wrong.




This will never happen. Especially here.

Besides success is it's own reward.


----------



## Imaro

Doug McCrae said:


> D&D has always been gamist. 2e is probably the least so, in terms of its DMing advice if not its mechanics. 3e's most gamist mechanics - CR/EL, wealth-by-level guidelines, better class balance, the ability to win the game with your build and general system mastery - were often criticised back in the day. 1e and OD&D are very gamist by intention - the game's about overcoming challenges both tactical and strategic and thus gaining treasure and going up levels. It's quite balanced over long term play, skilled players are supposed to prosper and poor players will lose their characters, once their luck runs out.
> 
> D&D's mechanics have always strained verisimilitude. Hit points, classes, levels. A 90 year old with str, dex and con of 3 has the same movement rate as a 25 year old with all 18s. Etc.
> 
> *I admit that 4e introduces more verisimilitude breaking in order to make the game more balanced and to control challenge levels.* But that kind of thing has always gone on, and to a pretty major extent. More powerful monsters are always on lower dungeon levels??! C'mon, why can't there be a dragon on level 1?




Emphasis mine.  If you admit this... what was the point of everything before?  

I mean we can continue down this road until D&D's versimilitude (which really has nothing to do with hit points, classes, or levels unless they are brought up in game as if the characters were aware of these things.) becomes a game that represents TOON like sensibilities... It's like saying... "Well if you ate one rotten egg you might as well eat a dozen... since anyway you look at it, you're eating rotten eggs.  Just not how I think, sorry.


----------



## coyote6

innerdude said:


> what would they need to do to bring you back into the fold?




If WotC came to Salinas and stood outside my house, wearing trenchcoats and holding boom boxes over their heads, while they play Peter Gabriel's "In Your Eyes", I would immediately go buy stuff from them.

After the video was uploaded to YouTube, that is.

Sure, they could do other things - PDFs or other DRM-free eBook formats, pay David Pulver & Sean Punch an enormous amount of money to make a version of GURPS perfect for me, give away coupons (see earlier post), etc -- and those would probably work, but the "In Your Eyes" thing would be most amusing. 

Except maybe to my neighbors.


----------



## billd91

Doug McCrae said:


> I admit that 4e introduces more verisimilitude breaking in order to make the game more balanced and to control challenge levels. But that kind of thing has always gone on, and to a pretty major extent. More powerful monsters are always on lower dungeon levels??! C'mon, why can't there be a dragon on level 1?




There's an art to game design, particularly between balancing gamist concerns and verisimilitude. And everyone draws lines where they feel the balancing point is: between gamism and verisimilitude, between innovation and tradition, between story and mechanics. 4e crossed mine in mulitple ways. 

Now that Star Wars is gone from their product list, WotC won't get me back until they start selling me products that cross back over my lines. Until then, they're in territory selling things I don't want and have no use for. And this from someone who was buying D&D stuff up through the very end of the 3x cycle (from 1e days, through 2e and on), had bought a few older editions PDFs, and had been a loyal subscriber to Dungeon for years. 4e (and the run up to it for the Dungeon license) ended all of that in a very short time frame. I realize they knew they would lose some gamers with the change, but are guys like me really what they intended? From loyal and consistent customer for 25 years to nothing at all?


----------



## Mournblade94

Peter said:


> Well, I guess you need to link to the exact quote where Wizards told you that you were "a nerd for liking gnomes". My guess is it never happened. You may have interpreted it that way, but that was your issue to deal with.




No they did not say it LITERALLY.  Make no mistake, and just watch the "funny" advertisement videos for 4e, the marketing was directed at how 3rd edition was played wrong.  If YOU go back and look at the early marketing quotes, you will see the mistakes that were made in telling older players they played wrong.  Some developers have apologized for it on blogs.  If you want a works cited or bibliography of these quotes, I cannot provide, but the information is there.



Peter said:


> Again, does this seem hurtful? Because it shouldn't be taken that way.




If you felt the need to say this you must think that it is hurtful in some way.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Imaro said:


> First... I didn't say "reality" and I did this on purpose. See I've seen this discussion get mired down in the "There is no reality in a fantasy world... because it's not real" argument before and I want to avoid that particular tactic of discrediting this complaint against 4e. So again versimilitude is the word I am using. The illusion of realism in the game world through believable actions and consequences within the accepted norm of said world... barring magical intervention of course.
> 
> Now, for my example...I'll trot out the ever popular... Come and Get It. This power, by RAW, forces a DM's characters to act a certain way... regardless of everything else that is going on, regardless of what makes the most sense for this character... regardless of the story. Then says... hey you figure out why your iron-willed and genius level tactician Big Bad has decicded to, against all common sense, rush up to the Fighter and leave his tactically advantageous position to get whacked... Why, again is this happening... why is my NPC acting totally against his nature, that I've built up in my game world and in the narrative session after session? Because it's a mechanic that doesn't consider narrative first.




1. Verisimilitude/Reality: You're splitting hairs.  Perception is one person's reality and the illusion of reality is perception.  I understand your need to make a point, but it's a flawed one from a cognitive basis in my opinion.

2. Why does your big bad master level tactician need to be so mature and infallible that a worldly fighter with the reputation of someone who has Come and Get It... can't be so renown as a jerk to the world that the tactician won't come out and take him on one on one?

Why does your big bad master level tactician need to be so sure of himself and infallible that he doesn't read into the tactical situation incorrectly and engage the taunt?

Why does your fighter when using the taunt always have to be in a superior tactical position?  Can you not just change the encounter when the power is too unbalancing?  Can the bid bad's minions not change position to support him when he steps out of formation?

There's no reason why any power can't be explained or retcon'd into a story if the DM is flexible enough with the tools he's provided.  Sure, there are some times when it really would be an issue and be considered DM munchkinism, but I'm guessing that what we're talking about is the 2% of the time and not the whole.

Your thoughts?

KB


----------



## Bluenose

Imaro said:


> 4e is unabashedly gamist first... yet you believe the mechanics don't come before the "story"?
> 
> IMO, *anytime you have mechanics that cause me or my players to have to struggle to come up with "what just happened" in a narrative fashion that doesn't strain versimilitude*... the mechanics have definitely come first and the story, well that's basically been left up to you to figure out a way to construct around the mechanics.




You mean like hit points, classes, levels? If they don't stretch your sense of verisimilitude, I don't see there's much else in and version of D&D that will.


----------



## Saint&Sinner

These would generate good will.  Do limited run reprints of the old editions (clean up with errata) and update the DDI to fully handle them in turn.  Put their old catalog up on a POD service to allow us to fill in the holes in our libraries.  Putting the PDF's back out there would be nice.

To really hook me though they'd need to make a game that scales down to rules lite since I just don't have the time to develop the system mastery needed to run D&D 4th ed.


----------



## Mournblade94

Kobold Boots said:


> The answer to the question at the subject of the thread is three-fold.
> 
> 1. Buy Paizo and continue to support the 3.X game.




The sith lord rises, the straps release.  His control of the sith armor is awkward as he tries to control limbs that are not his own.

His master who wants to own him completely revels the news that Paizo has been bought by Wizards of the COast.  The medical droids cease to function as their chasis slowly implode, and red tinted bacta leaks out of its cracking tanks....

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" cries the sith lord in agony.


----------



## Imaro

Bluenose said:


> You mean like hit points, classes, levels? If they don't stretch your sense of verisimilitude, I don't see there's much else in and version of D&D that will.




I addressed this before, unless your characters (not players) discuss hitpoints, their class or their level in game... how does this affect the versimilitude of the gameworld?


----------



## Kaiyanwang

Mournblade94 said:


> The sith lord rises, the straps release.  His control of the sith armor is awkward as he tries to control limbs that are not his own.
> 
> His master who wants to own him completely revels the news that Paizo has been bought by Wizards of the COast.  The medical droids cease to function as their chasis slowly implode, and red tinted bacta leaks out of its cracking tanks....
> 
> "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" cries the sith lord in agony.




Thank you very much. I'm definitively going to have a nightmare about it this night


----------



## Mournblade94

Saint&Sinner said:


> These would generate good will.  Do limited run reprints of the old editions (clean up with errata) and update the DDI to fully handle them in turn.  Put their old catalog up on a POD service to allow us to fill in the holes in our libraries.  Putting the PDF's back out there would be nice.
> 
> To really hook me though they'd need to make a game that scales down to rules lite since I just don't have the time to develop the system mastery needed to run D&D 4th ed.




In my time playing 4e, I think there is a very basic rule that new players can grab onto quite easily.  System mastery is very easy to acquire in 4e.


----------



## Bluenose

Imaro said:


> I addressed this before, unless your characters (not players) discuss hitpoints, their class or their level in game... how does this affect the versimilitude of the gameworld?




Fine. How can a high level barbarian commit ritual suicide by jumping off a cliff, splattering on rocks at the bottom, getting up, climbing back up that cliff and doing it again until he gets it right and dies?


----------



## Kaiyanwang

In case of suicide, I don't think HP apply. You are automatically coup-de-graced by the terrain.


----------



## Imaro

Kobold Boots said:


> 1. Verisimilitude/Reality: You're splitting hairs. Perception is one person's reality and the illusion of reality is perception. I understand your need to make a point, but it's a flawed one from a cognitive basis in my opinion.




No it's not a flawed point...and I've already addressed why I made the distinction... But just to make it more clear...

Reality: Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." Literally, the term denotes what is real; in its widest sense, this includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. ...

Versimilitude: the property of seeming true, of resembling reality; resemblance to reality, realism; a statement which merely appears to be true

There's a pretty big difference between the two... especially when many like to argue minutiae... kind of like this point you brought up.



Kobold Boots said:


> 2. Why does your big bad master level tactician need to be so mature and infallible that a worldly fighter with the reputation of someone who has Come and Get It... can't be so renown as a jerk to the world that the tactician won't come out and take him on one on one?




Because he's a tactician (understands good vs. bad tactics) and not a warrior... the same way an unabashed coward wouldn't rush up to him either... their personality characteristics have suddenly been made meaningless in the context of the narrative to accomodate a mechanic. 




Kobold Boots said:


> Why does your big bad master level tactician need to be so sure of himself and infallible that he doesn't read into the tactical situation incorrectly and engage the taunt?




He could but then give me a choice to make... like with the fighter's mark. Not an auto-fail power that forces him to make the wrong decision. 



Kobold Boots said:


> Why does your fighter when using the taunt always have to be in a superior tactical position? Can you not just change the encounter when the power is too unbalancing? Can the bid bad's minions not change position to support him when he steps out of formation?




So change the narrative to fit the mechanic being invoked... got you. But all that does is support my point more.



Kobold Boots said:


> There's no reason why any power can't be explained or retcon'd into a story if the DM is flexible enough with the tools he's provided. Sure, there are some times when it really would be an issue and be considered DM munchkinism, but I'm guessing that what we're talking about is the 2% of the time and not the whole?




Huh? You're right, someone, somewhere can explain any power that could possibly be created...given enough time, energy,and inclination... I'd rather just have the mechanics either get out of the way of my narrative or support it... not force me into finding a way to make it fit in the narrative.

Again it's the differnce betweena mechanic like the fighter's mark vs.Come and Get It. 



Kobold Boots said:


> Your thoughts?
> 
> KB




All above.


----------



## MacMathan

After seeing yet another one of these threads do people honestly wonder why WotC PR no longer caters to this board? This is no longer really a DnD board in the 4e sense, it is very much a 3.5/pathfinder house by at least 50% or more according to polls.

I also wonder where all of these full price pdf buyers were when they were available and WotC quoted sales as dismal. 

WotC should not split their resources and should continue on with 4e. The Encounters program is excellent and while we all have our anecdotes seems to be waiting room only in my area. Pursuing new players is the only way to grow the market and you go after the biggest easiest to reach portion of that. The hint here is it is not the age 35+ gamer with more shelves of gaming material than they could ever use at their disposal.

I play all editions of the game and many others when a fun group is available. I just don't understand the "nerdrage" displayed on what was once a DnD friendly community.


----------



## Mournblade94

Bluenose said:


> Fine. How can a high level barbarian commit ritual suicide by jumping off a cliff, splattering on rocks at the bottom, getting up, climbing back up that cliff and doing it again until he gets it right and dies?




Massive damage rules and you can voluntarily fail the save.

You landed "just right " into something that broke your fall.

Crud!  I landed in the marsh again!

You landed on a slope that time that transferred the force and now you are rolling down the hill.

It might be better just to coup de grace yourself and fail the save.


----------



## Saint&Sinner

Mournblade94 said:


> In my time playing 4e, I think there is a very basic rule that new players can grab onto quite easily.  System mastery is very easy to acquire in 4e.




Maybe my comments were not clear.  I'm not stupid.  I just don't have the time to dig through all the material to run the game.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Imaro said:


> It's like saying... "Well if you ate one rotten egg you might as well eat a dozen... since anyway you look at it, you're eating rotten eggs.



I see it more as ten rotten eggs versus a dozen. Why won't you eat those extra two?! Whatsamatter, you don't like rotten eggs no more? Eat the eggs!!!


----------



## Mournblade94

Saint&Sinner said:


> Maybe my comments were not clear.  I'm not stupid.  I just don't have the time to dig through all the material to run the game.




Please don't take my comment as if I was insinuating your were stupid in any way.  Not the intention at all.


----------



## MacMathan

Bluenose said:


> Fine. How can a high level barbarian commit ritual suicide by jumping off a cliff, splattering on rocks at the bottom, getting up, climbing back up that cliff and doing it again until he gets it right and dies?




All I can say is every edition of DnD has had this same problem. If you want lethal systems there are many others. 

If you want to tell a good RP story then tell the DM you are diving to your death and the character is finished.  Very few DM's would complain if there was a well thought out, in character reason.


----------



## Wicht

Bluenose said:


> Fine. How can a high level barbarian commit ritual suicide by jumping off a cliff, splattering on rocks at the bottom, getting up, climbing back up that cliff and doing it again until he gets it right and dies?




There is the massive damage rules.

But you're arguing a silly argument. If one person says that 4e's rules breaks their ability to accept the world as presented, then they are right. Who are you to tell them that they are wrong? There are those who don't like how the 4e rules interact with the story and that is all there is to it. Its a matter of taste and it doesn't matter whether it tastes fine to you or not, there are many of us who don't like the 4e flavor.

To use an analogy, I can't abide cantalope or honey dew melon. Its something thats been true since I was about 1 year old. Something in it (and lately sometimes in watermelon) just interacts with my tongue wrong and I can barely make myself swallow it when I try to eat it. All my life I've had people tell me how wonderful cantelope tastes. I even accept I am in the minority and that others really like it (like everyone in my family but me) but it still tastes nauseating to me. And no matter how others try to describe how good it tastes, or argue about how odd it is and how it should taste good to me, (and no matter how frequently I try it) my tongue refuses to accept it and thats all there is to it.


----------



## Imaro

Mournblade94 said:


> Massive damage rules and you can voluntarily fail the save.
> 
> You landed "just right " into something that broke your fall.
> 
> Crud! I landed in the marsh again!
> 
> You landed on a slope that time that transferred the force and now you are rolling down the hill.
> 
> It might be better just to coup de grace yourself and fail the save.





Thanks for answering that for me...

Oh yeah, here's one... the savage gods of your tribe won't let you die a cowards death


----------



## Saint&Sinner

Mournblade94 said:


> Please don't take my comment as if I was insinuating your were stupid in any way.  Not the intention at all.




Would you please explain what you meant?  I would love to run D&D (there are a lot more players available).  But the amount of material and rules are daunting for me.  I'd love a truly rules lite version of D&D I could play in a pick up fashion.


----------



## amerigoV

Imaro said:


> I addressed this before, unless your characters (not players) discuss hitpoints, their class or their level in game... how does this affect the versimilitude of the gameworld?




Yep, my fighter after taking 60 points of damage from a dragon but keeps on fighting never thinks to discuss this with his fellow compatriots. If asked, he would say "I just bobbed and weaved, baby, bobbed and weaved!"

I understand what you are saying, but that stuff has been around for ages.   Back when the internet was not cool (yes, I am that old), there were plenty of discussions of realistic ways to calculate falling damage, why do you still get a save vs. a Fireball in a 10x10' room, why armor makes your AC better vs. absoribing damage, and why HP are unrealistic. 4e threw in some news ones (like you "Come and Get it" example). The answer is the same now as it was then - its fun! 

And if it is not fun for you that is fine as there are plenty of games without those particular gamist items. So it makes sense that WotC is not going to draw you (or me - I play something else now) back.


----------



## gamerprinter

My point earlier about being owned by someone other than Hasbro - I don't mean to imply the "evil WotC empire", I was just as happy when WotC was just WotC and not owned by Hasbro.

I think RPGs are managed and developed in better hands by smaller companies. Where bottomline is still important, but the love and care put in by its creators aren't managed by personel directors, quaterly reports, shareholder meetings. But two or three guys working remotely from home like most other small RPG publishers.

This is the group I fall under, as a 3pp for Pathfinder RPG.

Gary Gygax made a comment toward the end of days at TSR, something along the lines of once there were more attorneys in the decision making process, I was done.

So no need to extrapolate my explanation to mean anything more than it is. I think D&D is better off in the hands of a smaller company. This is not a slam on 4e or any of that, just that heads roll, when the company is not pleased, and having always worked with smaller companies, solutions are met before heads need to roll....

GP


----------



## Bluenose

Mournblade94 said:


> Massive damage rules and you can voluntarily fail the save.
> 
> You landed "just right " into something that broke your fall.
> 
> Crud!  I landed in the marsh again!
> 
> You landed on a slope that time that transferred the force and now you are rolling down the hill.
> 
> It might be better just to coup de grace yourself and fail the save.




So if I'd suggested you were thrown off, you'd come up with a different argument. Note that an 80' cliff can't do massive damage, and yet when I worked for mountain rescue I saw some people who'd fallen 80'. Very few were in a condition to jump up and go chasing after their attackers. Yet it's routinely survivable for moderate level PCs. Guess what that does to any sense of verisimilitude I might find in D&D.


----------



## Wicht

MacMathan said:


> I just don't understand the "nerdrage" displayed on what was once a DnD friendly community.




I'm not seeing much rage in this thread, sorry. Many of us want to give WotC our money and are dissapointed that we can't.  Not much rage in that sentiment from my perspective. And if I was a business and some customers were telling me exactly what I could do to earn more of their money, I would listen real well, but ymmv.  

In my family, we are still very DnD friendly. We play it weekly.  We just use the Pathfinder ruleset to do so. I am not sure why one has to like 4e to like DnD. I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons for about 27 years. I played it long before there was a 4e and I figure I'll be playing it long after 4e.  

But like others have said, I don't understand why WotC would not want me as a customer. I've supported the game for years and continue to spend money on the hobby. It is poor marketing to get rid of your most faithful customers in an effort to build your brand (a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush is always true).  In point of fact, I will continue to believe WotC wants my money until one of their representatives tells me point blank that they don't. However, they really and truly aren't making anything I want at the moment and thats a real shame (again from my perspective).


----------



## MrMyth

Imaro said:


> Doug McCrae said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I admit that 4e introduces more verisimilitude breaking in order to make the game more balanced and to control challenge levels.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine. If you admit this... what was the point of everything before?
Click to expand...



Because it isn't necessarily anything new. 

Look, if the fundamentals of the game - for me, hitpoints and turn-based combat - already don't work for me from any rational viewpoint, then I'm not going to be bothered by a single fighter power. 

I admit, I understand wanting more verisimilitude where you can get it. I wouldn't object, myself, if Come and Get It worked differently. 

But we've already accepted that core elements of the game have accepted not being able to simulate reality. That, however, is entirely seperate from what is being talked about here - the flavor of classes and their connection to the story. 

The argument being made was that 'characters come second' to mechanics - not that there might be one or two powers that strain belief, but that the flavor and roleplaying potential of those classes had actively been hindered by the focus on mechanical balance. And that is a much harder claim to make.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Hi Imaro  - 

I'm posting again because I find your points interesting.  I'm not intending to contradict you or bring you into another argument or even argue.  I'm offering counters to help us both think through our positions.

That stated, I feel that our positions are different enough such that we're not going to reach consensus, but I hope that another vantage point may help you.  I've been where you seem to be as a DM.  I could be wrong.



Imaro said:


> No it's not a flawed point...and I've already addressed why I made the distinction... But just to make it more clear...
> 
> Reality: Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." Literally, the term denotes what is real; in its widest sense, this includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. ...
> 
> Versimilitude: the property of seeming true, of resembling reality; resemblance to reality, realism; a statement which merely appears to be true
> 
> There's a pretty big difference between the two... especially when many like to argue minutiae... kind of like this point you brought up.




I understand what you're saying.  What I'm saying is that reality is defined by what we see and perceive.  There are many many things that exist that we don't interact with, because we can't perceive them.  This is either due to some spectrum/cognition reason or because we're not in the same space.  The fact that X thing exists 5 miles away doesn't exist for me because I'm not there.. it may still be there.  I don't recognize it.

So when you clearly make the differentiation between reality and verisimilitude, I get it, but I find it flawed.  If players don't experience it, it's not real.  If character's don't experience it it's not real.  Why?  Because it doesn't matter to them until they have to interact with it.  Ergo.. reality = verisimilitude.  Especially true in games, the real argument is cause and effect in the real world.

So keeping the argument to games, on this forum, I find that your argument is flawed.  Fair enough I suppose.




> Because he's a tactician (understands good vs. bad tactics) and not a warrior... the same way an unabashed coward wouldn't rush up to him either... their personality characteristics have suddenly been made meaningless in the context of the narrative to accomodate a mechanic.




Understanding tactics does not make a character less human or infallible.  Personality characteristics in the real world are vast.  Personality text in a module is usually 3 sentences.  The DM needs to make up the difference and accommodate the mechanic to satisfy the player dynamic.



> He could but then give me a choice to make... like with the fighter's mark. Not an auto-fail power that forces him to make the wrong decision.




Are you not the DM?  Do you not have the mandate to do whatever you feel appropriate to benefit the story?  It's an encounter power, it gets used once per encounter.  The enemy is in range of the power and if he is a master tactician he would know how to offset it if he's run into it before.  If the enemy is a master tactician and the DM isn't aware of his players powers ahead of time, then the enemy isn't a master tactician 

I'm being difficult, I know.  There are probably other powers that cause strife too.  We've chosen this one to pick on.



> So change the narrative to fit the mechanic being invoked... got you. But all that does is support my point more.




Perhaps true as points can have spin applied to them, but it also gives you an opportunity to be more creative as a DM, which is oftentimes the one trait horribly lacking at the gaming table, and especially obvious when missing.



> Huh? You're right, someone, somewhere can explain any power that could possibly be created...given enough time, energy,and inclination... I'd rather just have the mechanics either get out of the way of my narrative or support it... not force me into finding a way to make it fit in the narrative.




Well, I'll agree with you here.  I'd like things to fit into nice boxes.  But at the point where that happens the need for the DM disappears and there's nothing making the hobby more enjoyable than World of Warcraft.  The on-demand flexibility of the DM and the imaginations of the entire table presenting a story you can't get in little boxes is the whole point of getting people together.


Thoughts?


----------



## Mournblade94

Bluenose said:


> So if I'd suggested you were thrown off, you'd come up with a different argument. Note that an 80' cliff can't do massive damage, and yet when I worked for mountain rescue I saw some people who'd fallen 80'. Very few were in a condition to jump up and go chasing after their attackers. Yet it's routinely survivable for moderate level PCs. Guess what that does to any sense of verisimilitude I might find in D&D.




I am willing to bet that most of those people that fell 80' off of a cliff, probably never fought a bullette.  Or a young dragon.  Or a bunch of orcs.  I bet they didn't even have spell buffs.


----------



## BryonD

Kaiyanwang said:


> In case of suicide, I don't think HP apply. You are automatically coup-de-graced by the terrain.



Exactly so.

But, honestly, the question being answered by this is neither here nor there.

There are issues in 3E.  It makes a clear effort to minimize them, but by no means does it eliminate them.  IME there are very few which can't be easily resolved by a competent DM.  But, again, it doesn't matter.

There is a difference in the root philosophy of the design.  If that difference has no impact on some people, then great, they can play whichever game they prefer.  No one is claiming that everyone has to agree.  But the question was asked what would "win back" players.  

Changing this philosophy back is my answer.  

Andy says the philosophy change is there, so if anyone wants to dispute that.  Go ahead.  No one should care.

If anyone doesn't see that the change in philosophy makes a difference, again, that is fine.  Whether or not someone else sees a difference makes zero impact to those of us who do.  And, frankly, if I told you I was color-blind, I doubt you would take that as evidence that the color green was fictional.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Saint&Sinner said:


> Would you please explain what you meant?  I would love to run D&D (there are a lot more players available).  But the amount of material and rules are daunting for me.  I'd love a truly rules lite version of D&D I could play in a pick up fashion.




Offering some advice from experience.

Moving from 2.0 to 3.0 was tragic for me.  Moving from 3.0 to 3.5 was annoying and 3.5 to 4.0.. I was livid as I had all the books for 3.5 and more or less knew the system.  I didn't want to move to 4.0 at all.  Not one bit.  Until recently, I was really afraid of running combats.

I was drawn in by the balanced mechanics after reading parts of the PHB at a Borders.

So I said screw it, lets try this.

1. I called my friends who didn't want to play 4e, but wanted someone else to DM (though I did have some sway as I'm an experienced storyteller).

2. None of us knew how to play.  We took a full game session to do nothing but roll up characters and put some minis on the table to fight each other.

3. Shock we had fun, and started bitching about things in a good natured way.

4. We rolled up new characters and did the same thing the following week.

5. Shock, we knew more and got hooked into PHB2 and other stuff.

6. We had the balls to play a full session off the cuff with these characters.. We totally screwed up but had fun.

7. Next session we retcon'd and are playing through Keep on the Shadowfell.  I'm not fearful of combat anymore and I still don't know all the rules, but there are a bunch of us figuring it out.

So what my advice is is this.. if you don't know how to play, find a group.  You'll find that 90 percent of what is in the books isn't used for an average game and the rest of it is used when you build something that needs it or when someone tries something new.

If it's new, look it up, it won't be new anymore.

Play three sessions to feel comfortable and you'll be ok to start DMing.  Over time you'll get really good at it.  Complaining about new game systems or rules or being fearful of change overcomplicates things.

Just play.  Have fun.  Tell stories.

KB


----------



## Saint&Sinner

Wicht said:


> I'm not seeing much rage in this thread, sorry. Many of us want to give WotC our money and are dissapointed that we can't...
> 
> But like others have said, I don't understand why WotC would not want me as a customer. I've supported the game for years and continue to spend money on the hobby. It is poor marketing to get rid of your most faithful customers in an effort to build your brand (a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush is always true).  In point of fact, I will continue to believe WotC wants my money until one of their representatives tells me point blank that they don't. However, they really and truly aren't making anything I want at the moment and thats a real shame (again from my perspective).





I pretty much agree with this.  I don't play D&D right now but I still buy much of the stuff that comes out.  I have a DDI subscription so I can see what's in the pipe.  I would DM and draw in more players if I had simpler tools to do so.


----------



## BryonD

Wicht said:


> I'm not seeing much rage in this thread, sorry.



Exactly.  I really kinda enjoy the back and forth, and I'm happy to say what I think (no doubt there).

But rage, nope.


----------



## Saint&Sinner

Kobold Boots said:


> Offering some advice from experience.
> 
> ........
> 
> Just play.  Have fun.  Tell stories.
> 
> KB




Thanks.  I'm sure this is good for you.  I just don't have the time to do this.  Not when I can pick up a variety of easier games and play right now.  I want to play/run more than delve into a deep rules set.  It's cool WotC aren't interested in making that game.  I'll keep buying the occasional book and mining it for fun details to add to my game.  

I left D&D a long, long time ago (like Blue Box era).  It may be that the game never comes back to the rules lite seat of your pants enjoyment that I remember.  If it does, I'll be here waiting to spend my money on it.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Saint&Sinner said:


> Thanks.  I'm sure this is good for you.  I just don't have the time to do this.  Not when I can pick up a variety of easier games and play right now.  I want to play/run more than delve into a deep rules set.  It's cool WotC aren't interested in making that game.  I'll keep buying the occasional book and mining it for fun details to add to my game.
> 
> I left D&D a long, long time ago (like Blue Box era).  It may be that the game never comes back to the rules lite seat of your pants enjoyment that I remember.  If it does, I'll be here waiting to spend my money on it.




You're welcome.  I guess what I'm getting at at the core is.. you may be overcomplicating things based on fear of content.  From my perspective I don't see anything in my multi-point dissertation that's any different from "playing right now."

Best, 
KB


----------



## Saint&Sinner

Kobold Boots said:


> You're welcome.  I guess what I'm getting at at the core is.. you may be overcomplicating things based on fear of content.  From my perspective I don't see anything in my multi-point dissertation that's any different from "playing right now."
> 
> Best,
> KB




I've played (briefly) 3e, 3.5e and 4e.  No way this would be fun for me to run.  Too much fiddly rules.  I guess there's very little chance they will move in a direction I would find enjoyable.  I would love to support D&D more as there are a lot of potential players and it could be a great intro to the hobby for people.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Saint&Sinner said:


> I've played (briefly) 3e, 3.5e and 4e.  No way this would be fun for me to run.  Too much fiddly rules.  I guess there's very little chance they will move in a direction I would find enjoyable.  I would love to support D&D more as there are a lot of potential players and it could be a great intro to the hobby for people.




Fair statement and opinion noted.


----------



## Piratecat

Hey, there's been a few exceptions, but thank you to everyone who has been working to keep this thread interesting and friendly. It's appreciated, particularly when it's a subject like this one that people feel strongly about.


----------



## Saint&Sinner

Piratecat said:


> Hey, there's been a few exceptions, but thank you to everyone who has been working to keep this thread interesting and friendly. It's appreciated, particularly when it's a subject like this one that people feel strongly about.





It's not hard.  I have a deep desire for the games of my youth to be out there.


----------



## pawsplay

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Yes, I see Rolemaster I & II availabe and M&M I & II, but neither of those editions made any major changes. I don't see any support from Hero before Champions 6th Edition.




A ton of 5e stuff is still available.



> SJG is only supporting 3rd & 4th Edition, but I'm geussing that's because they haven't completely re-released the majority of 3rd Edition yet.




SJG is steadily releases a huge pile of titles as GURPS Classic via PDF. 



> And Palladium? Their bread and butter is Rifts, which really hasn't had an edition change.




And they released a ton of old Palladium fantasy PDFs, including 1st edition revised Palladium Fantasy.



> I'll give the one example I think would be valid that you missed. Red Brick Games supports all editions of Earthdawn. Yet I still contend it is rare in the game publishing community and has not been the practice for D&D since the beginning.




Well, obviously, you are wrong, but contend away.


----------



## bagger245

Kobold Boots said:


> Are you not the DM?  Do you not have the mandate to do whatever you feel appropriate to benefit the story?  It's an encounter power, it gets used once per encounter.  The enemy is in range of the power and if he is a master tactician he would know how to offset it if he's run into it before.  If the enemy is a master tactician and the DM isn't aware of his players powers ahead of time, then the enemy isn't a master tactician
> 
> I'm being difficult, I know.  There are probably other powers that cause strife too.  We've chosen this one to pick on.




This tactician we are talking about is it in-game Conan or out-of-game Kasparov player? An in-game Conan doesn't know what power the fighter is going to use next, the Kasparov might know and have been trying to get away from the fighter, but the fighter has an in-built "sticky" power. There is no way to offset a power once he is in range but hope to interrupt it or hope the fighter misses the attack.



> Perhaps true as points can have spin applied to them, but it also gives you an opportunity to be more creative as a DM, which is oftentimes the one trait horribly lacking at the gaming table, and especially obvious when missing.




Thing is, it aint about the DM able to change the power based on his whim. The game has a philosophy of letting the player acquire all the powers RAW and changing a power to fit the DM's view will either hurt the balance or frustrate the player.

Have you read what Come and Get it power does btw? The range is 15 feet radius centred from the fighter which affect all enemies around him. 

Let's see it from an in-game perspective. Evil Conan and his lackeys are fighting this fighter. The fighter then shouts at them and everyone in that 15 feet radius area will immediately move towards the fighter. The moment they get close, the fighter then whacks them.

Now, if you were to roleplay Evil Conan as a guy who doesn't want to engage with this fighter but prefer to let his lackeys do the job instead, why are you suddenly moving towards this fighter?

Mechanics are dictating the npcs actions without you roleplaying it. An auto fail Will check, in 3.5 terms.


----------



## Obryn

These discussions are crazy, to me.

Over half the time, they're not even about the game - they're about ethics, insults (implied or imagined), and philosophy.

-O


----------



## Kobold Boots

bagger245 said:


> This tactician we are talking about is it in-game Conan or out-of-game Kasparov player? An in-game Conan doesn't know what power the fighter is going to use next, the Kasparov might know and have been trying to get away from the fighter, but the fighter has an in-built "sticky" power. There is no way to offset a power once he is in range but hope to interrupt it or hope the fighter misses the attack.




Ok, so lets say we don't live in a player vs. character vacuum and your in game tactician actually got his tactical experience by seeing fighters actually fight. Logically that's the best way to eventually learn strategy.. be in the field, learn tactics and develop strategies...

Then your master strategist has seen fighters fight, knows what fighters do and can plan ahead when the tide of battle turns. The point of strategy is not to be in a situation where you're tactically compromised.




> Thing is, it aint about the DM able to change the power based on his whim. The game has a philosophy of letting the player acquire all the powers RAW and changing a power to fit the DM's view will either hurt the balance or frustrate the player.




As a DM you can't change the power on the fly. That's something for a game table discussion before or after the game with the group. Within the game situation you have an option to do any number of things to offset the power long enough to tell a good story. Need more enemies.. there's another group of minions.. etc. Oh what's leading the minions.. 




> Have you read what Come and Get it power does btw? The range is 15 feet radius centred from the fighter which affect all enemies around him.
> 
> Let's see it from an in-game perspective. Evil Conan and his lackeys are fighting this fighter. The fighter then shouts at them and everyone in that 15 feet radius area will immediately move towards the fighter. The moment they get close, the fighter then whacks them.
> 
> Now, if you were to roleplay Evil Conan as a guy who doesn't want to engage with this fighter but prefer to let his lackeys do the job instead, why are you suddenly moving towards this fighter?
> 
> Mechanics are dictating the npcs actions without you roleplaying it. An auto fail Will check, in 3.5 terms.




Ok, so now I'm going to get all realistic and stuff, bear with me. If I'm in a real hand to hand fight, I know that my opponent has a circle of reach equal to his full reach plus whatever I give him as his opponent. If I walk into his space, he has more he can do.

If i'm using a sword, I now extend that reach to the full distance of the arm plus his weapon, plus whatever I give him as his opponent. So the combat lives and breathes in a circle if I engage him. I want to stay at the limits of his reach if I can, therefore I'm going to move in a circle around him preferably opposite his strong side to avoid crushing strikes.

If we're using polearms, reach changes again. 

So here's the deal. I'm not a military mastermind. I'm a guy who's taken some martial arts and I get it. I know that if I get in range of a guys reach and he knows how to use his weapon I'm potentially screwed. If I know what I'm talking about I may be able to tell if the guy has a particular fighting style that favors sweeps and whether or not he's fast. If that's the case I give him the respect of additional reach based on his stance and where his weight is distributed...

Back to the game. Your tactical/strategic mastermind is going to be better than I am, so he's going to know that fighters fight, he's going to know the tricks of the battlefield and how a taunt can work. He's going to know that the fighter's reach could well be 15 ft. and he's going to react accordingly... which means ranged combat against the front line and attempts to flank that front line until it's wise to close inside basic melee range, making the taunt useless. Then he's forced to mark stuff and hope for penalties if a combatant peels off.

So as to the "Hey come here" effect.. how to explain it.. I've done that previously. Maybe there's a statement about the mother's of the enemy that just annoys the enemy.. maybe there's a feud.. maybe there's a focus that makes sense.. or maybe he's just awesome and people want to kill him for honor's sake. Maybe it's a magic effect. Any way you look at it, fighters have trained themselves to know what to do to taunt things if they have the power. Hell you could say it's a result of party tactics as the power is pretty useless until you're in a group (cause if you're alone you're getting stuck just because.)

So to those who say that the tactical strategic guy shouldn't be pulled, I agree with you.   I say the tactical strategist wouldn't be inside 15 ft if he was a strategist. DMs need to know their players and play the enemies appropriately.  If he's pulled you failed.  That's ok.

Personal note: I botch an encounter at least once a game because I don't think about something the players can do. So I'm with you, but blaming the game or the powers is just lame unless there's a real power imbalance.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

To answer the OP, I don't _have_ set conditions for WotC to win me back, as such.  They don't exist to cater to me (clearly...) so why would I arrange my thinking as if they could or should?  I certainly didn't stop buying WotC materials because of some snooty idea that I needed to protest some percieved general business incompetence or corporate policies or the like.  I stopped buying WotC materials for ONE reason - I was no longer interested in and no longer needed anything they were actually selling.  That will change when they start selling something I AM interested in.

That pretty much means they either have to start selling materials that directly support or work with 1E/2E, or more likely (since I have already have all the materials I particularly want/need for those editions) create and release ANOTHER version of D&D that ratchets down the flailing "cool factor" of their more recent efforts.  Well... that's not really accurate but it's all the more effort I care to put in right now in encapsulating why _I_ don't care for what they're dealing to use for _MY_ campaigns.


----------



## bagger245

Kobold Boots said:


> So to those who say that the tactical strategic guy shouldn't be pulled, I agree with you.   I say the tactical strategist wouldn't be inside 15 ft if he was a strategist. DMs need to know their players and play the enemies appropriately.  If he's pulled you failed.  That's ok.
> 
> Personal note: I botch an encounter at least once a game because I don't think about something the players can do. So I'm with you, but blaming the game or the powers is just lame unless there's a real power imbalance.




Agreed with all your points and yeah if the guy was a strategist he wouldn't be in that range in the first place. Of course you have to take into account the other player who plays the fighter who tactically makes sure that the strategist is within range to pull of the power in the first place. 

Not blaming the game at all, just pointing out that there is a disassociation between mechanics and fluff. Why the strategist goes forth to the fighter to get whacked can have many explanation. 

Anyway not wanting to derail, sticking to the thread topic, I am a WOTC customer and currently play 4e. But I don't see myself buying anymore future books due to DDI. I am more of a pre 3rd edition player, so I can understand most people here who wants the old pdfs back. 

I was initially excited that Essentials was going back to a more classic structure of the classes and contemplated on making it my main fantasy rpg. But then I realized the gameplay will still be the same even if they changed Magic Missile to autohit, remove fighter's daily powers etc. So it is not good enough to lure me, what more those folks at Grognardia.


----------



## Kobold Boots

bagger245 said:


> Anyway not wanting to derail, sticking to the thread topic, I am a WOTC customer and currently play 4e. But I don't see myself buying anymore future books due to DDI. I am more of a pre 3rd edition player, so I can understand most people here who wants the old pdfs back.
> 
> I was initially excited that Essentials was going back to a more classic structure of the classes and contemplated on making it my main fantasy rpg. But then I realized the gameplay will still be the same even if they changed Magic Missile to autohit, remove fighter's daily powers etc. So it is not good enough to lure me, what more those folks at Grognardia.




Appreciate being pulled back to the point of the thread, thank you.

So honestly, I'm torn about Essentials too.  Here's why.

1. It might be 3rd edition again.  I have that stuff.
2. It might be 2nd edition again.  I have that stuff.
3. Calling anything "players option" scares the bloody hell out of me.

But really the thing that gets me is this.  With the 3.X OGL the D&D system was as open as it was ever going to get.  Then they go with 4.X and close it up.  The result of that OGL was a crap load of cool games which is awesome for the gamer but scary for a business that runs on IP.  

So what do they do?  They start restricting and start rehashing to try and gain back some control because they're scared.  So you end up with a non-open product that alienates people who are committed to the product because of the actions of the OGL and years of investment in 2nd and 3rd ed.. (1E notwithstanding).

So WoTC had the chance to really do something special by not being afraid of the market and leading it forward.. but as long as there are other people with essentially the same game AND a good amount of the older gamer crowd, it seems like they're just interested in fixing stuff we may already have.

AND.. the people scanning books aren't going to go away.  This looks like a losing business model simply because they went too far, too fast potentially with the wrong ideas.

Time will tell.  Personally I'm still in my honeymoon phase with 4E.


----------



## Shazman

Indagare Nogitsune said:


> Personally, I do not think there's much they can do to get people back. After what they did to the Forgotten Realms, I think it's pretty clear they'd rather destroy all that came before than ask what their players actually want.




That pretty much sums up WotC's way of doing things.  They definitely believe in a scorched earth, fire the audience mentality.  Maybe they will fire too many and learn their lesson.


----------



## Obryn

Shazman said:


> That pretty much sums up WotC's way of doing things.  They definitely believe in a scorched earth, fire the audience mentality.  Maybe they will fire too many and learn their lesson.



Case in point.

-O


----------



## Shazman

Imaro said:


> 4e is unabashedly gamist first... yet you believe the mechanics don't come before the "story"?
> 
> IMO, anytime you have mechanics that cause me or my players to have to struggle to come up with "what just happened" in a narrative fashion that doesn't strain versimilitude... the mechanics have definitely come first and the story, well that's basically been left up to you to figure out a way to construct around the mechanics.




That is so true.  One of the worst things about 4E is how extremely gamist it is.  It would be a much better game if they dialed down the gamism and put some more realism back in the game.


----------



## Beginning of the End

There are three ways WotC could get my money:

(1) Start producing D&D again. You can call that snark if you like, but 4th Edition doesn't play like previous editions of the game and was specifically designed to work in fundamentally different ways from previous editions. It wasn't designed to be the same game and it isn't. For better or for worse.

(2) Produce something completely different from D&D. I play Exalted and Fading Suns and Heavy Gear and 3:16 and Shock: Social Science Fiction and a lot of other games. So while nothing is likely to scratch my D&D itch except for D&D, I'm more than willing to look at other stuff from WotC.

(3) Sell PDFs. I'm part of a group that's introduced nearly three dozen people to OD&D over the past 14 months. A lot of these people would have bought OD&D PDFs if they were available. But they're not.

#1 is improbable. #2 seems unlikely given their current corporate methodology (D&D Gamma World). But there's absolutely no rational reason for #3 not to happen. It's essentially free money for them at this point. They don't even have to pay for hosting in order to get a monthly check. And there's no risk of encouraging piracy (which is  in any case) because all of those products have already been pirated.

Anyway, the short version is: Make products I want to buy.

They aren't doing that right now.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Bluenose said:


> So if I'd suggested you were thrown off, you'd come up with a different argument. Note that an 80' cliff can't do massive damage, and yet when I worked for mountain rescue I saw some people who'd fallen 80'. Very few were in a condition to jump up and go chasing after their attackers. Yet it's routinely survivable for moderate level PCs. Guess what that does to any sense of verisimilitude I might find in D&D.




You seem to confusing "verisimilitude" and "realism".

Is it not realistic for a human being to jump off an 80' cliff and then go chasing after their attackers? Sure.

Nor is it realistic when Hercules or the Incredible Hulk do it. But when Hercules or the Incredible Hulk or a 12th-level barbarian do it, that doesn't violate the versimilitude of the fictional setting in which they exist.

12th-level barbarians are, according to every measure afforded us by the rules, tough motherfrakkers who can just do that sort of thing.

The real key here is the lack of struggle in explaining what happened. "The barbarian jumped off the cliff and survived." There's no confusion here. The rules are directly associated with the game world. Now, if you don't like the game world which the rules are describing that's certainly problematic, but it's a _different_ problem than dissociated rules that require a struggle to figure out what happened in the game world based on the mechanical outcome of the rule system.


----------



## Doug McCrae

If one sees the D&D rules as describing a world in which the basic principles - gravity, the way the human body works and so forth - are the same as our own, then the fall-surviving barbarian would be regarded as inconsistent with that ie lacking in verisimilitude. There's the fantastical elements, magic and monsters, but where something is not fantastical, then it must act in a realistic manner.

By the rules, the high level barbarian is fantastical, yes, but by this view, the rules are not taken as axiomatic first principles. They can be wrong.

I actually find Hercules and the Hulk in a way more plausible than the barbarian. They have 'in story' justifications - half-divinity and gamma radiation - for what they can do. I have the same problem with stunts in action movies where the character performing the heroic feat isn't supposed to be superhuman like the Terminator or limited only by the power of his imagination as in the Matrix. Being a 'tough guy' doesn't cut it for me, it's not a strong enough justification.

Sure, one can come up with D&D world justifications for the barbarian, in much the same way as Gary tries to justify hit points - skill, luck, divine intervention. But that would mean that a Cure Light Wounds spell 'heals' all those things, as does a few days rest, which is weird. But this is an old argument. Hit points ain't got no verisimilitude. 



> a struggle to figure out what happened in the game world based on the mechanical outcome of the rule system.



This is exactly the problem with the barbarian, the rules don't fit the perceived reality of the game world. Making them fit is a struggle, just as it is with Come And Get It.


----------



## FireLance

I think _come and get it_ has been picked on enough.

Please give us your nominations for the next most unrealistic power here. 

(And _warrior's urging_ doesn't count since it's pretty much just a higher-level version of _come and get it_.)


----------



## DumbPaladin

I agree most with two things I've seen said here, so I'm just paraphrasing:

1) WotC doesn't want players like me back, I don't think.  They've shown nothing to suggest they do.

2) WotC would need to put out something that resembles D&D the way I recognize it from 2.0 through 3.5.  The new game is just that: a new game.  It's not one I'm interested in ... so maybe if 5.0 turns out to be less like 4.0 and more like something that came before ...?

I really can't think of any way they could get back the people they lost, but I highly doubt they care.  They seem convinced they've found their new, better clientel base.  I think they're wrong, but good luck.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Shazman said:


> That is so true. One of the worst things about 4E is how extremely gamist it is. It would be a much better game if they dialed down the gamism and put some more realism back in the game.




You miss what 4e is.  It's Gamist/Dramatist.  (I much prefer the Usenet classifications to the later Forge ones).  And from most of the complaints, it's the dramatism as much as the gamism that's objected to.



FireLance said:


> I think _come and get it_ has been picked on enough.
> 
> Please give us your nominations for the next most unrealistic power here.
> 
> (And _warrior's urging_ doesn't count since it's pretty much just a higher-level version of _come and get it_.)




CAGI is an excellent dramatist power.  The fighter glances round, smiles, gestures, and the enemies all rush as in a martial arts film.  Rule of Cool.  It's just not simulationist.

And I'll be interested to see what people come up with.  Bastion of Defence, I expect (a martial power granting temp hit points).


----------



## scruffygrognard

MacMathan said:


> After seeing yet another one of these threads do people honestly wonder why WotC PR no longer caters to this board? This is no longer really a DnD board in the 4e sense, it is very much a 3.5/pathfinder house by at least 50% or more according to polls...
> 
> I play all editions of the game and many others when a fun group is available. I just don't understand the "nerdrage" displayed on what was once a DnD friendly community.




Other than a few posters getting a little over-heated, I haven't seen a lot of rage in this thread... just insights into what drove people away from WotC and what could bring them back.

As someone who has played every version of D&D and AD&D that has been released over the past 30 years, I'm saddened by my utter lack of interest in the latest, official version of Dungeons & Dragons.  To me, it looks like they made a deliberate point to move away from D&D's roots and classic elements in order to redefine the game for a new generation.

My hope is that they figure out that they've alienated a large portion of their long-term, loyal customers and attempt to woo us back.  The fact that the pro-WotC sentiment on these boards has significantly eroded since 4th edition's release points to marketing and design errors on WotC's part rather than baseless "nerd rage" running rampant in these forums.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Experience points in OD&D and 1e, which are gained largely by finding gold, are another rule where gamism trumps verisimilitude. Obviously finding a large sum of gold, even getting it out of a dungeon, wouldn't make someone a better magic user, fighter or thief. That would logically be achieved by research, practice, practical experience in fights and so forth.

Gary justifies this in 1e, saying the former makes for a more interesting game, which is true, but it's also gamism because obtaining treasure is intended to be a big part of the challenge for the players in pre-2e D&D. Going up levels for finding it is just an incentive for the player.

In rpgs, experience points and the like are often a highly gamist, or metagame-y, mechanic as they are normally used to encourage player behaviour deemed desirable. Acquiring treasure, killing monsters, completing quests, roleplaying your character or whatever. Some games, such as the Chaosium family, do have simulationist skill increase, but D&D has never been sim in this respect. Or, indeed, many others.

It is a bit strange that Come And Get It, which is just one power, should be often cited for its troublesome lack of verisimilitude, when it hasn't been possessed by such fundamental parts of the game as experience points, hit points and classes. The faster healing in 4e - all hit points recovered by a six hour rest - would be a better example imo.


----------



## bouncyhead

Doug McCrae said:


> Experience points in OD&D and 1e, which are gained largely by finding gold, are another rule where gamism trumps verisimilitude. Obviously finding a large sum of gold, even getting it out of a dungeon, wouldn't make someone a better magic user, fighter or thief. That would logically be achieved by research, practice, practical experience in fights and so forth.
> 
> Gary justifies this in 1e, saying the former makes for a more interesting game, which is true, but it's also gamism because obtaining treasure is intended to be a big part of the challenge for the players in pre-2e D&D. Going up levels for finding it is just an incentive for the player.
> 
> In rpgs, experience points and the like are often a highly gamist, or metagame-y, mechanic as they are normally used to encourage player behaviour deemed desirable. Acquiring treasure, killing monsters, completing quests, roleplaying your character or whatever. Some games, such as the Chaosium family, do have simulationist skill increase, but D&D has never been sim in this respect. Or, indeed, many others.
> 
> It is a bit strange that Come And Get It, which is just one power, should be often cited for its troublesome lack of verisimilitude, when it hasn't been possessed by such fundamental parts of the game as experience points, hit points and classes. The faster healing in 4e - all hit points recovered by a six hour rest - would be a better example imo.




I agree that CAGI has probably been kicked around the room enough but as briefly as I can: The issue for *some* people with CAGI is intent and free will. Abstractions are a necessary part of gaming in an imagined world and we all accept them. But an abstraction that commandeers the free will of an in-game entity (pc, npc, whatever) is a problem for some. The best way I can express it is by flipping the viewpoint round: I'm running an adventure for my party of feckless goons. They encounter an npc fighter with CAGI. At a certain point you get a conversation that goes something like:

Me: Dan, Jorvek runs over here to attack this guy.
Dan: He does? But he doesn't want to attack that guy.
Me: Actually he does. He decides he wants to attack him.
Dan: I thought I decided what he wanted to do.
Me: Not in this instance.

Jorvek's free will has not been subverted or dominated. He is not the subject of an enchantment. He has in fact freely decided to attack the CAGI fighter. It's the switch in narrative control that bothers some people. It's not the scale of the abstraction, it's the nature of the abstraction.

BTW, what an informative, calm and interesting discussion about traditionally fraught, flammable subject matter.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Doug McCrae said:


> Experience points in OD&D and 1e, which are gained largely by finding gold, are another rule where gamism trumps verisimilitude. Obviously finding a large sum of gold, even getting it out of a dungeon, wouldn't make someone a better magic user, fighter or thief. That would logically be achieved by research, practice, practical experience in fights and so forth.




And having more money helps fund your research, helps hire better teachers, better sparring partners, etc.  Any college student can tell you having your way paid through med school makes it a much easier journey than working your way through school by taking on 3 jobs after classes.  Not that it can't be done, but a crapload of gold would make it much easier.  That's shown in game by more exp.


----------



## Imaro

Neonchameleon said:


> You miss what 4e is. It's Gamist/Dramatist. (I much prefer the Usenet classifications to the later Forge ones). And from most of the complaints, it's the dramatism as much as the gamism that's objected to.
> 
> 
> 
> CAGI is an excellent dramatist power. The fighter glances round, smiles, gestures, and the enemies all rush as in a martial arts film. Rule of Cool. It's just not simulationist.




I think there's more objection to the way 4e mixes gamism with dramatism, as opposed to just objecting to dramatism itself. See even with your example above, in 90-95% of most action movies the major villain will not rush in like some stupid mook. You expect the mooks to just rush in, but CaGI affects anyone equally... since there is no way to resist it. That isn't good dramatism IMO, it's sloppy because gamisim is still king.


----------



## RangerWickett

When 4e first came out, my complaints were:

* I thought the art wasn't as evocative as in 3e.

* Ditto the fluff writing. There wasn't much flavor.

* Combat took too long, both because of hit point grind and because people had to keep passing the book around to remember what their powers did.

* The power design actually discouraged creativity, because players were pulled toward using their listed abilities rather than doing something situationally more interesting.

* Trying to break out of classes through multiclassing was punitive.

* Magic items are boring.

* Rogues had dumb weapon restrictions.


Today, the art is much better, the fluff in Underdark and Demonomicon looks great, combat goes faster thanks to the character builder, and I've instituted the house rule that all PCs get an at will called "do something cool." Hybrids still aren't quite where I'd like them to be, magic items are still boring, and rogues still have dumb weapon restrictions, but I've figured out how to fix all those with house rules.

So now, all in all, I rather like the game.

Oh, and I think I've come up with a 4e-compatible wound system that I like. I posted it here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...9-warhammer-esque-wounds-d-d-4th-edition.html


----------



## Belen

Simple answer:  WOTC can release Saga Edition as a new d20 modern.


----------



## BryonD

Neonchameleon said:


> CAGI is an excellent dramatist power.  The fighter glances round, smiles, gestures, and the enemies all rush as in a martial arts film.  Rule of Cool.  It's just not simulationist.



First, let me say that I've been in discussions focused on CAGI before, and it is certainly low hanging fruit.  But, there are plenty of bad feats, from WotC alone, in 3.X.  So, I don't see specific cases as the problem.  It is the larger approach to what is and isn't fun in gaming that is the issue.  (Not saying is/isn't is remotely a universal truth, just that differences in perception here is the basis of the issue)

But, your approach to how to solve that problem is exactly in tune with one of the elements of 4E I find detrimental to the experience.

The mechanics LEAD the roleplay.  A player, or DM, uses a power and then it is the job of the roleplaying to catch up and fill in the blanks.  I've used the term before: "pop quiz role-playing".  

It is exactly the same as what I was describing was wrong with Andy's comment.  You have a tabletop mini mechanical ability and the behavior of your character is subservient to fitting that mechanic.

The character's behavior should come first and the mechanics should do the best they can to model the results.  It doesn't always work in a perfect manner in 3E.  I'm far from declaring 3E/PF the perfect, utopian ideal of RPGs.

But even on a bad day, mechanics doing a meh job of living up to the game is far far better (to me) than roleplay that is reactionary to the mechanics.

Make being the character be first.


----------



## Ulrick

That's it! I've figured out what it would take for WotC to "win" me back!


*$100,000. *


If WotC paid me *$100,000* I would whole-heartedly promote 4e games, run D&D Encounters at my FLGS, become a poster-child, and tell everybody who does not play 4e to get off their duff and truly support the hobby. New recruits are needed to keep the hobby strong! Are you doing your part?


----------



## Umbran

Doug McCrae said:


> By the rules, the high level barbarian is fantastical, yes, but by this view, the rules are not taken as axiomatic first principles. They can be wrong.




I don't see how this follows, at all.  

I think may still be confusing "realism" with "verisimilitude".  Realism is about matching the real world behavior.  Verisimilitude is about supporting _suspension of disbelief_ - setting you up so your mind shifts gracefully to the alternate reality of the fiction, so that you don't trip over how it doesn't match the real world.

The barbarian, as expressed by the rules (not by the fluff, by the rules) was never mundane.  He, the fighter, the rouge - all the martial classes are (and always have been, through every edition) fantastical.  You seem to have failed to grok that in fullness, for some reason, so you apparently keep thinking of the barbarian as "just this guy" who should be able to do what real-world people do.



> Being a 'tough guy' doesn't cut it for me, it's not a strong enough justification.




Ah, you see, I'd not say that is the rules lacking verisimilitude - so far the rules have been internally consistent.  That's the _fluff_ lacking verisimilitude.  You haven't been given a strong enough justification _within the fiction_ for what the barbarian can do.  The rules were never supposed to give you that justification, so that's not where the problem lies.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Umbran said:


> Ah, you see, I'd not say that is the rules lacking verisimilitude - so far the rules have been internally consistent.



What would it be then, for rules to lack verisimilitude? Contain contradictions? Say in one place that magic armor is half the weight of normal armor and in another that it is virtually weightless? Contain multiple discrete subsystems? Like overbearing and pummeling and turning undead all use different mechanics?

I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about a ruleset lacking verisimilitude. They are referring to a contradiction in what the rules say and in what they perceive as the reality of the game world. A disconnect so large, as with all wounds being healed in six hours, that it jars one's suspension of disbelief.

Realism and verisimilitude are both broad terms, hard to pin down. Sometimes they have the same meaning. Resemble reality, semblance of truth. What is reality if not the way the world truly is? If A resembles B then it surely has a semblance of B.

Sometimes verisimilitude is used to mean a weaker version of realism. Something that is like the real world, but only in some areas. There are wizards and dragons and superheroes, which is unlike our world, but they act in a consistent manner, which is like reality.

Verisimilitude might mean writerly tricks, like the use of specific times and places (as in X-Files) or technical language, to fool the viewer or reader into thinking this isn't just a pile of nonsense. A carefully worked out, internally consistent magic system could be said to do the same job. Or a huge world with lots of little details and fiddly bits, like Middle-Earth.


----------



## Dausuul

Doug McCrae said:


> What would it be then, for rules to lack verisimilitude? Contain contradictions? Say in one place that magic armor is half the weight of normal armor and in another that it is virtually weightless? Contain multiple discrete subsystems? Like overbearing and pummeling and turning undead all use different mechanics?




The rules are purely abstract, quasi-mathematical constructs. Verisimilitude doesn't mean anything in the context of rules _qua_ rules.

Questions of verisimilitude arise when you look at the interface between the rules and the imaginary world of the game. Wizards refers to that interface, rather dismissively, as "fluff," and clearly regards it as a matter of secondary importance. But it goes straight to the heart of what we find believable, what doesn't stand up to scrutiny but can be glossed over in play, and what yanks us right out of the imagined reality.

To a great extent, the interface between rules and game world consists of _names_. You can put in all the "fluff text" you like, but names trump fluff text every time. Look at how much trouble people have with the idea that you get all your hit points back after a night's rest. Why is that? It's because of the name. "Hit points" suggests "that which you lose when somebody hits you," in other words, physical health. And this is supported by the other names surrounding it: "attack," "hit," "miss," "damage," "healing surge," et cetera.

This issue is by no means confined to 4E, by the way. Every single edition of D&D has gone on at some length about how hit points are this, that, and the other thing, blah, blah, blah. But as long as they're called "hit points," people are going to think of them as physical health and be bothered when the mechanic doesn't behave the way they think it should.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Dausuul said:


> Questions of verisimilitude arise when you look at the interface between the rules and the imaginary world of the game.



Yeah, the game text always at least suggests, and often describes, a world. In the case of D&D it's a world that seems somewhat like our own. Horses act like horses, swords like swords, physical objects move in the same way. The laws of physics are the same. Or at least they are until you add magic and other weird stuff.

And yet the rules part of the game text seems to contradict that. People act at full capacity until they drop, men who have acquired a lot of gold can survive falls from great heights, old people have very good eyesight and hearing, domestic cats are very dangerous, and so forth.

But going by the game text these do not seem to be areas where magic reigns. So how do we explain the contradiction? Maybe they are in fact magical, as Gary says hit points partly are in 1e ('magical protections and/or divine protection'). Maybe the rules only imperfectly describe the game world and should be overruled sometimes. Maybe the rules are right, the world of D&D is a strange place, even when it isn't magical.

So it's down, imo, to a contradiction between the 'world describing' parts of the game text, and the rules parts.


----------



## Doug McCrae

I read somewhere that the rules for hit points and armor class in D&D come from Don't Give Up The Ship!, a naval warfare game written by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

This is what happens when you take a rule that works fine for ships and try to apply it to men. D&D - too 19th century naval wargame-y!


----------



## Wicht

Doug McCrae said:


> I read somewhere that the rules for hit points and armor class in D&D come from Don't Give Up The Ship!, a naval warfare game written by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
> 
> This is what happens when you take a rule that works fine for ships and try to apply it to men. D&D - too 19th century naval wargame-y!




So are you suggesting that WotC can win you back as a customer by dropping hit-points?


----------



## Dykstrav

Dausuul said:


> This issue is by no means confined to 4E, by the way. Every single edition of D&D has gone on at some length about how hit points are this, that, and the other thing, blah, blah, blah. But as long as they're called "hit points," people are going to think of them as physical health and be bothered when the mechanic doesn't behave the way they think it should.




One of the best things that I've ever done for my own 3.5 and Pathfinder games was to use the vitality/wound point system as described in _Unearthed Arcana_. Although it has little impact on the game in and of itself, a simple name change has done wonders for my player's immersion. The people who play clerics especially love it--it suddenly makes sense for the characters to actually want to rest, and the cleric doesn't have to blow through half of their spells in a given day to heal their allies.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Wicht said:


> So are you suggesting that WotC can win you back as a customer by dropping hit-points?



Nah, I'm saying they should change all the people into ships. HMS Gutboy Barrelhouse versus USS Aggro the Axe.

Hey, at least it would be verisimilitudinous!


----------



## Celebrim

Make a book that I actually enjoy reading.

To do that, they need to release a book with smaller font, more text, fewer unnecessary graphical frills, and which I writing which is at above the 6th grade level.  The artwork needs to look like something better than that of a talented junior high student and needs to appeal to something other than junior high sensibilities.  D&D used to be known for artwork that you could slap on the cover of a mainstream fantasy novel.  No writer in his right mind would want to advertise his work with the sort of art 4e tries to advertise itself with.  

I can't read the 4e books.  They are boring and insipid.  I find no joy in them.  They are the first generation of D&D books that are actually boring to me.  I used to enjoy going to a book store and pulling a gaming book off the shelf and reading it.  I never do that with 4e anymore, and if I never read the books there will certainly be no excitement to play the games.

Some people will probably complain that they need all that crap to sell a book nowdays, because modern readers are just idiots who can't judge a book by its content.  I disagree.   Readers will always gravitate to content, regardless if they are 15, 25, or 50.  Pictures may attract the eye or suggest a level of professionalism that suggests the book is worth reading, but within minutes of picking up a book pictures fade into the background and you mentally stop seeing them because you are reading the text.  Too much time spent on artwork when that artwork crowds out content and makes the book expensive.  Writing always trumps artwork, and the writing just isn't there.  It's a snore.   World of Warcraft can get away with bad writing and cartoonish graphics because WoW has wholly different focuses of gameplay and mental stimulus.   For a PnP game, it's lethal.  So yeah, some art is very good.  But lots of art and bad writing is suggestive of badly misplaced priorities.

And the irony to me is that the art is so suggestive of lack of depth and maturity that its probably actually losing as much as its gaining in accessibility (again, PnP games will never be as accessible as WoW for the same reasons that text based MUDs will never be accessible as WoW dispite having almost identical game play).

Sure, this is a rant, but there was a brief time after 4e came out when I thought to myself, "You know, this isn't really the game for me, but it looks like it could be fun for certain things.  Maybe I'll run a game."  But that desire got killed by the deadly boringness of rule books.


----------



## pawsplay

Neonchameleon said:


> CAGI is an excellent dramatist power.  The fighter glances round, smiles, gestures, and the enemies all rush as in a martial arts film.  Rule of Cool.  It's just not simulationist.




It works on oozes.


----------



## pawsplay

Kobold Boots said:


> 3. Calling anything "players option" scares the bloody hell out of me.




Can't sleep, clerics will eat me... can't sleep, clerics will eat me... can't sleep, clerics will eat me...


----------



## DaveMage

pawsplay said:


> It works on oozes.




Now that's funny!

"Behold the slime fighter!"


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

pawsplay said:


> It works on oozes.




Maybe he lures it in with slimy mule bones.

Edit: CAGI should at least be updated with the Gaze keyword.


----------



## Stormtower

Doug McCrae said:


> Nah, I'm saying they should change all the people into ships. HMS Gutboy Barrelhouse versus USS Aggro the Axe.
> 
> Hey, at least it would be verisimilitudinous!




Group A versus Group B reference equals beauty.  Oh, that AD&D DMG...


----------



## Mournblade94

DumbPaladin said:


> I agree most with two things I've seen said here, so I'm just paraphrasing:
> 
> 1) WotC doesn't want players like me back, I don't think.  They've shown nothing to suggest they do.




But, But ....

They just released a new 4e package in the red box!  With ELMORE ART!!!!  Surely THAT'S enough to get back us older players!  They are specifically targeting older players with that box!

The game inside you may not recognize as D&D, but the outside is reminiscent of the D&D you recognize.


----------



## Mournblade94

cperkins said:


> As someone who has played every version of D&D and AD&D that has been released over the past 30 years, I'm saddened by my utter lack of interest in the latest, official version of Dungeons & Dragons.  To me, it looks like they made a deliberate point to move away from D&D's roots and classic elements in order to redefine the game for a new generation.
> 
> My hope is that they figure out that they've alienated a large portion of their long-term, loyal customers and attempt to woo us back.  The fact that the pro-WotC sentiment on these boards has significantly eroded since 4th edition's release points to marketing and design errors on WotC's part rather than baseless "nerd rage" running rampant in these forums.




Well said!  This more than anything is what has me at least annoyed at WOTC.  If they make a game I enjoy I will buy prodicts from them.  I Still bought Star Wars products.  But now they make a game distinctly different from the other editions of D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking

You know, both the Red Box and the Essentials line indicate to me that WotC does want the customers they "fired" back.  

Perhaps they realized that those customers actually bought things.

And that gives me hope for 5e.


RC


----------



## MacMathan

First I want to apologize for my use of the phrase "nerd rage" I think my first impression was colored by what is a minority of posts on this thread. 

It just begins to feel odd to haved liked every edition of dnd. I suppose those that are happy usually are quieter.

To attempt to add some constructive points:

What do the posters think could be done the make this board a place that wotc would come to more often and value input from? I believe this to have once been the case.

As far as pdfs, here is an idea for wotc; require a pre-buy commitment before production or release. Something similar was done with the firefly dvd set. 

Once a certain number of pre-orders are reached the pdf would be released, kind of like some of the user supported modules out there that get funded in advance.

It would remove a lot of financial risk. 


Sent from my T-Mobile G1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mournblade94

WOTC seemed to always pay attention to these boards.  At least in a lip service sort of way if nothing else.  DO they not do that anymore, or was it only Scott Rouse's personality?

What changed?  Was it official, or just anecdotal?


----------



## doctorhook

Mournblade94 said:


> WOTC seemed to always pay attention to these boards.  At least in a lip service sort of way if nothing else.  DO they not do that anymore, or was it only Scott Rouse's personality?
> 
> What changed?  Was it official, or just anecdotal?



They hang around on the 4E board now, and when they visit the General RPG board, they avoid threads like this one, full of people who don't like 4E patting each other on the back.


----------



## Dausuul

Celebrim said:


> I can't read the 4e books.  They are boring and insipid.  I find no joy in them.  They are the first generation of D&D books that are actually boring to me.  I used to enjoy going to a book store and pulling a gaming book off the shelf and reading it.  I never do that with 4e anymore, and if I never read the books there will certainly be no excitement to play the games.




This is an interesting point. One wonders how many RPG book sales back in the day were driven more by the desire to read the book than to actually use it in play. Certainly most of my gaming books never saw actual use. I have even gone out to buy books from editions that I have no intention of ever playing again, just to read or re-read them.


----------



## MacMathan

Another idea/question; to me it seems most people went to pf if not happy with 4e. How could wotc make something like "old" dnd and yet sufficiently different to steal people back from pf? Seems like it would be very difficult.

Oh and I do read a number of the 4e books for fun, just odd that way 

Sent from my T-Mobile G1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Raven Crowking

Like it or not, this is a microcosm of the "gamer community" (if such a thing exists).  For WotC to come more often, and value the input from the site more, WotC would have to first value the insights of the "gamer community" more.  IOW, valuing the insights of A is not displayed by first changing A into B, which you already value.

It seems clear to me, from the lead-up to 4e, that the direction of that edition was chosen before input was solicited.  And the official line seems to have been that the "gamer community" (if it exists) could speculate, advise, or complain as it liked, but that was not going to alter the direction 4e would be taking.

Part of me admires that, because design by committee is seldom as strong as design by a clear driving vision.  And 4e has a clear, driving vision.

If you want WotC to value your input, either you have to accept and endorse that clear, driving vision, or WotC has to accept and endorse that you do not.  Nothing more, nothing less.

But, if you care about "brand identity", or even the quality of the game as a whole, it is better to have a clear and driving vision than not.  There would be no D&D today if the original designers didn't have such a vision.  That the current edition doesn't have a vision that matches that of some members of the "gaming community" (if such a thing exists) is okay; 1e and OD&D don't, either.

I would rather WotC's vision matched my own.  But I would also rather that they had a vision that differed from mine than that they had no vision at all.

If that makes any sense?



RC


----------



## Nagol

Raven Crowking said:


> Like it or not, this is a microcosm of the "gamer community" (if such a thing exists).  For WotC to come more often, and value the input from the site more, WotC would have to first value the insights of the "gamer community" more.  IOW, valuing the insights of A is not displayed by first changing A into B, which you already value.
> 
> It seems clear to me, from the lead-up to 4e, that the direction of that edition was chosen before input was solicited.  And the official line seems to have been that the "gamer community" (if it exists) could speculate, advise, or complain as it liked, but that was not going to alter the direction 4e would be taking.
> 
> Part of me admires that, because design by committee is seldom as strong as design by a clear driving vision.  And 4e has a clear, driving vision.
> 
> If you want WotC to value your input, either you have to accept and endorse that clear, driving vision, or WotC has to accept and endorse that you do not.  Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> But, if you care about "brand identity", or even the quality of the game as a whole, it is better to have a clear and driving vision than not.  There would be no D&D today if the original designers didn't have such a vision.  That the current edition doesn't have a vision that matches that of some members of the "gaming community" (if such a thing exists) is okay; 1e and OD&D don't, either.
> 
> I would rather WotC's vision matched my own.  But I would also rather that they had a vision that differed from mine than that they had no vision at all.
> 
> If that makes any sense?
> 
> 
> 
> RC




WotC did take concerns and complaints into consideration where they could.  The removal of the heavily descriptive Wizard school names, the descision not to advance Eberron, getting feedback from the char-op playtesters are examples of this.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Mournblade94 said:


> But, But ....
> 
> They just released a new 4e package in the red box!  With ELMORE ART!!!!  Surely THAT'S enough to get back us older players!  They are specifically targeting older players with that box!
> 
> The game inside you may not recognize as D&D, but the outside is reminiscent of the D&D you recognize.






Raven Crowking said:


> You know, both the Red Box and the Essentials line indicate to me that WotC does want the customers they "fired" back.
> 
> Perhaps they realized that those customers actually bought things.
> 
> And that gives me hope for 5e.
> 
> 
> RC



Redoing the cover doesn't change the content.
Example Icewind Dale Trilogy and Cleric's Quintet (sp?) novels all got redone covers from there original release.  Did it improve the content into something I wanted to buy more?  Not really.  All it did was make me pick it up thinking there was a new book for the series when I first saw it.  After seeing it was the same as what I already had, it went right back on the shelf in the store.





Mournblade94 said:


> WOTC seemed to always pay attention to these boards.  At least in a lip service sort of way if nothing else.  DO they not do that anymore, or was it only Scott Rouse's personality?
> 
> What changed?  Was it official, or just anecdotal?






doctorhook said:


> They hang around on the 4E board now, and when they visit the General RPG board, they avoid threads like this one, full of people who don't like 4E patting each other on the back.



This is one of the rare cases where the thread has remained civil and actually fairly level headed.  It wouldn't suprise me if they are glancing it over making a note here and there for their own weekly meetings.

I wouldn't call this a thread of folks disliking 4E patting each other on the back either.
Its more like a casual discussion of things they have found that were too different for their tastes, and how WotC could still earn money from us without changing 4E a bit.
Haven't you notice there hasn't been one suggestion (outside of the bring on 5E) to fully change 4E?  Nope most of the suggestions have been along the line of co-existing the editions together in a D&D Nirvana.  Even showing them how many are willing to go to DDI if their preferred editions were available there.



Dausuul said:


> This is an interesting point. One wonders how many RPG book sales back in the day were driven more by the desire to read the book than to actually use it in play. Certainly most of my gaming books never saw actual use. I have even gone out to buy books from editions that I have no intention of ever playing again, just to read or re-read them.



I can readily admit to buying books just because I wanted to see what they contained.  Many of the campaigns I played in were Core Only + Setting during 3.5E.  That didn't stop me from buying the 3pp and other WotC supplemental books that came out.  In 1E & 2E, I was full bore about buying the extras because there were gems in each.  Even in the 3pp like Role-Aids and others.
I bet this as a poll in the 4E section would be quite enlightening to the WotC members we have here.  


How many of you still use the Gray Box of FR for your Realms Campaigns vice the newly released 4E version?
How many of you use previous Edition FR information vice 4E released?


----------



## billd91

MacMathan said:


> Another idea/question; to me it seems most people went to pf if not happy with 4e. How could wotc make something like "old" dnd and yet sufficiently different to steal people back from pf? Seems like it would be very difficult.




At this point, that's probably the case. And, I would say it probably gets *more* difficult as time goes on to get back into this market segment they moved away from and Paizo (and others) stepped up to more fully serve. I do think it illustrates that there *is* a market out there that is fairly active and WotC chooses to not serve with their products despite serving it with their previous edition of the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Nagol said:


> WotC did take concerns and complaints into consideration where they could.  The removal of the heavily descriptive Wizard school names, the descision not to advance Eberron, getting feedback from the char-op playtesters are examples of this.




Point taken.

But they had a vision, determined before the announcement, and they followed it despite commentary.  And this was, I would argue, overall A Good Thing.

I want WotC to value our input, now, about what sorts of adventures, etc., they devise, and what format they use.  And I want WotC to value our input about 4e _*when devising a vision for 5e*_.  But I am overall happy that they had a vision for 4e.  _4e is a better game than it would have been without such a vision._  Even if it is not the game for me!

(And, yes, earlier I was stung by the frankness of some WotC statements to this effect.  I was in the wrong then.  Better to have a clear vision than no vision at all.)


RC


----------



## Umbran

Doug McCrae said:


> What would it be then, for rules to lack verisimilitude? Contain contradictions? Say in one place that magic armor is half the weight of normal armor and in another that it is virtually weightless?




Yes, that would count.



> Contain multiple discrete subsystems?




Not necessarily an issue, as not everything in the world works the same - playing tennis is not much like research chemistry.  Different subsystems can be okay.



> Like overbearing and pummeling and turning undead all use different mechanics?




Well, here's where we sometimes get a problem, and sometimes not.

I would expect pummeling to be only slightly different from hitting a person with a sword.  Overbearing a target yet more different, and maybe needs a bit of a different mechanic, maybe not - it'd depend on the specifics.  The 1e systems for this - yes, a bit of verisimilitude problem.

Unless turning undead is largely comprised of beating my fist against the vampire's face, I don't think using a different mechanic for it is problematic.  



> I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about a ruleset lacking verisimilitude. They are referring to a contradiction in what the rules say and in what they perceive as the reality of the game world.




It seems to me that the rules *define* the reality of the game world.  If your perception doesn't match, there are two basic possibilities I see:

1) The rules are not written well, so that you cannot gain an accurate perception of their implications - this is an issue of lack of clarity, not lack of verisimilitude.

2) Something other than the rules is giving you your perception of the world.  It is this other thing, then, that lacks verisimilitude.

Perhaps there is a chicken-and-egg thing going here - which comes first, the rules, or the perception of the world they represent?


----------



## Shazman

Did they really take concerns and complaints into consideration where it counts?  If so, I think 4E FR would be a lot more like the setting of the past, something concrete and official would have been done to address the "grind" issue, and the constant nerfing of player abilities via "rules updates' would be lessened.


----------



## Umbran

Shazman said:


> Did they really take concerns and complaints into consideration where it counts?




There are several ways to define "where it counts": Where it counts to me, as an individual, with my particular tastes?  Or, where it counts to the bottom line of the company?

We have a major point here - as far as we can tell, the game sells.  Lots of people still like it.  The proof is in the pudding, isn't it?


----------



## Nagol

Raven Crowking said:


> Point taken.
> 
> But they had a vision, determined before the announcement, and they followed it despite commentary.  And this was, I would argue, overall A Good Thing.
> 
> I want WotC to value our input, now, about what sorts of adventures, etc., they devise, and what format they use.  And I want WotC to value our input about 4e _*when devising a vision for 5e*_.  But I am overall happy that they had a vision for 4e.  _4e is a better game than it would have been without such a vision._  Even if it is not the game for me!
> 
> (And, yes, earlier I was stung by the frankness of some WotC statements to this effect.  I was in the wrong then.  Better to have a clear vision than no vision at all.)
> 
> 
> RC




I agree a clear, well-articulated vision is a great thing.  

From my perspective, for how I use D&D, their vision of the game did not match what I use the D&D game system for.  Their articulation saved me some money as I stopped purchasing the game material after the Player's Handbook confident that the public statements were accurate.

I think 4e is an OK game, but it doesn't scratch the right place for me to use it.  

To 'win me back as a customer',  WotC will have to create a game that does fit within my preferences and then articulate its capability sufficiently well to lure me into spending the time to look at it.


----------



## MrMyth

Shazman said:


> Did they really take concerns and complaints into consideration where it counts? If so, I think 4E FR would be a lot more like the setting of the past, something concrete and official would have been done to address the "grind" issue, and the constant nerfing of player abilities via "rules updates' would be lessened.




Quite a few things have been done to address the "grind" issue.

Fixing unbalanced mechanics with regular Errata is something many players want. 

Look, this is a perfect example of the dilemma they face. Every choice they make, every decision, might win some people over _but drive others away_.

The issue isn't figuring out what the disenchanted want. It is figuring out what they want, that WotC can provide, without costing them other portions of their current audience. 

There are things they could change that some have asked for that would absolutely drive me away. 

There are also things they could change that I would be all for, or completely indifferent to. If _Come And Get It_ is such a problem for people, I would have no objection to them inserting an attack line vs Will to represent 'tricking' enemies into approaching. 

On the other hand, I absolutely don't want to see them stop Errata and updates because some people are objecting to it. 

What does WotC do? They can't make everyone happy. They clearly are _trying_ - Essentials, and the Red Box, have quite a few elements that seem intended to help draw in players they have lost. For some, it might not be enough. For others, as we've seen, it is _too much_, and current players might be upset about that. 

For others, it may be just right. No matter what decision they make, it will always have those who disagree with it. I'm reasonably sure they do pay attention to discussions like this, and try to solve problems where they can - but they have to keep in mind the desires of an incredibly vast array of gamers all with distinct opinions, not to mention corporate concerns, business concerns, and various other elements that many of us have no real knowledge of. 

It is easy to say that "Doing Plan A" or "Releasing Product B" would fix everything, but reality is rarely going to actually be that easy.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

cperkins said:


> To come back into the fold, I'd need WotC to:
> 2] Ditch 4th edition and go back to D&D's roots to create a game that strongly resembles the D&D that I've played for the past 30 years.  There is room for innovation and streamlining (I'm thinking of d20/OGL games like _Star Wars: Saga Edition_ and _Castles & Crusades_) while still keeping the classic D&D tropes.






TheYeti1775 said:


> Haven't you notice there hasn't been one suggestion (outside of the bring on 5E) to fully change 4E?




Page 5 of this thread says otherwise.


----------



## Shazman

Umbran said:


> There are several ways to define "where it counts": Where it counts to me, as an individual, with my particular tastes?  Or, where it counts to the bottom line of the company?
> 
> We have a major point here - as far as we can tell, the game sells.  Lots of people still like it.  The proof is in the pudding, isn't it?




Well, I don't think that changing a few names for wizard traditions or some fighter powers is really a big enough deal to mention.  As far as the Eberron timeline goes, I don't think that they were set on advancing the timeline anyways, so I'm not sure if they decided not too in response to complaints.  There were many complaints about what they did to FR, and they didn't bat an eye at utterly destroying their most popular campaign setting.  "Where it counts" would have been addressing some major concerns people had with some of the mechanics, some of the changes in philosphy of game design, and some catastrophic changes to FR by making some of the changes less drastic.  In other words, they should have been open to input on what D&D fans wanted for a new edition of D&D, instead of giving the designers free reign to make a game that they wanted to play, and then push it on D&D fans as a whole.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Raven Crowking said:


> Perhaps they realized that those customers actually bought things.



Speaking for myself, I bought _everything_.  I actually created a lengthy thread a while back asking why WotC "fired" me as a customer.

The idea of going back to that level of completism leaves me ... conflicted.


----------



## BlackMoria

What could WOTC do ...

Let's see, I got kicked to the curb because, beside playing D&D since '74, I didn't fit the target demographic anymore and they want the snot nose kid and his buddies from down the block at their game table now and not me.

To add insult to injury, they killed the FR with that damnable spellplague and the mega timeline jump, which to me, it is like shooting my dog.

Message received and understood.  I'll keep off the lawn.


----------



## Mournblade94

Shazman said:


> Well, I don't think that changing a few names for wizard traditions or some fighter powers is really a big enough deal to mention.  As far as the Eberron timeline goes, I don't think that they were set on advancing the timeline anyways, so I'm not sure if they decided not too in response to complaints.  There were many complaints about what they did to FR, and they didn't bat an eye at utterly destroying their most popular campaign setting.  "Where it counts" would have been addressing some major concerns people had with some of the mechanics, some of the changes in philosphy of game design, and some catastrophic changes to FR by making some of the changes less drastic.  In other words, they should have been open to input on what D&D fans wanted for a new edition of D&D, instead of giving the designers free reign to make a game that they wanted to play, and then push it on D&D fans as a whole.




When it comes to forgetten realms it is clear they did not listen to the fans.  There WERE D&D fans that wanted the realms changed, but it was not the majority of FR fans.  They could have switched to 4e and left the realms as is, really.  It is not that difficult an adjustment to make, and skilled writers would be able to explain the new rules set.  Some upheaval could have occured, but really the massive realms destruction was the icing on the cake for alot of realms fans.  4e was not the rules system I liked, but I might have stuck with it if it allowed me to tell stories in the same realms.  After the change... the Game changes and the realms were scarcely recognizable.  This drove many realms fans away in droves.

I honestly beleive, if they kept the realms largely untouched, they would have kept many realms fans.  

Essentially realms fan were told to Deal with your rules change, and deal with the nonsensical changes to the story setting you loved.  

Pathfinder fills the gap for 3rd edition, and Golarion fills the gap for the realms (Even with most of the veteran realms designers and writers)  i.e. Sean Reynolds and Elaine Cunningham, et al.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Page 5 of this thread says otherwise.




I thought that was clarified as a request for a new edition that moves back towards traditional D&D?  In which case, Page 5 of this thread does not say otherwise.

I suspect that D&D editions are like movie sequels -- if the edition/sequel has an odd number, it is more likely to be widely accepted than if it has an even number.    There are always exceptions....Empire Strikes Back is better than Star Wars or Return of the Jedi, for example.  

In any event, I am not at all sure that "the game sells".  Or at least, that the game sells anywhere near where hopes/projections had expected it to sell.  The Essentials line, the market share of Pathfinder, the layoffs, etc., may be indications to the contrary.

We don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if 5e came sooner than expected, and moved in the direction of earlier editions.  After all, it has been suggested that the Essentials line is already a move in this direction. 

Time will tell.  It always does.


RC


-


----------



## crazy_cat

innerdude said:


> So how could Wizards best extend an olive branch to us, the Disenchanted?



I don't know about everybody else, but I've got a pretty busy weekend lined up so if somebody from WOTC could come round and cut the grass and do my garden that would be much appreciated


----------



## Keefe the Thief

BlackMoria said:


> Let's see, I got kicked to the curb because, beside playing D&D since '74, I didn't fit the target demographic anymore and they want the snot nose kid and his buddies from down the block at their game table now and not me.




I tell you, they are everywhere. I even know a 16-year-old that bought a reaper miniature not long ago. They are everywhere.


----------



## Dausuul

Raven Crowking said:


> I suspect that D&D editions are like movie sequels -- if the edition/sequel has an odd number, it is more likely to be widely accepted than if it has an even number.    There are always exceptions....Empire Strikes Back is better than Star Wars or Return of the Jedi, for example.




"Empire Strikes Back" is Episode V. 

Edited to add, on a more serious note: More to the point, 4E is a massive batch of experiments in new mechanics and approaches to the game. I'm not sure that's how it was intended, but it's what happened. And as with any massive batch of experiments, some turned out well, and some... not so much. So it's no surprise that 5E would involve "reverting" the things that didn't fly.

Edited to add further, to TheYeti1775: Episodes I and II? Never heard of 'em. There were only three Star Wars movies, Lucas just gave them peculiar numbers.


----------



## TheYeti1775

BlackMoria said:


> What could WOTC do ...
> 
> Let's see, I got kicked to the curb because, beside playing D&D since '74, I didn't fit the target demographic anymore and they want the snot nose kid and his buddies from down the block at their game table now and not me.
> 
> To add insult to injury, they killed the FR with that damnable spellplague and the mega timeline jump, which to me, it is like shooting my dog.
> 
> Message received and understood.  I'll keep off the lawn.




Doesn't really help the OP.  It's a question of what could bring you back to the fold, not what kicked you to the curb.

Besides you know your group didn't have to accept the spellplague as written.  I know many campaigns that simply ignored it and are still using the Gray Box for it's Realmslore.


----------



## Mallus

Multiquote go!



Doug McCrae said:


> Yeah, the game text always at least suggests, and often describes, a world. In the case of D&D it's a world that seems somewhat like our own. Horses act like horses, swords like swords, physical objects move in the same way.



This is a really important point. To the extent a realistic (or verisimilitudenous -- God that's hard to type after a few pints at lunch) world is created, it's created using text, narration, descriptions in plain speech. The world described by the game's mechanics, especially when treated as a kind of 'physics', is nonsensical, if you give it more than a moments consideration.   



> Verisimilitude might mean writerly tricks...



This is the best way to think of how verisimilitude/realism is produced. Tricks/techniques/signifiers which help to create the illusion of the familiar world of actual experience. If your looking for the semblance of realism in a bunch of algorithms (simple enough to be usable at the gaming table), you're looking in the wrong place.  



Celebrim said:


> They are the first generation of D&D books that are actually boring to me.



Everything after the 1e rules where deadly dull to me, and the AD&D rules where only interesting inasmuch as they, much like the writing of Frank Herbert, constantly had me debating 'is this good prose or bad?'. I'd rather take my inspiration from prose stylists like Jack Vance himself, and not the 1e DMG.



pawsplay said:


> It works on oozes.



Perhaps the fighter is dangling their most tasty, protein-rich bits at the ooze? Note: I have now, and sadly not for the first time, creeped myself out.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Mallus said:


> Perhaps the fighter is dangling their most tasty, protein-rich bits at the ooze? Note: I have now, and sadly not for the first time, creeped myself out.



Ah, yes, the dreaded Teabag Ooze.


----------



## Mallus

Jeff Wilder said:


> Ah, yes, the dreaded Teabag Ooze.



That's either my next PC or the next monster I throw at my group when my turn to DM comes back around.


----------



## AllisterH

Personally...I'm kinda amused that WOTC is being faulted for trying to appeal to a new generation of gamers who have grown up on anime and videogames...

I mean, AD&D would never try to be hip by stealing something from popular culture like say a tv show about some white guy playing a monk in a western setting....


----------



## Umbran

BlackMoria said:


> Let's see, I got kicked to the curb because, beside playing D&D since '74, I didn't fit the target demographic anymore and they want the snot nose kid and his buddies from down the block at their game table now and not me.




Well, it isn't you, specifically.  It's your age bracket.  

You've been playing since '74.  You're middle-aged.  You're in with all the folks who have college debts, mortgages, and kids.  Quite frankly, in your age bracket folks have major choices - there's almost nothing considered really disposable income.  On top of that, with the family commitments, you probably don't have time to play anyway.  Marketing to you is a losing proposition.

The snot-nosed kid, on the other hand - every cent he's got can be squandered on drek, and he's got oodles of spare time.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

BlackMoria said:


> Let's see, I got kicked to the curb because, beside playing D&D since '74, I didn't fit the target demographic anymore and they want the snot nose kid and his buddies from down the block at their game table now and not me.




Ironic that *you* were the "snot-nosed" kid back in '74...



Umbran said:


> Well, it isn't you, specifically.  Marketing to you is a losing proposition.




This. Anyone who thinks kids don't spend as much as us adults is out of touch with the reality of kids spending money on frivolities.


----------



## Imaro

AllisterH said:


> Personally...I'm kinda amused that WOTC is being faulted for trying to appeal to a new generation of gamers who have grown up on anime and videogames...
> 
> I mean, AD&D would never try to be hip by stealing something from popular culture like say a tv show about some white guy playing a monk in a western setting....




I think you are simplifying the matter a tad bit. I don't think people are faulting WotC for trying to appeal to a new generation of gamers... but according to their release plans, back when 4e was first announced, that was suppose to be the second phase of 4e not the first. Now we see them tailoring essentials not to actually go after new gamers but, it appears, to moreso entice current (and possibly lapsed) D&D players who aren't playing 4e. 

IMO, this tells me that for many people the changes both in 4e's fluff and mechanics (at the same time wasn't a smart move in my book) didn't sit well with many, current gamers. It seems thye may have dropped the ball by changing too much in the part of their plan that was actually suppose to be appealing to current gamers... and now are trying to make the lost audience back up. I think a better route would have been to keep the original release more classic in it's feel, cosmology and mechanics and then released a different version catered to new players with a brand new fluff and more radical mechanical changes. All IMO, of course.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Doug McCrae said:


> By the rules, the high level barbarian is fantastical, yes, but by this view, the rules are not taken as axiomatic first principles. They can be wrong.




If you're going to start rooting out all the ways in which high level characters are fantastical, though, you're going to have to do a lot more rooting than just the rules for falling damage.

Taking the same barbarian for example: At 12th-level he's got DR 2/--. When an average guy comes up and stabs this guy with a dagger, half the time the blade literally bounces off his skin. The dagger didn't miss. He just literally wasn't hurt by a sharp piece of metal. He's that tough. Beyond about 8th-level, the extraordinary class abilities fall very much into the "...though they may break the laws of physics" half of the definition.

I can understand that some people may not like the reality being modeled. But it's consistent unto itself.



> Sure, one can come up with D&D world justifications for the barbarian, in much the same way as Gary tries to justify hit points - skill, luck, divine intervention. But that would mean that a Cure Light Wounds spell 'heals' all those things, as does a few days rest, which is weird. But this is an old argument. Hit points ain't got no verisimilitude.




With the exception of the cure spells, hit points actually work just fine. Assuming you understand how the mechanics work.



> This is exactly the problem with the barbarian, the rules don't fit the  perceived reality of the game world. Making them fit is a struggle, just  as it is with Come And Get It.




And I maintain that there's a fundamental difference between "I don't like that the rules let me play Superman" and "these rules have no explicable connection to the game world".



Doug McCrae said:


> Experience points in OD&D and 1e, which  are gained largely by finding gold, are another rule where gamism trumps  verisimilitude.




Sure. Virtually all character creation and improvement mechanics are dissociated. This includes XP for treasure. And it also includes XP for defeating monsters or achieving story goals. IME, most people who usually have a problem with dissociated mechanics don't have a problem with this because the process of building a character is not the same as the process of playing a character.



Imaro said:


> I think there's more objection to the way 4e mixes  gamism with dramatism, as opposed to just objecting to dramatism itself.  See even with your example above, in 90-95% of most action movies the  major villain will not rush in like some stupid mook. You expect the  mooks to just rush in, but CaGI affects anyone equally... since there is  no way to resist it. That isn't good dramatism IMO, it's sloppy because  gamisim is still king.




I agree. I think the whole "4th edition has narrative control mechanics" is, with rare exception, a bit of a misnomer.

Narrative control mechanics are dissociated mechanics. 4th Edition has dissociated mechanics. This doesn't mean that 4th Edition's dissociated mechanics are, by and large, narrative control mechanics. (Although it's true that a few of them could probably be classified as such.)

CAGI, for example, gives the player control over an NPC's actions in a way that would traditionally be reserved for the GM. But it's not really narrative control that's being taken. It's, for lack of a better term, gamist control.



BryonD said:


> The mechanics LEAD the roleplay.  A player, or DM,  uses a power and then it is the job of the roleplaying to catch up and  fill in the blanks.  I've used the term before: "pop quiz role-playing".




Good point. And the thing about it is that you can do this sort of roleplaying with _any_ game. Play _Monopoly_ and provide a roleplaying reason for why your character suddenly developed an interest in buying Park Place. Play _Arkham Horror_ and act out the journey across town to find a clue. There's nothing wrong with that. But I think that a roleplaying game needs to have the roleplaying lead the mechanics.

"Oh my god! He's saying that 4th Edition isn't a roleplaying game!" No, I'm not. There are still plenty of associated, roleplaying-focused mechanics in the game. Describing it as anything other than an RPG would be silly.


----------



## BlackMoria

Umbran said:


> Well, it isn't you, specifically.  It's your age bracket.
> 
> You've been playing since '74.  You're middle-aged.  You're in with all the folks who have college debts, mortgages, and kids.  Quite frankly, in your age bracket folks have major choices - there's almost nothing considered really disposable income.  On top of that, with the family commitments, you probably don't have time to play anyway.  Marketing to you is a losing proposition.
> 
> The snot-nosed kid, on the other hand - every cent he's got can be squandered on drek, and he's got oodles of spare time.




Middle-Aged?!  Thank you.  Being aged 54 and being called middle aged is nice for a change.  Not what the snot nose kid and his buddies called me.

I guessed they didn't like me telling them to keep off the lawn....


----------



## Mournblade94

BlackMoria said:


> Middle-Aged?!  Thank you.  Being aged 54 and being called middle aged is nice for a change.  Not what the snot nose kid and his buddies called me.
> 
> I guessed they didn't like me telling them to keep off the lawn....



You would have been that older teenager guy in the complete strategist (Local Gamestore) that my friends and I used to pester.  You would have been the guy that has been gaming forever, and we wanted to know as much about D&D as YOU!

Then you would scoff at us for not knowing who Cthulhu is, and we would have to go buy Deities and Demigods to find out.  You would laugh at our painted minis, and we would absorb all we could from you.  If we got in YOUR D&D group we would brag about it to our friends.  We played D&D with THEM!  

NO WAY!  You must know everything now!

I would be in 6th grade but you would be a freshman in college, proving to us it was not a game just for kids like my parents said...  Oh yeah and not just for satanists either.

I grew up in the "my kid is a satanist" erra.  Just because I liked AD&D, Ozzy, and Iron MAiden.


----------



## The Little Raven

Imaro said:


> IMO, this tells me that for many people the changes both in 4e's fluff and mechanics (at the same time wasn't a smart move in my book) didn't sit well with many, current gamers.




The fluff and mechanics aren't changing. It's still 4e mechanics and 4e fluff. The only real big changes are the new builds, which don't change the game, they just add new build options. If anything, they're doubling down by doing a second 4e core rules release and books like the Nentir Vale Gazetteer.


----------



## Imaro

The Little Raven said:


> The fluff and mechanics aren't changing. It's still 4e mechanics and 4e fluff. The only real big changes are the new builds, which don't change the game, they just add new build options. If anything, they're doubling down by doing a second 4e core rules release and books like the Nentir Vale Gazetteer.




Re-read my entire post, and tell me what your statement has to do with what I am conveying please... because I never said they were doing anything to 4e's fluff or mechanics in the Essentials line. 

Side Note: They are however adding new mechanics that allow for magic schools, more vancian casting and other throwbacks to older editions... Oh, yeah and let's not forget a "retro-box"


----------



## Nagol

Umbran said:


> Well, it isn't you, specifically.  It's your age bracket.
> 
> You've been playing since '74.  You're middle-aged.  You're in with all the folks who have college debts, mortgages, and kids.  Quite frankly, in your age bracket folks have major choices - there's almost nothing considered really disposable income.  On top of that, with the family commitments, you probably don't have time to play anyway.  Marketing to you is a losing proposition.
> 
> The snot-nosed kid, on the other hand - every cent he's got can be squandered on drek, and he's got oodles of spare time.




ROFL, 

I have more after-tax disposable income this year than 2-3 years of ttoal salary back in university days.

Middle-age years are the time of greatest income since careers are hitting peak.


----------



## Verdande

Yeah, I dunno about you guys, but my peers, who are heavily into anime and video games, don't have all that much money. We're working minimum wage jobs, bankrupting ourselves on college, and generally trying to save as much money as possible.

We're the ones who jump on anything free, cheap, or discounted. We're not the ones who are able to afford three-four 40$ books to play a game. We're the ones who steal dice from our parent's Monopoly set to have enough d6s to roll for damage. 

Just putting it out there.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Umbran said:


> Perhaps there is a chicken-and-egg thing going here - which comes first, the rules, or the perception of the world they represent?



That's a good question. For some, fusangite for example, it's the former. The rules are the laws of physics of the game world. I believe this to be a fairly rare view though, for most there is a perception of the secondary world's 'sub-reality' which supercedes the rules. Though oftentimes we just let the rules get away with their filthy lies so the game can move forward at a reasonable pace.


----------



## BryonD

Umbran said:


> Well, it isn't you, specifically.  It's your age bracket.
> 
> You've been playing since '74.  You're middle-aged.  You're in with all the folks who have college debts, mortgages, and kids.  Quite frankly, in your age bracket folks have major choices - there's almost nothing considered really disposable income.  On top of that, with the family commitments, you probably don't have time to play anyway.  Marketing to you is a losing proposition.
> 
> The snot-nosed kid, on the other hand - every cent he's got can be squandered on drek, and he's got oodles of spare time.



I don't think you have it right here.

I have a lot of financial obligations.  But, I am a gamer and I spend money feeding my habit.  My indulgence budget is more than every cent the snot-nosed kid has.

What the kid has on me is future market position.


----------



## francisca

I'd happily purchase some more 1e AD&D stuff from them in PDF format, provided they were digitally water-marked and not laden with DRM.


----------



## Jasperak

doctorhook said:


> They hang around on the 4E board now, and when they visit the General RPG board, they avoid threads like this one, full of people who don't like 4E patting each other on the back.




Their loss since there always seems to be an about equal amount in the "not-4e" section and double the amount in General.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Beginning of the End said:


> Beyond about 8th-level, the extraordinary class abilities fall very much into the "...though they may break the laws of physics" half of the definition.



Good point about extraordinary abilities. They do tell us that the secondary world in 3e has different physical laws from ours, beyond those of magic.



Beginning of the End said:


> With the exception of the cure spells, hit points actually work just fine. Assuming you understand how the mechanics work.



Good article, so far as it goes, but hit points are still stoopid.

What about when Dupre has taken 99hp damage (by the Alexandrian's reading that makes him very badly wounded) and yet although on 1hp he is operating perfectly well, the same as he was when he had 100hp, no penalty to anything. One could question whether Dupre even knows he's badly wounded. By the abstract reading of hit points Dupre is supposed to be fatigued/low on 'skill'/out of luck, etc and yet he's not fatigued or unskillful or unlucky in any way except that the next blow will be fatal. His damage, spellcasting ability, movement, skill rolls etc are all at maximum capacity. Doesn't that seem lacking in consistency?

There's also the massive damage save. A character with 100hp can be killed by a 50hp blow and yet a character with 12hp cannot be killed by a 6hp blow. By the Alexandrian's interpretation both blows must be of equal severity as they both remove the same percentage of hit points.

And there's hit points and then there's hit points. Dupre's 100 hit points are partly physical but mostly skill, luck, etc. However an elephant or a wall's 100 hit points are all physical. Then there might be halfway cases, such as an efreet, a large-sized creature. What proportion of its 65hp are physical and how many non-physical? Sometimes hit points are one thing and sometimes another, and sometimes halfway between. 

And what about when they finally catch Dupre and put him on the headsman's block. Coup de Grace, dead Dupre, by the 3e rules. But where is Dupre's luck now? Where his divine protection? Why does everything that saved him from a hundred foot fall now desert him?

Now I have no problem with any of the above. My point is merely that 4e doesn't look much different to previous editions in its lack of consistency.


----------



## BryonD

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> This. Anyone who thinks kids don't spend as much as us adults is out of touch with the reality of kids spending money on frivolities.



I think you are confusing fraction of income with raw dollars.

To be clear, I'm not remotely claiming that marketing to younger players is a bad idea.  For one thing, there are a lot MORE of them then there are of me.  For another thing, they will still be buying gaming products when I'm dead.

And, I really don't see anything in 4E that targets younger people that I have a problem with.  Anime, "more dragon men", whatever catch phrase applies, its all good.  I can *easily* re-tool the paint job on the surface of the rules.  It is practically a negligible issue to me.

To me it is all about the gamist all things equitable design core that is the problem.  And I really don't think that has anything to do with age demographic.  And I strongly believe that while 4E may or may not have attracted a larger initial interest, the 5-year, 10-year retention of "gamers" is lower than it would have been with a more "be the character first, this is what RPGs are about" approach.


----------



## Obryn

Mournblade94 said:


> WOTC seemed to always pay attention to these boards.  At least in a lip service sort of way if nothing else.  DO they not do that anymore, or was it only Scott Rouse's personality?
> 
> What changed?  Was it official, or just anecdotal?



They do, but I really don't think it's a great idea to hop into this thread.

I mean, if they're not making a game you like, you're gone for at least a while.  I'm sure they'd like to sell you more things, but if you have zero interest in anything 4e-related, a sales pitch would be ill-advised.  They'll have to concentrate on their current market, and look at expanding to new markets.  Odds are, you're not in either of those groups at the moment, no matter how much you believe they need _your_ money as opposed to someone else's.

If you are angry with them for whatever reason, it's not a great idea to get into that on a messageboard.  Odds are you'd like an apology or an acknowledgement, but they probably don't think they have anything to acknowledge or apologize for.  So if you're looking for an apology, this thread will only deepen ill-will.

If you feel they've offered you personal affront and insult, due to your love of gnomes or otherwise, I don't think there's anything they can do to combat a reaction that's not based in reality in the first place.

If I were with WotC, I'd probably read this thread, but damned if I'd comment.  This is at the point where it's not about the game itself for a lot of people - it's about the company or the personalities or the ethics or all kinds of stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.  Stepping into this kind of thread would be just throwing themselves to the wolves, IMO.

-O


----------



## BryonD

MrMyth said:


> But talking about how the philosophy of 4E prevents one from having truly "outstanding RPG experiences" or can't provide a rewarding experience built around the imaginations of quality players - sorry, but that's pure nonsense.



You are failing to grasp the difference between "prevents" / "can't provide the experience" and "does not provide the best possible support for maximizing the experience".

You can player poker with an old deck of wrinkled and dog-eared cards and all the players know 1/3 of the cards just by seeing their back.

And anyone can say it is a great poker experience.

But playing with a fresh deck provides a better experience.  Both are still poker.  And as I clearly stated, you can easily 100% roleplay a monk on top of the 4E mechanics.

Now, somebody who loved the tattered deck can stamp their foot and insist that there is no difference.  And nobody can force them to say otherwise.  And perhaps they just don't know the difference.

But there is a difference.  

I haven't the slightest quibble with one or the other being the best fit for a certain person's tastes.  There are a lot of people who would vastly prefer an evening of bridge or pokemon or whatever to any kind of RPG.  Being bothered by the preference of 4E makes no more sense than being bothered by one of those preferences.

But to simply declare an equivalence is the nonsense.  There are differences and those differences change the qualities.


----------



## Jasperak

What I find interesting about this thread is that there is nothing new here. I see the same comments that have been made over the past 2-3 years. The only difference is this thread hasn't been locked like all of the others. Though the message is still the same.

It will be interesting to see if Essentials is an olive branch to the people they kicked off their lawn.


----------



## Celebrim

Doug McCrae said:


> Now I have no problem with any of the above. My point is merely that 4e doesn't look much different to previous editions in its lack of consistency.




Maybe, but we are gamers.  Most of us know about the inconsistancies in the hit point abstraction used by D&D.  We've been making jokes about them since the early stages of the game.  Most of us also have played other game system that don't use hit points, and we know about the tradeoffs involved in doing so.  Very few players of any game play it for long without realizing or discovering for themselves how the different sorts of abstractions fall apart in actual play.  And most of us who still play D&D have made the decision that the advantages of the hit point model out weigh its disadvantages.  We in practice find a way to narrate the abstraction in a way that seems more consistant than it actually is.  

Let's not pretend that everyone here is stupid.  This is a pretty knowledgable crowd and many of us either are game designers or could do it if you stuck a gun at our heads and said, "Rulesmith or die."  When a designer uses some sort of abstraction to represent something complex - like a wound - in a way that is simple (like hit points) we are able to make a reasonably informed decision about why that was done and what therefore we think about the tradeoff that was made between realism/versimlitude and gamist concerns like speed of play and ease of bookkeeping.

The problem I think 4e has is that for most existing gamers, D&D already occupied the position of most abstract sort of system we played.  Many of us earlier in our careers probably dabbled with systems like RoleMaster or GURPS (GULLIVER!) or what not that tried to do very complex simulations.  And we learned eventually that there was no free lunch; that if you traded off some abstraction to have wounds and hit locations and so forth you gain other different and sometimes considerable problems.  So those that stuck with D&D on the whole did so because it was as abstract of a system as we could play to achieve a particular result.  There were a small percentage of players that looked at D&D and said, "I need something more abstract.", but that market has never been strong enough to support really large communities.  Most of D&D's competitors try to be less abstract and more 'realistic'.  

So along comes 4e and for my part my anticipation was that issues like 'hit points are stoopid' and other issues arising from poor versimilitude were going to be high on the list of things to address.  Instead, I got a game system where the decision was made that round approximations of a circle on a grid were too difficult, and instead we'd just use square bursts.  No, I understand the trade off being made here, but quite franklly, I DO UNDERSTAND THE TRADE OFF BEING MADE HERE.  I'm not stupid.  I know the D&D model has never been a perfect simulation.  I left the game at one point on a quest to find the better simulation.   You aren't telling me anything by lecturing me on how D&D has always been abstract. 

The really obvious problem you are missing is that D&D has always been almost too abstract to play and has always been almost too close to failing basic versimilitude tests to endure.  Almost too much, but, after a bunch of experimentation and alot of cleaning up the system by the 3e designers, almost but not too much.  And honestly, after 25 years in gaming, I find myself coming to realize just how much D&D got right from the start and how little of its core principles need to be messed with.  Those sacred cows: the didn't become sacred arbitrarily which is what I'd arrogantly thought when I was a snot nosed pimple faced DM thinking I could certainly build the better system.

4e may be building on a legacy of so abstract that it can be 'stoopid' but it went in the wrong direction.  Just because I except this much crap in a trade off to get something, doesn't mean I'll accept twice as much crap to achieve particular goals which apparantly were important to the designers but which would have not been listed in my top 20 peeves with 3e.


----------



## Kobold Boots

On hit points.

Should you decide to have the discussion about the validity of HP as a mechanic, I'd advise that looking at the statistic granularly will cause you a loss of clarity.

Think of HP as a combination of tenacity, endurance and paper cuts.  Ok, you've been hit... what kind of hit?  Ok.. you took 30 points of damage and have 90 something.. you're bruised and shaken up by that hit.  You're bloodied?  Hey guess what.. that means you're bloodied.. you're cut open and you're dealing with nicks and tears.. perhaps the kind that you'd receive in real life from falling off a bike going full speed.  It hurts.. it's going to slow you down some.. you might be a little strained.

Only when you hit zero does someone catch you good enough to land a serious blow, one that makes you stop and fall.  You may still be conscious, you might not be.  But you're down.  I liken this to the "getting grazed by a bus and knocked silly" effect that would happen to a normal human being.. 

Heroes are not normals.  It takes a lot more to knock them silly.  

By the way this also makes the healing surges and other concepts like bloodied, make a lot more sense.  You've not sustained a horrible pulsating, potentially fatal gash until you hit zero.  A lot of the reasons people have against hit points happen because of an unrealistic expectation that 30 points of damage should be a limb rending hit.. 

Well.. no.. it shouldn't to a hero.

KB


----------



## I'm A Banana

> It will be interesting to see if Essentials is an olive branch to the people they kicked off their lawn.




They didn't quite manage to kick me off, I just constantly gripe about the landscaping. . The Essentials line, as far as I've seen, does a lot to shut me up. Not everything, probably, not all I'd really like, and I can see why people would want more fundamental changes than that.

For me, though, it doesn't really matter that, two years ago, WotC may have said my 3e game sucked, and may have turned halflings into 3/4ling river-rats, and may have given Tieflings the look of a kid with down's syndrome. I'll keep calling out the junk I see, and I'll keep praising the awesome I see.

And, for one, making magic missile an auto-hit ability is *danged awesome*.


----------



## Lanefan

TheYeti1775 said:


> I can readily admit to buying books just because I wanted to see what they contained.



Ditto - I've bought the core 3 books for each edition on release, mostly to see what they had done to the system and whether there was anything I could use/convert/adapt.  Ditto for all the various versions of Forgotten Realms up until 4e; and assorted other books from various editions.

I bought the "Worlds and Monsters" 4e preview book for the art, period.  I've already dreamed up and run one adventure and have ideas for a few more, based only on pictures in that book. (I will say that after W+M set the pace I was somewhat disappointed in the art in the core 3...)

Lan-"I'll take a good idea from anywhere I can find it"-efan


----------



## Obryn

BryonD said:


> You are failing to grasp the difference between "prevents" / "can't provide the experience" and "does not provide the best possible support for maximizing the experience".
> 
> You can player poker with an old deck of wrinkled and dog-eared cards and all the players know 1/3 of the cards just by seeing their back.
> 
> And anyone can say it is a great poker experience.
> 
> But playing with a fresh deck provides a better experience. Both are still poker. And as I clearly stated, you can easily 100% roleplay a monk on top of the 4E mechanics.
> 
> Now, somebody who loved the tattered deck can stamp their foot and insist that there is no difference. And nobody can force them to say otherwise. And perhaps they just don't know the difference.
> 
> But there is a difference.
> 
> I haven't the slightest quibble with one or the other being the best fit for a certain person's tastes. There are a lot of people who would vastly prefer an evening of bridge or pokemon or whatever to any kind of RPG. Being bothered by the preference of 4E makes no more sense than being bothered by one of those preferences.
> 
> But to simply declare an equivalence is the nonsense. There are differences and those differences change the qualities.



Still with the tee-ball analogies, eh?  Only minus the tee-balls?

You're still getting it entirely wrong, and I'm kind of surprised by it.  There's no such thing as overall RPG quality or quality of gaming experiences outside of its interaction with a given group of people.  You can talk about production quality, sure.  And you can talk about textual density, and a rule-set's goals.  What's more, you can evaluate the rule set and whether or not it matches up to specific goals - either genre (does this game emulate a given tv show or movie adequately?) or group-based (does this game present the degree of simulation that we want?)

Pretending like there's an objective measure of quality that rests outside of preference is asinine and condescending.  You're basically saying, "It's objectively crap and objectively can't obtain the true levels of RPG awesomeness like my favorite game can.  I don't find your preference of crap offensive, but ha-ha, I know that you like crap."

Now, if you said, "4e fails to provide the experience of 3e," I'd agree.  If you said, "3e fails to provide the experience of 4e," I'd agree.  But pretending like 3e experiences or 4e experiences are objectively superior to one another outside of a given group's preferences is 100% ridiculous.

-O


----------



## Mournblade94

Obryn said:


> They do, but I really don't think it's a great idea to hop into this thread.
> 
> I mean, if they're not making a game you like, you're gone for at least a while.  I'm sure they'd like to sell you more things, but if you have zero interest in anything 4e-related, a sales pitch would be ill-advised.  They'll have to concentrate on their current market, and look at expanding to new markets.  Odds are, you're not in either of those groups at the moment, no matter how much you believe they need _your_ money as opposed to someone else's.
> 
> If you are angry with them for whatever reason, it's not a great idea to get into that on a messageboard.  Odds are you'd like an apology or an acknowledgement, but they probably don't think they have anything to acknowledge or apologize for.  So if you're looking for an apology, this thread will only deepen ill-will.
> 
> If you feel they've offered you personal affront and insult, due to your love of gnomes or otherwise, I don't think there's anything they can do to combat a reaction that's not based in reality in the first place.
> 
> If I were with WotC, I'd probably read this thread, but damned if I'd comment.  This is at the point where it's not about the game itself for a lot of people - it's about the company or the personalities or the ethics or all kinds of stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.  Stepping into this kind of thread would be just throwing themselves to the wolves, IMO.
> 
> -O




I'm not referencing this thread.  I'm refering to the boards in general.  I would not expect them to respond in a thread such as this.

it seems to me that many boards of which I am a fan have had minimal WOTC presence of late.  Not that I mind.  WOTC no longer prints any games I wish to play.


----------



## LostSoul

BryonD said:


> There are differences and those differences change the qualities.




The best way I heard it described was by Vincent Baker on his blog.  He said something like rules are like channels carved into the ground; when you pour water, the rules guide the water along certain paths.  If you want to pour your water somewhere else, that'll work, but the rules help to guide it a certain way.

As I was saying on my playtest thread, the simple fact that I changed the names of the skills made big changes in the way that the game was played.  I drew channels, the water flowed down them.

What really interests me these days is how all the rules add up over long-term play.


----------



## Jack Daniel

What would WotC have to do to get me back as a customer?  Interesting question... and quite a thread it's spawned.  One simply cannot discount the significant fraction of players who seem disillusioned with 4th edition and yet still want to be a part of the current and officially supported incarnation of D&D.  Something here must be striking a chord.

Speaking personally, I'm turned off by the weird and inexplicable changes made to the implied setting of D&D -- the grinding-up of all those sacred cows into so much discarded hamburger, to beat a favorite cliche to death.  Combine that with the relative complexity of the 4e rules, and you have an utterly unfamiliar RPG that I would have no reason to even discuss on a web forum, never mind actually buy and play, if it didn't happen to carry the D&D brand name on the cover of all the books.

So... what would WotC actually have to do to earn my money?  They would need to make D&D into something very different from what it is now.  They would need to release an edition of the game that (1) restores the atmosphere of pre-4e D&D and (2) makes complexity optional.  They would have to release a 5th edition of D&D with the same emphasis on story, character, and setting that marked 2nd edition; an edition that makes "system mastery" and character "building" absolutely optional, ideally present in supplementary rulebooks and not in the core game; an edition with a greatly decreased focus on combat, to the point where the disclaimer from the 2nd edition rulebooks -- "AD&D is not a combat game" -- could appear in the 5th edition as well.  

(Note that an overall, system-wide de-emphasis on combat does not mean eliminating miniatures and tactical battles.  Keep the assumption of grids and minis, by all means.  Just simplify, simplify, simplify.)

Ditch the whole "dungeon-punk skirmish game, now with tiefling warlocks and dragonborn nounverbers" shtick.  Ditch powers and builds.  Bring back spell levels.  Scale hit points to the dice we're rolling.  (I mean, for crying out loud, a longsword is supposed to be dealing 1 to 8 points of damage!)

Last time I checked, an adventuring party was supposed to consist of a human, a dwarf, an elf, and a halfling.  Of course, to have a balanced party, those four adventurers have to fill each of the four major roles... warrior, wizard, priest, and rogue.  (You can call them defender, controller, leader, and striker if you wish, but you're not fooling anybody.  2nd edition had classes and kits -- where 4th edition calls them roles and classes.  Same difference.)


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

I don't like swift radical changes. The changes were radical enough that I'm kind of of the self-delusional opinion that 4e has been a long, expanded, public playtest of new mechanics and system philosophies.

I rarely like participating in playtests. 

Most of the time I feel like I will just wait it out until the playtest is all done and the most successful ideas get applied onto a D&D that is familiar with what I've played before.


----------



## Particle_Man

Mac compatibility for all of their software would be nice.

Having even one dedicated "earlier editions" guy on their staff, to fix errata (like ToB), add stuff to the 3rd ed OGL, manage pdf sales for earlier editions, be a "Sage" for earlier editions questions, etc.

An OGL for 4th ed.  I would like to see what 3rd party folk can do if they have a free hand.


----------



## Jack99

Jasperak said:


> Their loss since there always seems to be an about equal amount in the "not-4e" section and double the amount in General.




Why would you expect WotC guys spend their time in the section for games that they do no longer support and/or make?


----------



## Orius

Sammael said:


> I've said it before: WotC needs to turn DDI into a repository of all that is D&D - both past and present. This way, all D&D players would have an incentive to subscribe, regardless of their edition preference. Since the addition of older edition stuff would be a one-time-only endeavor, WotC could focus on the current edition and still make money off of its older products from those who prefer them.
> 
> For starters, take the AD&D core rules 2.0 and integrate them with the DDI database. Since it's all in a reasonably portable electronic format, this project shouldn't take more than 2 employee/months (if that much).




That would be good and not just for the older gamers who don't want to switch to new rules.  How many younger gamers develop an interest in the classic stuff at some point?  The problem is the old stuff is only legally available on eBay and some of the asking prices get nuts.  It's all about rarity driving up the price, I see some of the same stuff with videogames which is just as irritating.  

I think WotC handles these things very conservatively because of TSR's bad bsiness practices.  Too many product lines, the D&D/AD&D split and so on really carved up the audience. So WotC seems to do everything it can to provide just one product line.  However, there's still splits because D&D fanbase has grown to be massively unpleasable.  

I want to believe that making the previous edition .pdfs available again without overly restrictive DRM will be a good thing for WotC and players.  But honestly, I don't know enough about business to know whether this is actually true or not, I want it to be true so I don't have to rely on something like eBay to pick up a classic gem I missed out on before.  Having limited reprint runs of classic materials might be a good alternative _*IF*_ it can be done cost effectively.  Or maybe comrehensive compiled classic rules, though the old Basic D&D rules could just reprint the old RC.

Having character builders for the older rules would be great for some of use, but there are problems there too.  It diverts resources from developing stuff for 4e players, who are probably a bigger base of users.  There's always the "no Mac support!" complaints.  And WotC has had problems in the past with these things, particularly e-Tools and Gleemax.  

I doubt either the OGL or printing new material for previous editions will ever happen.  It's just not worth it for WotC.  The OGL I think is something that isn't necessarily good for a company over the financial long-term; the fact that people can just download the SRD or go to a webpage that has it means less reason for even the core books to be bought.  Printing new material for older edition risks splitting the fan base; 4e fans will be angry they're not printing material for them, and there's the risk that it won't appeal to older fans anyway.  I'm thinking particularly of everything that's happened with the Greyhawk line, so many bridges had been incinerated there in the past that too many people didn't come back, and then there were those whose campagins had so greatly diverged to to point where the material was at best difficult for them to use. 



Dire Bare said:


> If WotC spent any manpower/money on releasing new material for older editions that would be splitting the market . . . and it would be a bad business decision.




The whole problem with splitting the market is the market has already been split, and a lot of significant damage was done back in the TSR days.  To their credit, WotC did try to repair a lot of that damage when Adkinson was running things, but it wasn't enough for some fans.  The whole "you're playing wrong" approach to promoting 4e probably inflicted some damage as well, as well as some of the big changes in tone and/or rules and blowing up the Realms.  

I know some of the flavor of the older material might not appeal to younger players or seem dorky to them.  I don't think this is WotC's fault.  I think it's a general pop cultural fault as a whole that emphasizes generation gaps.  It's been going on for a while, with roots back into the 50s and 60s, and I'm not sure it's something that for society is healthy as a whole.  Yeah, some aspects of generation gap happens naturally as parents don't realize their offspring aren't children any more but still treat them as such when the kids are feeling the need to be more independant.  But to play things up to such an extent where whole generations get estranged from each other and can't relate to each other seems dangerous and/or wrong to me for some reason.  





TheYeti1775 said:


> Besides you know your group didn't have to accept the spellplague as written.  I know many campaigns that simply ignored it and are still using the Gray Box for it's Realmslore.




Easier said than done.  Ask some long time Greyhawk players how easy it is to ignore the Greyhawk Wars.  These sorts of things go a long way to fragmenting player bases.


----------



## Reigan

So hard core gamers would rather the entire rpg hobby wither and die rather than have the gateway system that is D&D be actually playable by all those pesky new and casual gamers.
Brilliant.


----------



## Wicht

Reigan said:


> So hard core gamers would rather the entire rpg hobby wither and die rather than have the gateway system that is D&D be actually playable by all those pesky new and casual gamers.
> Brilliant.




Who said that?

I doubt many of us equate a WotC who sells things we want to by with the death of RPGs. Paizo sells things I want to buy (too many things - not enough money) and they seem to be doing very, very well.  With young players even.


----------



## nedjer

Reigan said:


> So hard core gamers would rather the entire rpg hobby wither and die rather than have the gateway system that is D&D be actually playable by all those pesky new and casual gamers.
> Brilliant.




Go on, you don't really believe hardcore gamers want the hobby to wither and die? In many ways they remain the 'lifeblood' of the hobby, and a significant proportion of those who GM and go beyond learning a system to the stage where they make their own mark on a system.

It'd maybe just be good if they recognised the disproportionate role their buying power, purchase decisions and opinions have on shaping company policies; and take account of roleplaying as a whole when acting on the market aka stop being so conservative. (That's with a small c)


----------



## Doug McCrae

Kobold Boots, interesting that you mention the bloodied mechanic, which opens up penalties (monsters get special attacks on you) and options. In a way that makes hit points a little more verisimilitudinous than they have been previously.



Kobold Boots said:


> Think of HP as a combination of tenacity, endurance and paper cuts.



That works well for 4e, given how quickly wounds heal and that a sergeant shouting at you can cure them.

The problems with this approach (thinking of all editions here) are:
1) Why do paper cuts require so much healing magic to cure? For example in 3e a 100hp PC on 1hp would need more than 10 Cure Light Wounds spells to be fully restored.
2) Why (at least prior to 4e) do they take so long to heal?
3) The player becomes dissociated from the character, to use the Alexandrian's phrase. The player knows that his PC on 1hp is close to death, but the character doesn't. Metagaming is required.

Wounds healing in six hours and being cured by warlords are probably the two major issues people have with verisimilitude in 4e. They suggest hit points that are less physical than they have been in previous editions. Though, paradoxically, due to the bloodied mechanic, hit point loss that stays above zero now has more of an effect.

The Alexandrian's approach is that a wound is partly physical and partly non-physical. Say a 10hp blow means 1hp of real injury and 9hp of 'luck loss'. But how can the warlord cure that 1hp of real injury with his Inspiring Word? Could any real injury completely heal in a day? However I don't see a shift from 90% abstract hp to 100% to be that big of a change.

Upthread, Beginning of the End mentioned 3e's extraordinary abilities, which indicate that the secondary world of 3e D&D does not have the same laws of physics as our own, even when it comes to non-magical effects. Could that then be an explanation for the warlord and six hour healing? D&D land is just a strange place. If one accepts extraordinary abilities in 3e, I don't see why one couldn't accept this.

But I don't think that's the concept of D&D world that most people have. The implications of extraordinary abilities were, imo, never accepted. Most people who play D&D believe the secondary world is a place where everything works like our own until you bring magic into it. Natural healing and warlords just aren't magical.


----------



## Diamond Cross

Stop making books so expensive.

Stop over saturating with different optional books.

Discourage the edition wars.

Stop changing the rules every other year or so.

More PDFS for current and older games.

More software support for current and older games, and not just for D&D. I would've loved to see character builders for Star Wars, for example. When 3.0 first came out I loved that Character Builder and think something like it should be included with all new RPGs.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Reigan said:


> So hard core gamers would rather the entire rpg hobby wither and die rather than have the gateway system that is D&D be actually playable by all those pesky new and casual gamers.



If only one didn't have to go into early-80's (and earlier) out-of-print D&D to find that . . .


----------



## ggroy

Diamond Cross said:


> Discourage the edition wars.




This will never happen.  There's nothing anybody can do about it.

Nobody can turn back the hands of time, to retroactively "abort" editions of D&D/AD&D from ever existing to begin with. (That is until somebody invents a time machine).  



Diamond Cross said:


> Stop changing the rules every other year or so.




Even back in the day, this was done every few years.  (ie. OD&D -> AD&D -> AD&D + Unearthed Arcana -> 2E AD&D).


----------



## ggroy

Diamond Cross said:


> Stop making books so expensive.




The cost of hardcover D&D books aren't much different than many hardcover fiction and non-fiction books at bookstores.

For example, American Senator Edward Kennedy's autobiography is around the same price as the 4E D&D Player's Handbook.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/True-Compass-Edward-M-Kennedy/dp/0446539252"]Amazon.com: True Compass: A Memoir (9780446539258): Edward M.…[/ame]

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Handbook-Heinsoo/dp/0786948671"]Amazon.com: Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook (9780786948673): Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt: Books[/ame]


What would you consider a reasonable price for D&D books?


----------



## Diamond Cross

Actually you could put the books in novel form and they could cost as little as seven dollars.


----------



## ggroy

Diamond Cross said:


> Actually you could put the books in novel form and they could cost as little as seven dollars.




Are you thinking of the Dragon Warriors rpg line of six paperback books, from the 1980's?

Dragon Warriors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jasperak

Jack99 said:


> Why would you expect WotC guys spend their time in the section for games that they do no longer support and/or make?




I would expect them to be concerned when they have pushed away a significant portion of their paying customers. Understanding one's market and why so many did not follow along with the new edition is one of the primary functions of business. I'm not saying 4e isn't profitable, but there is what should be an easily tapped market sitting right here--Existing RPG gamers. 

They should absolutely research why people play other games than their own. If they could put something in theirs that would bring people back without watering down their vision for the game, the game is enriched for it. Now granted there will be things that some want that are just incompatible which their existing design, but that should not stop them from innovating.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Jasperak said:


> I would expect them to be concerned when they have pushed away a significant portion of their paying customers. Understanding one's market and why so many did not follow along with the new edition is one of the primary functions of business. I'm not saying 4e isn't profitable, but there is what should be an easily tapped market sitting right here--Existing RPG gamers.




So the question is: are there dice in these shaking fists, ready to be won over, or are they shaken to stay shaken?


----------



## Crispy Critter

At this point there is nothing they can do to win my group back. Each player in my group has been playing various iterations of D&D for a long time now and 3.5 was our sweet spot. As long time Realms players, the great work done with the Realms during 3ed was perfect for us. We tried 4th ed. It didn't work for us. The forwarding of the Realms timeline was also a huge blow. For the next year and a half we played, WFRP, old school Marvel, Cthulu, Shadowrun, but in our heart we are D&D players.

When Paizo put out Pathfinder and Golarian as the campaing setting, we jumped at the opportunity and we have not looked back. It's 3.5 with amazing campaign support that gives the players numerous ideas during character creation in terms of mechanics and fluff. Their adventure writing is top-notch as well. The group is having a great time learning about the world. It's like we had started playing the Realms all those years ago.

So there's nothing WoTC can do now for our group to get us back. As long as Paizo is around we'll be spending our money with them.


----------



## Chainsaw

Crispy Critter said:


> At this point there is nothing they can do to win my group back.




Probably the same here. We play versions of O/AD&D using homemade settings and adventures. There's an entire online community of other gamers doing the same - and sharing their work and ideas. Furthermore, some of the work is of high enough quality that it warrants purchase.


----------



## carmachu

Dausuul said:


> This is an interesting point. One wonders how many RPG book sales back in the day were driven more by the desire to read the book than to actually use it in play. Certainly most of my gaming books never saw actual use. I have even gone out to buy books from editions that I have no intention of ever playing again, just to read or re-read them.





It has some influence. Alot or a little as a whole I cnat say, but I know I own way more then I could ever use, and I read it all. I do enjoy reading alot of them.

4e books, however are unreadable from an enjoyment standpoint. Adventures maybe, but basic books are impossible.


----------



## Diamond Cross

ggroy said:


> Are you thinking of the Dragon Warriors rpg line of six paperback books, from the 1980's?
> 
> Dragon Warriors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




No I was thinking of Darksword Adventures by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman.

Although their system was exceptionally chaotic.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Darksword-Adventures-Venturing-Enchanted-Thimhallan/dp/055327600X]Amazon.com: Darksword Adventures: The Complete Guide to Venturing in the Enchanted Realm of Thimhallan (A Bantam Spectra&#133;[/ame]


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Jack99 said:


> Why would you expect WotC guys spend their time in the section for games that they do no longer support and/or make?



Goodwill has value.  (Seriously, actual monetary value.)


----------



## carmachu

Jack99 said:


> Why would you expect WotC guys spend their time in the section for games that they do no longer support and/or make?





Consider that  we have heard that part of the reason the OGL went to GSL, becuase there were some that saw that dollars going to 3rd party folks were dollars not going into their coffers, and there is a rise of Pathfinder(and others) that pretty much takes many of those disgruntled players.....it seems like a no brainer.


----------



## Jasperak

Keefe the Thief said:


> So the question is: are there dice in these shaking fists, ready to be won over, or are they shaken to stay shaken?




I think that this thread is evidence that if WOTC sells something that its former customers want, then some of them can be won back. As for D&D, we will see if Essentials tries to re-embrace D&D's roots. Only time will tell.


----------



## Obryn

carmachu said:


> 4e books, however are unreadable from an enjoyment standpoint. Adventures maybe, but basic books are impossible.



The newer 4e books are getting back some of that readability, thank goodness.  Underdark, Plane Above, and even MM3 are all pretty good.

I still can't sit and read power lists, though, any more than I could sit and read spell lists in 1e-3.5e.  Glance through them, sure, but read?  No way.  Not unless I'm working on a character.

-O


----------



## El Mahdi

Jack99 said:


> Why would you expect WotC guys spend their time in the section for games that they do no longer support and/or make?




Compiling and adding to what Jeff_Wilder and Jasperak said:


Customer goodwill and public relations boost - something they could definitely use and is a commodity unable to be monetarily quantified, but yet extremely valuable.
A group of consumers you are currently gaining no revenue from.
DDI content - For a minimal outlay (I didn't say cheap, but minimal due to existing page structures), you gain a consistent, renewing (monthly) revenue source from people who are currently spending none of their money on your products.
Content in Dungeon and Dragon can be from fan submissions - further decreasing financial outlay and use of resources (specifically WotC employees) - almost a situation of WotC gaining something for nothing.
Impulse or occasional puchases of current products that very likely will not occur without exposure to those products through DDI.
Sale of older edition products in electronic format - the products are already scanned and the sales infrastructure is already in place. Those that prefer a pirated copy already have one. The only people buying these products are the ones who really want them. That's real money sitting around doing nothing, and not in WotC's pocket, that for almost no initial outlay would immediately start going to them. Damn near money for nothing also. (I understand WotC logic for removing pdf's of current products...I don't agree, but I do understand...but their logic doesn't hold up when applied to older edition products...the pirated copies are already out there...they've closed the barn door after the horses got out, and are ignoring the sounds of hooves outside of the horses who have returned...)

You've added extra customers to your "captured" customer base for when you do release such apps (possibly for extra subscription price) as the Virtual Table Top and Character Visualizer. Both of which would probably be fairly universal (read: editionless) apps that all customers could find a value in. It's a lot easier to sell to a customer you already have, than try to "win" them back. Right now, after numerous threads like this, WotC has a pretty good idea what it would take to get these customers back. The longer they wait, the harder it is to reverse as those customers drift further and further away (to other games).
But perhaps what would be more interesting, is reasons why WotC _*shouldn't*_ spend some time or resources on older products? Perhaps you can provide your take on why it's a bad idea? Because I honestly can't see a good reason not to go after these other customers...


----------



## carmachu

Obryn said:


> The newer 4e books are getting back some of that readability, thank goodness. Underdark, Plane Above, and even MM3 are all pretty good.
> 
> I still can't sit and read power lists, though, any more than I could sit and read spell lists in 1e-3.5e. Glance through them, sure, but read? No way. Not unless I'm working on a character.
> 
> -O





Couldnt tell you about the newer books, they lost me trying long before then. But MM1 was a horrible read, as was the players book.


----------



## billd91

[tangent]You know, I'm really impressed with the number of posters participating in this discussion with early-ish join dates on ENWorld but without post counts under a thousand. Looks like this thread has generated a lot of interests among less active posters, long-time viewers. It's great to see a thread sparking that sort of participation. Good discussion.[/tangent]


----------



## Mark CMG

I don't think WotC is going to find people quick to jump back on the customer bandwagon without a good amount of actual releases out and proving their direction.  I doubt a few previews and the usual hype is going to be enough, particularly with those people who bought into past books and found after playing that they were disappointed with how things turned out.  I suspect the once bitten twice shy crowd will be sharp enough to wait and see how things actual develop after a few releases.


----------



## Ranes

Jasperak said:


> I think that this thread is evidence that if WOTC sells something that its former customers want, then some of them can be won back. As for D&D, we will see if Essentials tries to re-embrace D&D's roots. Only time will tell.




Essentials won't win me back, even if it tries to tweak my nostalgia gland. Third edition suited me very well. I'm unwilling to abandon the significant investment I made in what to my mind were great third edition books that will never run out of mileage.

I don't begrudge WotC anything, including 4e. If they were to bring out more great 3e material in print, PDF or electronic form, I'd happily buy it.


----------



## Obryn

carmachu said:


> Couldnt tell you about the newer books, they lost me trying long before then. But MM1 was a horrible read, as was the players book.



Yep, agreed on both PHB1 and MM1.  They were very functional at the table, but awful to read.  I think the plan was to offload most of the fluff to Dragon and Dungeon, and you can kinda see that in earlier issues.  What ended up happening - possibly predictably - was that people preferred the books to have readable fluff, and preferred to use DDI for those bare mechanics.  I was just giving you an FYI that, in this respect at least, WotC listened to feedback from players and adjusted their future releases accordingly.

-O


----------



## Kaiyanwang

Dausuul said:


> Edited to add, on a more serious note: More to the point, 4E is a massive batch of experiments in new mechanics and approaches to the game. I'm not sure that's how it was intended, but it's what happened. And as with any massive batch of experiments, some turned out well, and some... not so much.




If true, it would be quite odd: they had a lot of space for experimentation with the late 3.5 (just think to new subsystems like ToB). One should expect 4th edition like a fixed version, a sum  of what came out to be the best, already experimented in 3.5. Does not seems to me that WotC introduced 4th edition as a new, fresh system prone to experimentation. It was introduced as a modular system, everything core,  more or less the same rules for every classes... and so on.

At the cost of a sacred cows killing to accomplish this.

What happened? What's this need to look back with essentials?



Reigan said:


> So hard core gamers would rather the entire rpg hobby wither and die rather than have the gateway system that is D&D be actually playable by all those pesky new and casual gamers.
> Brilliant.




Absolutely not. But, to introduce people to the hobby, my skill as a DM counts, but a ruleset that supports my gaming style helps, too. 

If I enjoy the system, I'm a better player, and i can transmit my love to new future gamers. Discussing about a game to make it more enjoyable is for the good of the game in the future.



Ranes said:


> Essentials won't win me back, even if it tries to tweak my nostalgia gland. Third edition suited me very well. I'm unwilling to abandon the significant investment I made in what to my mind were great third edition books that will never run out of mileage.
> 
> I don't begrudge WotC anything, including 4e. If they were to bring out more great 3e material in print, PDF or electronic form, I'd happily buy it.




For me is the same. I wish wotc made some Fey/Giant monster book (similar to Draconomicon or Lords of Madness) before the switch


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Reigan said:


> So hard core gamers would rather the entire rpg hobby wither and die rather than have the gateway system that is D&D be actually playable by all those pesky new and casual gamers.
> Brilliant.



Three cheers for empty hyperbole.

1. WotC is not the industry. It is the biggest company in that industry, but by no means the whole of that industry - it will survive with or without WotC.

2. WotC has done a good deal of work towards divorcing themselves from that industry. WotC burned a great deal of goodwill with the way they handled the change between editions.

3. Letting WotC wither and die because of that brave effort on their part seems like justice to me. They were the ones who destroyed their own goodwill, alienated the companies that supported their game, and a large chunk of the folks who played their games.

4. But even if they turn into dust and blow away with the morning breeze, the RPG industry will continue on. Stumble, maybe, but continue on. Someone else will pick up the banner. There are certainly other entry level games than 4e.

5. No matter how much they may be suffering for the lack of the $50 or so a month I spend on gaming, I very much doubt that WotC _will_ wither and die for its lack.

The Auld Grump


----------



## DaveMage

Mark CMG said:


> I don't think WotC is going to find people quick to jump back on the customer bandwagon without a good amount of actual releases out and proving their direction.  I doubt a few previews and the usual hype is going to be enough, particularly with those people who bought into past books and found after playing that they were disappointed with how things turned out.  I suspect the once bitten twice shy crowd will be sharp enough to wait and see how things actual develop after a few releases.




Also, 4E has become cost-prohibitive to a completist like me.  Unless I buy as the game is released, I can't afford to go back and pick up everything.

5E is the next time I'll take a look at the D&D ruleset.


----------



## Pseudonym

Mark CMG said:


> I suspect the once bitten twice shy crowd will be sharp enough to wait and see how things actual develop after a few releases.




Yeah, true, but I bought Magic of Incarnum and Weapons of Legacy anyway.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Doug McCrae said:


> Kobold Boots, interesting that you mention the bloodied mechanic, which opens up penalties (monsters get special attacks on you) and options. In a way that makes hit points a little more verisimilitudinous than they have been previously.
> 
> That works well for 4e, given how quickly wounds heal and that a sergeant shouting at you can cure them.
> 
> The problems with this approach (thinking of all editions here) are:
> 1) Why do paper cuts require so much healing magic to cure? For example in 3e a 100hp PC on 1hp would need more than 10 Cure Light Wounds spells to be fully restored.
> 2) Why (at least prior to 4e) do they take so long to heal?
> 3) The player becomes dissociated from the character, to use the Alexandrian's phrase. The player knows that his PC on 1hp is close to death, but the character doesn't. Metagaming is required.
> 
> Wounds healing in six hours and being cured by warlords are probably the two major issues people have with verisimilitude in 4e. They suggest hit points that are less physical than they have been in previous editions. Though, paradoxically, due to the bloodied mechanic, hit point loss that stays above zero now has more of an effect.




My response to this (and you're on the money with your take) is that with every edition of D&D, when you choose to play it, you also choose to change your worlds view of how the numbers operate and what the numbers represent.

I've already stated that HP in 4e are abstracted to represent everything that a character is in combat.  That includes endurance, tenacity, capability, innate reflexiveness in combat etc.  So that does work well in context of the bloodied mechanic.  Now to jump off of the whole damage conversation you've gone into healing, which by function is in the damage continuum but by design and effect is magic.

Why does it take so much magic?  Because magic changed too.  

The inclusion of Rituals slowed magic down in both scope to cast and overall power on the battlefield.  Sure, people spent time developing spells that hit stuff, just like our society spent time on nuclear bombs prior to nuclear medicine.  As a result you're going to get less bang for your buck.



> The Alexandrian's approach is that a wound is partly physical and partly non-physical. Say a 10hp blow means 1hp of real injury and 9hp of 'luck loss'. But how can the warlord cure that 1hp of real injury with his Inspiring Word? Could any real injury completely heal in a day? However I don't see a shift from 90% abstract hp to 100% to be that big of a change.




Well it depends.  In a world of factual modern terms, inspiring word can't heal anything except psychological wounds.  In a world of magical fantasy there's no saying that the Inspired Word isn't at least partially enhanced by the magicness of the realm as an extension of the Charisma of the Warlord.  Could any real injury heal in a day?  Ask the gods.

I think that a lot of the "reality" complaints come from people that are so far removed from seeing the magic in the real world (and I mean the wonder of people and awe in nature) that they can't possibly think about magic in a world where it's supposed to exist..


----------



## carmachu

Ranes said:


> Essentials won't win me back, even if it tries to tweak my nostalgia gland. Third edition suited me very well. I'm unwilling to abandon the significant investment I made in what to my mind were great third edition books that will never run out of mileage.
> 
> I don't begrudge WotC anything, including 4e. If they were to bring out more great 3e material in print, PDF or electronic form, I'd happily buy it.





Yeah that.  Plus even if I want something shiney thats a bit updated but not readically different, there's patherfinder. 4e's moved in a direction I dont personally care for.

But I've got too much stuff that works, and stuff that can be done still.


----------



## carmachu

Obryn said:


> Yep, agreed on both PHB1 and MM1. They were very functional at the table, but awful to read. I think the plan was to offload most of the fluff to Dragon and Dungeon, and you can kinda see that in earlier issues. What ended up happening - possibly predictably - was that people preferred the books to have readable fluff, and preferred to use DDI for those bare mechanics. I was just giving you an FYI that, in this respect at least, WotC listened to feedback from players and adjusted their future releases accordingly.
> 
> -O





Unfortunately thats bad too. Since no way am I paying for an online service thats unusable to me. Plus I'm still kinda pissed the magazines are canceled.(yes canceled, I dont care if they put them online. I like print versions).


----------



## Kobold Boots

carmachu said:


> Unfortunately thats bad too. Since no way am I paying for an online service thats unusable to me. Plus I'm still kinda pissed the magazines are canceled.(yes canceled, I dont care if they put them online. I like print versions).




Be ready to be displeased with the entire book printing and magazine printing business then.  The only growth area in all of publishing is the ebook and digital media.  I predict that by 2025 WoTC won't be publishing books, save as specialty or niche items.

You don't invest in significant digital infrastructure with the intent to expand your print base.  Granted the market of grognards (meant in a nice way) may be stubborn and buck the trend.


----------



## BryonD

Reigan said:


> So hard core gamers would rather the entire rpg hobby wither and die rather than have the gateway system that is D&D be actually playable by all those pesky new and casual gamers.
> Brilliant.



Heh

First, if anyone dares to suggest that 4E is geared to "new" and/or "casual" gamers, they immediately get flamed for being insulting.

But if you suggest the game could maybe assume anything more than that out of the player base then you get flamed for not looking out for "new and casual players".

IMO, new and casual players can have a lot of fun playing a game that is built for after they get more experience.  I know I certainly was a "new" player for some time and made plenty of mistakes.  It would have been a disservice to me to changed the game on the presumption that as  a "new" player I needed a "gateway" game.

And since you choose the word "gateway", it seems obvious to conclude that you think players who are neither "new" nor "casual" should move through the gateway to games with higher expectations.  

So the questions become:
Why would WotC make a gateway and not have the gateway lead anywhere?
Why doesn't WotC want to make money from both the gateway players as well as the "hard core gamers" as you describe them?
What prevents WotC from making both games?  Certainly the evidence is present that the market is there to support both.

All that aside, answering the question: "what would make you come back?" is not the same as saying they "must do this, to hell with the newbies".


----------



## Elf Witch

I have been thinking about this question as I read the posts and I really can't think of a way for WOTC to win me back as a customer.

I never thought there would come a day when I would not be buying the latest official DnD product considering I have books going all the way back to 1E.

Even if they brought out PDFs for the older editions I am not sure I would buy them. I was really turned off with the way the presented the new edition it really came across as if they were saying that the way we had been playing was an unfun way to play. 

I also think what they did with the Realms was horrible and it upset so many Realms fans. It seemed to me that didn't care what their customers wanted. 

I am very happy with Pazio and Pathfinder they have excellent customer service and a fantastic product. I enjoy the fact that if I buy a  dead tree book I get a PDF for free.  So I see no need to give my money to WOTC they don't seem to want it any ways.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

El Mahdi said:


> Compiling and adding to what Jeff_Wilder and Jasperak said:
> 
> 
> Customer goodwill and public relations boost - something they could definitely use and is a commodity unable to be monetarily quantified, but yet extremely valuable.
> A group of consumers you are currently gaining no revenue from.
> DDI content - For a minimal outlay (I didn't say cheap, but minimal due to existing page structures), you gain a consistent, renewing (monthly) revenue source from people who are currently spending none of their money on your products.
> Content in Dungeon and Dragon can be from fan submissions - further decreasing financial outlay and use of resources (specifically WotC employees) - almost a situation of WotC gaining something for nothing.
> Impulse or occasional puchases of current products that very likely will not occur without exposure to those products through DDI.
> Sale of older edition products in electronic format - the products are already scanned and the sales infrastructure is already in place. Those that prefer a pirated copy already have one. The only people buying these products are the ones who really want them. That's real money sitting around doing nothing, and not in WotC's pocket, that for almost no initial outlay would immediately start going to them. Damn near money for nothing also. (I understand WotC logic for removing pdf's of current products...I don't agree, but I do understand...but their logic doesn't hold up when applied to older edition products...the pirated copies are already out there...they've closed the barn door after the horses got out, and are ignoring the sounds of hooves outside of the horses who have returned...)
> 
> You've added extra customers to your "captured" customer base for when you do release such apps (possibly for extra subscription price) as the Virtual Table Top and Character Visualizer. Both of which would probably be fairly universal (read: editionless) apps that all customers could find a value in. It's a lot easier to sell to a customer you already have, than try to "win" them back. Right now, after numerous threads like this, WotC has a pretty good idea what it would take to get these customers back. The longer they wait, the harder it is to reverse as those customers drift further and further away (to other games).
> But perhaps what would be more interesting, is reasons why WotC _*shouldn't*_ spend some time or resources on older products? Perhaps you can provide your take on why it's a bad idea? Because I honestly can't see a good reason not to go after these other customers...




I, too, mentioned goodwill as something WotC could gain.  A basic fact of sales is that if you manage to get someone in your store, you're already part of the way towards getting them to buy something, and the longer you have someone in your store, the more likely they are to buy something on impulse.

In WotC & DDI terms, that means that if you put your old IP on the site for customers to get, you'll:

gain additional revenue from costs that are largely sunk.
keep shoppers engaged with your site longer, meaning they're more likely to buy another one of your products- possibly one they hadn't considered buying before.
end the reason many cited as the reason they don't buy from WotC.
return to the forefront of marketing RPGs.

Lets face it, there are flavors of D&D out there to appeal to a wide variety of players, not all of whom have access to all the books they'd like to.

I'm not one for using electronic versions of game books for a variety of reasons (stated elsewhere), but I guarantee you this: if I had lost my collection in a natural disaster (Katrina, a house fire, silverfish & termites) or if I were living somewhere I had only limited space (on an oil rig in the North Sea, in a tent in Afghanistan, in a submarine in the Bering Straits), or certain other reasons, I'd download a whole bunch of stuff to use.

Ditto if I were someone whose work involved travel more than 25% of the year.  If I'm living out of suitcases & hotels, I don't need to be carting around a wall of books.

Or lets say I introduced one of my international buddies to AD&D, and he had to move back home to Outinthebooniestan where he couldn't buy the books, but still wanted to play AD&D with his buddies back home.  Digital versions of the game books would be the way to go.

Some might even want the downloads to have digital backup to their RPGs, in the eventuality that something (see above) might happen to them.

And realistically, the only way WotC can learn the size of those market niches is to try to serve them.


----------



## WheresMyD20

Jack99 said:


> Why would you expect WotC guys spend their time in the section for games that they do no longer support and/or make?




Why not just license the old material to a 3rd party?  Give them a 5-year license to reprint the old books under a new trademark, like "Classic Dungeons & Dragons".  Maybe even let them create some new adventure modules.  If the experiment goes well, WotC has a new revenue stream.  If not, then they don't renew the license after the 5 years.  Other than spending some time setting up the contract, it wouldn't take a whole lot of their time.


----------



## Obryn

BryonD said:


> Heh
> 
> First, if anyone dares to suggest that 4E is geared to "new" and/or "casual" gamers, they immediately get flamed for being insulting.
> 
> But if you suggest the game could maybe assume anything more than that out of the player base then you get flamed for not looking out for "new and casual players".



If you say, "4e is geared towards making it easy for new players to get up to speed," that's a fair statement, I think.

If you say, "4e is geared towards new and casual players, but it is unsuitable for deep campaigns," you have an issue.  You're back at tee-ball, or scuffed cards, or whatever analogy of the week you've chosen.

Ease of getting into a game has little bearing at all on the game's eventual depth...  I don't think Mythus is a superior long-term game for deep campaigns, despite being intensely unfriendly to new players.  There's no reason why a game can't be both approachable and easy to learn, and deep enough to provide experienced players with engrossing and enriching play.

-O


----------



## Jack99

Jasperak said:


> I would expect them to be concerned when they have pushed away a significant portion of their paying customers. Understanding one's market and why so many did not follow along with the new edition is one of the primary functions of business. I'm not saying 4e isn't profitable, but there is what should be an easily tapped market sitting right here--Existing RPG gamers.
> 
> They should absolutely research why people play other games than their own. If they could put something in theirs that would bring people back without watering down their vision for the game, the game is enriched for it. Now granted there will be things that some want that are just incompatible which their existing design, but that should not stop them from innovating.



afaik, those hired at WotC have to show/have an understanding of how many games work, not just be ha d&d work. It has alreday been mentioned how 4e was inspirec by a lot of other games, instead of doing what several of the previous editions did. Copy the previous edition. 



Jeff Wilder said:


> Goodwill has value.  (Seriously, actual monetary value.)



It does. But I think you are blowing out of proportion the amount of goodwill they get from being here. Scott was here all the time, and it didn't the people who have posted against WotC in this thread from being against them. 



carmachu said:


> Consider that  we have heard that part of the reason the OGL went to GSL, becuase there were some that saw that dollars going to 3rd party folks were dollars not going into their coffers, and there is a rise of Pathfinder(and others) that pretty much takes many of those disgruntled players.....it seems like a no brainer.



And this info is only available on ENworld?



El Mahdi said:


> Compiling and adding to what Jeff_Wilder and Jasperak said:
> 
> 
> Customer goodwill and public relations boost - something they could definitely use and is a commodity unable to be monetarily quantified, but yet extremely valuable.
> A group of consumers you are currently gaining no revenue from.
> DDI content - For a minimal outlay (I didn't say cheap, but minimal due to existing page structures), you gain a consistent, renewing (monthly) revenue source from people who are currently spending none of their money on your products.
> Content in Dungeon and Dragon can be from fan submissions - further decreasing financial outlay and use of resources (specifically WotC employees) - almost a situation of WotC gaining something for nothing.
> Impulse or occasional puchases of current products that very likely will not occur without exposure to those products through DDI.
> Sale of older edition products in electronic format - the products are already scanned and the sales infrastructure is already in place. Those that prefer a pirated copy already have one. The only people buying these products are the ones who really want them. That's real money sitting around doing nothing, and not in WotC's pocket, that for almost no initial outlay would immediately start going to them. Damn near money for nothing also. (I understand WotC logic for removing pdf's of current products...I don't agree, but I do understand...but their logic doesn't hold up when applied to older edition products...the pirated copies are already out there...they've closed the barn door after the horses got out, and are ignoring the sounds of hooves outside of the horses who have returned...)
> 
> You've added extra customers to your "captured" customer base for when you do release such apps (possibly for extra subscription price) as the Virtual Table Top and Character Visualizer. Both of which would probably be fairly universal (read: editionless) apps that all customers could find a value in. It's a lot easier to sell to a customer you already have, than try to "win" them back. Right now, after numerous threads like this, WotC has a pretty good idea what it would take to get these customers back. The longer they wait, the harder it is to reverse as those customers drift further and further away (to other games).
> But perhaps what would be more interesting, is reasons why WotC _*shouldn't*_ spend some time or resources on older products? Perhaps you can provide your take on why it's a bad idea? Because I honestly can't see a good reason not to go after these other customers...



I think you are missing the point. None of the things you are listing above will happen because Mearls or whoever is hanging out taking crap at ENworld. They are at WotC more than aware of your ideas, or rather theories.. Maybe they have been considered an rejected because they would be too expensive or a thousand other reasons. 

Last but not least. I am certain they are still reading General (I am sure that if they felt they needed info on PF, they could either go to the Paizo boards or say, ask their friends at Paizo). I just think they refrain from posting in such threads, because no matter what they say, they will be some of you guys who attack them to some degree. There always is. Among certain people there has long been some twisted false sense of entitlement vis-a-vis d&d and how they treat the people who work for WotC.

Seriously, nothing is worth how some of you are treating them. I am often ashamed. Sure the mods do some to protect them, but not enough by far, IMO.


----------



## Stormonu

Jack99 said:


> Last but not least. I am certain they are still reading General (I am sure that if they felt they needed info on PF, they could either go to the Paizo boards or say, ask their friends at Paizo). I just think they refrain from posting in such threads, because no matter what they say, they will be some of you guys who attack them to some degree. There always is. Among certain people there has long been some twisted false sense of entitlement vis-a-vis d&d and how they treat the people who work for WotC.
> 
> Seriously, nothing is worth how some of you are treating them. I am often ashamed. Sure the mods do some to protect them, but not enough by far, IMO.




Well, it's pretty easy to confirm at least someone at WotC is still watching ENWorld.  Last week, Mearls posted a couple comments in a thread about what was being done with the essentials line (and I'm pretty sure it was in the general forum).

There was a time that it seemed WotC employees preferred announcing things on ENWorld instead of WotC's own boards - often people would direct threads to ENWorld about something that was posted there, grumbling that it had to be learned "second hand", instead of being announced on the WotC forums first.  Perhaps since they've changed their own forum/site, they're posting more there nowadays (I wouldn't know, I refuse to go to the official WotC forums anymore - not because of WotC, but because of posters there; my ignore list was getting to big to be healthy).


----------



## El Mahdi

Jack99 said:


> ...I think you are missing the point. None of the things you are listing above will happen because Mearls or whoever is hanging out taking crap at ENworld...
> 
> ...Seriously, nothing is worth how some of you are treating them. I am often ashamed. Sure the mods do some to protect them, but not enough by far, IMO.




I don't agree that they aren't incorporating ideas because they are taking crap here (at least I think that's part of what you said)...but you are 100% right in that they do take a lot of crap that they shouldn't have to.  For the most part, I think those here at ENWorld aren't too bad, but there are some who are seriously disrespectful and entitled.  It's too bad.  I too wish that practice would cease.  And like you, I also do not think the messages haven't gotten through.  And I'm also sure you're right that WotC has their reasons.  From here in the bleachers though, most of them just don't make sense (like the logic behind pulling pdf's).

All I know for sure is this: I would love to have access to 3E (and earlier editions) support through DDI - and I would spend good money for it.  Unfortunately it doesn't exist.  That's real money not going to WotC.  From threads like this, I think it's pretty obvious I'm not the only one, that there's a fairly significant group of people and their money that WotC is not tapping...but could.

Why?  I really have no idea, and can't for the life of me think of a logical reason for it.  I'm either missing some crucial part of the puzzle, or WotC is making some foolish decisions...or both (probably an equal chance of both).

I don't buy into the disgruntledness over edition changes or even campaign world changes.  They both have to evolve and change in order to have anything to sell.  It's silly to get angry at WotC for doing that or expecting them not to change (and some do...not all, but some).  If those changes aren't to my liking, I simply don't buy the products.  However, even though I don't play 4E, and don't prefer it, I have bought some 4e products (namely the core books) and occasionally mine them for ideas.  I have never begrudged WotC their right to make or alter their system, nor criticized their system or campaign world changes.  In truth, I've complimented 4E for many aspects of the system right here on these boards.  But regardless of all that, since I no longer have a reason to visit their website, or be involved in organized play events, I have virtually no exposure to their products anymore.

So, even if they started selling older edition products in electronic format, and I stopped purposely not-buying their products because of it, I am exposed to almost zero marketing for their products.  I'm not going to seek them out.  If they want my money, they need to give me a reason to come to the WotC website and see their products.  There are products and services that as a customer I desire...and only WotC has the ability to produce them.  But they won't.  I don't understand this seemingly purposeful rejection or overlooking of an entire segment of potential customers.  I don't take it personally (anymore), but I still don't understand it.

But anyways, as cool as ENWorld is, I don't think this place has the impact to convince WotC to not pursue a group of customers, solely because some here are blatantly insulting to them.  So, other than taking a lot of crap that they shouldn't have to, why do you think WotC _shouldn't_ go after these customers?  What reasons do you think they have for this?

If the disrespect they endure is the main reason why you think they don't target these customers, then cool.  I disagree with you...but it's cool.  But if you think there are other reasons, I'd be interested in your point of view on this.


----------



## El Mahdi

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...and he had to move back home to *Outinthebooniestan*...




I was deployed there once...

Man, it was HOT...but hey, at least it was a dry heat...


----------



## I'm A Banana

> So, other than taking a lot of crap that they shouldn't have to, why do you think WotC shouldn't go after these customers? What reasons do you think they have for this?




For PDF's, I think the old "Copyright infringement makes people whose works can easily be copied idiotically paranoid and skittish" applies. If their stated reason of "OMG PIRATES OH NOES!" is the truth, then it's pretty clear they fell prey to that.

For DDI, I think the mantra more goes "This whole thing was kind of an experiment, and we weren't even sure we'd get 4e players to join up, and we're crazy behind on where we want to be, so while we might like to offer older edition stuff via searchable online database at some point in the future, theorietically, maybe, our hands are really full giving our current players what they want and were already promised, and that is, as I think you'd understand, our priority." That's rampant speculation, but given the state of the DDI currently, and the fact that rumors have whispered that the WotC crew got in some deep lava over spending on it, it sounds like a logical idea.


----------



## BryonD

Obryn said:


> If you say, "4e is geared towards making it easy for new players to get up to speed," that's a fair statement, I think.
> 
> If you say, "4e is geared towards new and casual players, but it is unsuitable for deep campaigns," you have an issue.  You're back at tee-ball, or scuffed cards, or whatever analogy of the week you've chosen.
> 
> Ease of getting into a game has little bearing at all on the game's eventual depth...  I don't think Mythus is a superior long-term game for deep campaigns, despite being intensely unfriendly to new players.  There's no reason why a game can't be both approachable and easy to learn, and deep enough to provide experienced players with engrossing and enriching play.
> 
> -O



Well, by the same token, you are just proclaiming that you can have your cake and eat it to.  In this case that most certainly hasn't been the result.  

I don't claim any kind of all or nothing result.  It would be silly and wrong for me to suggest that.  But I'm not saying that.  But it is just as silly and wrong to claim that no give and take exists in the modifications to 4E.  And a lot of 4E fans are making that silly claim.

You can call my comparisons "analogy of the week" if you want.  But that is a completely hollow response that does nothing to address that there is a real degree of truth to them.  

Again, as I've said before many times, and at least twice in this thread, the standard response is to misrepresent what I've said.

There is a huge difference between "is unsuitable", which I never said, and "one things provides more support than the other", which I did say.

There is a difference between the two games.  Andy described a root cause.
If you can't see it, then fine, you can't see it.  It makes no difference to me.
But if you say it isn't then, then, quite simply, you are wrong.

And, this thread is about, what would it take for us to come back.  That is the topic.  If that offends you, don't read it.  But I'm not going to pretend my tastes and expectations don't exist just because the game you prefer doesn't meet them.


----------



## Mark CMG

Jack99 said:


> But I think you are blowing out of proportion the amount of goodwill they get from being here.





People generate goodwill in a messageboard community by how they post.




Jack99 said:


> Seriously, nothing is worth how some of you are treating them. I am often ashamed. Sure the mods do some to protect them, but not enough by far, IMO.





Mods (ideally) treat everyone in the community equally.




Kamikaze Midget said:


> For PDF's, I think the old "Copyright infringement makes people whose works can easily be copied idiotically paranoid and skittish" applies. If their stated reason of "OMG PIRATES OH NOES!" is the truth, then it's pretty clear they fell prey to that.
> 
> For DDI, I think the mantra more goes "This whole thing was kind of an experiment, and we weren't even sure we'd get 4e players to join up, and we're crazy behind on where we want to be, so while we might like to offer older edition stuff via searchable online database at some point in the future, theorietically, maybe, our hands are really full giving our current players what they want and were already promised, and that is, as I think you'd understand, our priority." That's rampant speculation, but given the state of the DDI currently, and the fact that rumors have whispered that the WotC crew got in some deep lava over spending on it, it sounds like a logical idea.





That's as reasonable an explanation as I've seen.  Let's hope the prevailing sentiment to bring back lapsed gamers leads to devoting some resources toward making older edition PDFs available again in some manner.


----------



## Obryn

BryonD said:


> You can call my comparisons "analogy of the week" if you want.  But that is a completely hollow response that does nothing to address that there is a real degree of truth to them.
> ...
> There is a difference between the two games.  Andy described a root cause.
> If you can't see it, then fine, you can't see it.  It makes no difference to me.
> But if you say it isn't then, then, quite simply, you are wrong.



Have you found it kind of depressing and lonely to be the one with sole ability to view reality as it really is, and then having to explain it to all the peons without the burden of personal prejudices?  It's gotta be a burden.



> And, this thread is about, what would it take for us to come back.  That is the topic.  If that offends you, don't read it.  But I'm not going to pretend my tastes and expectations don't exist just because the game you prefer doesn't meet them.



That's what the thread is about.  That's not what you've been posting about.

-O

*Mod Edit:*  The snark displayed in this post is the sort of thing that makes arguments worse, rather than better.  Please, folks, don't go this route. Thank you.


----------



## Celtavian

*re*

Restore the old D&D magic system or something that captures the equivalent. I like magical variety and strategy. I like counterspells and using windwalls strategically. I like the variety of magic that gives caster players strategic options and encourages back and forth interplay between the players and DM when it comes to strategy. Each time a player comes up with a killer strategy, the DM must figure out how to counter it and vice versa. I want that type of magic system back.


----------



## El Mahdi

Kamikaze Midget said:


> For PDF's, I think the old "Copyright infringement makes people whose works can easily be copied idiotically paranoid and skittish" applies. If their stated reason of "OMG PIRATES OH NOES!" is the truth, then it's pretty clear they fell prey to that.
> 
> For DDI, I think the mantra more goes "This whole thing was kind of an experiment, and we weren't even sure we'd get 4e players to join up, and we're crazy behind on where we want to be, so while we might like to offer older edition stuff via searchable online database at some point in the future, theorietically, maybe, our hands are really full giving our current players what they want and were already promised, and that is, as I think you'd understand, our priority." That's rampant speculation, but given the state of the DDI currently, and the fact that rumors have whispered that the WotC crew got in some deep lava over spending on it, it sounds like a logical idea.






Mark CMG said:


> That's as reasonable an explanation as I've seen. Let's hope the prevailing sentiment to bring back lapsed gamers leads to devoting some resources toward making older edition PDFs available again in some manner.




I'll echo Mark's sentiment.  It sounds logical to me.  Don't know if it's right, but it sounds logical.  (Well, not a logical reason, but logical as far as that could be their reasoning.)  Better than anything I've come up with, which is pretty much zilch.

I hope Mark is right also about this maybe happening in the future.  Maybe the motivation behind the Essentials line portend just such a direction in the future.  That would be very cool.

I wanted to pos-rep you for this, but apparently I just did a little while ago.  I wanted to pos-rep Jack also but I apparently hooked him up in another thread earlier (as well as Mark also).  It seems like it's all the same people I want to keep giving XP.  Anyways, since I can't pos-rep any of you, I figured I'd post a comment before the people fighting in the thread get it shut down...


----------



## Stormonu

I do want to add that if WotC at some point rereleases older versions in some electronic form (PDF or whatever), I hope they hold them to a higher standard than the 1E/2E PDF releases.  Both the 3E and 4E PDFs were very high quality, but some of the older ones (primarily 1E scans) were wretched.


----------



## DEFCON 1

El Mahdi said:


> So, other than taking a lot of crap that they shouldn't have to, why do you think WotC _shouldn't_ go after these customers?  What reasons do you think they have for this?




I would imagine that WotC has not gone after the 3.5 crowd for several reason, most of which has been stated before, both here and on other threads.

1) Splitting the Market - they want people who get involved with D&D to concentrate on the most current version.  They don't want to cause confusion between systems nor split up their own focus and time working on several different systems.  If WotC felt there wasn't enough of a 3.5E market for product several years ago to warrant staying with that system, why would they think there'd be enough of a market to go _back_ to 3.5E now?

2)  Populace - I would tend to believe WotC has a pretty good idea of the numbers of people that have not made the jump from 3 to 4, both from their own book sales, plus probable sale info from companies like Paizo.  And they have determined that the number of people who _would_ come back does not justify the outlay of cash needed to _get _them back.  Especially considering that many people (who have mentioned it in this thread) have chosen not to play 4E purely because of public relations and anger issues towards the company, not because of the game itself.  So that reduces the number of previous adopters that they could get back even if they chose to try.  And of those people remaining... quite a number of them wouldn't come back to WotC because they are happy with Paizo's work... which decreases the number of potential returnees even more.  They've determined the populace just isn't there to warrant the time and energy spent trying to make products for them.

3)  Piracy - People can claim all that they want that you can easily download all the WotC printed products you want right now, and thus there's no reason not to sell PDFs of their material (both old and new).  But I would counter that with the fact that the amount of places you can get these pirated books is _substantially_ less than the number of places you'd be able to get them if/when official WotC PDFs ever got released.  If that ever occured, the amount of places you'd be able to get these products illegally would skyrocket over current numbers because of the ease that even casual downloaders / piraters would have to set these illegal copies up

And for many would-be downloaders... the decision to do so is oftentimes just how easy it is to do, and how likely you feel you'd be able to get away with it.  So the more places that have pirated material available, the easier it would be to find it, the easier it would be to get, and the better the chance that the quality of product you'd get would be good.  Plus, with more places offering the material, the less likely it would be that any government, regulatory or watchdog group is keeping tabs on these download sites to possibly bust people over it after time.  And on top of that, the more places that offer it widens the possibility of finding sites that won't infest your company with hundreds of trojans, virues, and worms at the same time you download the product.

I know personally that I'm terrified to download a lot of stuff from the internet just because I don't trust my computer will make it out alive if I do.  And I'm sure that goes through the heads of many other people, especially 'casual' downloaders, who actually consider the potential cost of downloading pirated material above and beyond just 'getting arrested'.  So by WotC making it such that not having PDFs available means many fewer sites have any of their material to give out, and for those that do it's oftentimes books that have been ripped apart and then scanned (which if people really wanted that kind of quality, they could do it themselves if it really mattered that much to them)... they therefore are _reducing_ the size of the pool of people who might possibly download pirated copies of their books.

4)  Internet Sales Sites - For all we know, WotC has their products both old and new already primed and set to sell via PDF or E-book, or whatever file format makes the most sense.  But then it comes down to how exactly does WotC get the products out to people?

Do they offer them to DriveThruRPG or RPGNow to sell?  But what if those companies can't handle the volume or give the same customer assurances or security that WotC would demand of a store like that?  Does WotC sell these files themselves?  But do they have the capabilities at this time to actually be an internet store in addition to being a production game company?  How much time, money, and staff would be required to set something like this up, and is the money from potential sales worth that outlay of cost at this time?  Are the current ebooks like Kindle or Nook in a place at this time to be worthwhile formats to present WotC material (since images are not able to be sent through them)?  Are they waiting for the iPad and other iPad style computers to grab a bigger part of the marketplace so that they CAN produce their books with all requisite imaging without having to use the PDF file format (which might be more likely to be able to be easily pirated)?

All in all... there are so many questions as to just how worthwhile it is to put their old stuff into circulation, that it's folly to make the leap to just assume it's because they are either idiots, or that WotC / Hasbro are nothing more than evil corporate suits who want nothing more than to stick it to their former customers.  In truth... I suspect it's several more logical and benign reasons than that.


----------



## Mark CMG

Stormonu said:


> I do want to add that if WotC at some point rereleases older versions in some electronic form (PDF or whatever), I hope they hold them to a higher standard than the 1E/2E PDF releases.  Both the 3E and 4E PDFs were very high quality, but some of the older ones (primarily 1E scans) were wretched.





IIRC, Jim Butler was in charge of getting the PDF of 2E and older materials together and probably under some time constraints to do so.  Much of the materials were in bad shape (and some borrowed from people's private collections, if memory serves) and scanning equipment was not what it is today.  3E and newer materials were being made at the time so the PDFs could more readily be monitored for quality (they needed to be for contemporary printing processes and other work).  If the decsion came down to either using what is already done or not rereleasing the materials because starting from scratch is to costly, I'd as soon have the older ones.  If they could put out a general call to people with the proper equipment and older materials to make better scans (ALA WotC putting out a list of where there are gaps in the archive or substandard PDFs of older materials and asking individuals who can help to send in their credentials), I'd love to see that sort of community-minded effort on their part.  They could hire as freelancers the people with the best collections and proper equipment for peanuts or for credit with the archive to help them complete their own collections.  Everyone could win by such a project but it would require WotC officials to be interested in reaching out to lapsed D&Ders and to be willing to spearhead the effort.


----------



## El Mahdi

DEFCON 1 said:


> I would imagine that WotC has not gone after the 3.5 crowd for several reason, most of which has been stated before, both here and on other threads.
> 
> 1) Splitting the Market - they want people who get involved with D&D to concentrate on the most current version. They don't want to cause confusion between systems nor split up their own focus and time working on several different systems. If WotC felt there wasn't enough of a 3.5E market for product several years ago to warrant staying with that system, why would they think there'd be enough of a market to go _back_ to 3.5E now?
> 
> 2) Populace - I would tend to believe WotC has a pretty good idea of the numbers of people that have not made the jump from 3 to 4, both from their own book sales, plus probable sale info from companies like Paizo. And they have determined that the number of people who _would_ come back does not justify the outlay of cash needed to _get _them back. Especially considering that many people (who have mentioned it in this thread) have chosen not to play 4E purely because of public relations and anger issues towards the company, not because of the game itself. So that reduces the number of previous adopters that they could get back even if they chose to try. And of those people remaining... quite a number of them wouldn't come back to WotC because they are happy with Paizo's work... which decreases the number of potential returnees even more. They've determined the populace just isn't there to warrant the time and energy spent trying to make products for them.




Nah...I don't buy these. We aren't talking about printing new books, or making new supplements. I agree with you, making new material and products would no longer be worthwhile. But, what we're talking about is putting up an occasional older edition article/adventure (perhaps one a month in _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ rotated between past editions from OD&D to 3E), and probably entirely *fan submitted*. That doesn't require any WotC R&D or writing. Only editing from the _Dungeon_/_Dragon_ staff. Also, DDI support in the way of a Character Builder/Enounter Builder/Compendium type of thing, I feel could be done relatively cheaply since the DDI structure is already built (programming, servers, etc.). Not to mention that DDI subs are very different than trying to sell books since it's a monthly, recurring source of revenue.

A DDI sub is what, about $10 a month? That's $120 per person, per year. Get just 100 new customers from the older edition crowd and that's an extra $12,000 dollars a year. Would it cost $12,000 dollars to set up the pages? I really don't know. But even if it did, year number 2 and every year after would be virtually pure profit (as maintenance would really be negligible...the servers are already maintained because of the 4E subs...and there would be no updates necessary like the 4E compendium). However, I'm betting they could get significantly more than just 100 extra subscribers. I just can't see why it wouldn't be worthwhile. Now, if it was a matter of they just don't have the time or resources to do this right now...that I'd understand. But _"splitting the market"_ or lack of enough potential customers...Nope, not buying it.

Besides, isn't giving a group of potential customers nowhere to go but their own homebrews or other publishers, already _"splitting the market"_?



DEFCON 1 said:


> 3) Piracy - People can claim all that they want that you can easily download all the WotC printed products you want right now, and thus there's no reason not to sell PDFs of their material (both old and new). *But I would counter that with the fact that the amount of places you can get these pirated books is substantially less than the number of places you'd be able to get them if/when official WotC PDFs ever got released.* If that ever occured, the amount of places you'd be able to get these products illegally would skyrocket over current numbers because of the ease that even casual downloaders / piraters would have to set these illegal copies up
> 
> And for many would-be downloaders... the decision to do so is oftentimes just how easy it is to do, and how likely you feel you'd be able to get away with it. So the more places that have pirated material available, the easier it would be to find it, the easier it would be to get, and the better the chance that the quality of product you'd get would be good. Plus, with more places offering the material, the less likely it would be that any government, regulatory or watchdog group is keeping tabs on these download sites to possibly bust people over it after time. And on top of that, the more places that offer it widens the possibility of finding sites that won't infest your company with hundreds of trojans, virues, and worms at the same time you download the product.
> 
> I know personally that I'm terrified to download a lot of stuff from the internet just because I don't trust my computer will make it out alive if I do. And I'm sure that goes through the heads of many other people, especially 'casual' downloaders, who actually consider the potential cost of downloading pirated material above and beyond just 'getting arrested'. So by WotC making it such that not having PDFs available means many fewer sites have any of their material to give out, and for those that do it's oftentimes books that have been ripped apart and then scanned (which if people really wanted that kind of quality, they could do it themselves if it really mattered that much to them)... they therefore are _reducing_ the size of the pool of people who might possibly download pirated copies of their books.




All those products were _already_ released. All the sites that hosted those pirated files are still in existence...they didn't go anywhere with WotC's ceasing to sell pdf's. Those pirated files also didn't disappear...there still out there and available to those who don't care where they come from. I can see an argument being made for not releasing any more current products in electronic format until they can figure out a way to protect them. But the ones that are already out there? Pulling old edition pdf's did not reduce the amount of places where they were available. If anything, that in of itself has already increased the amount of places now hosting those already pirated files. Like I said before, it's not just a case of closing the barn door after the horses have left, it's also refusing to open the door for the horses that have returned.

Also, anyone who thinks that anything short of an uncopyable, unhackable, electronic format is going to reduce piracy is simply kidding themselves. Piracy will not go away or shrink until then, if ever. There is no countermeasure short of an iron-clad format that ever will. And it may just be likely that such a format won't really ever be possible or feasible.



DEFCON 1 said:


> 4) Internet Sales Sites - For all we know, WotC has their products both old and new already primed and set to sell via PDF or E-book, or whatever file format makes the most sense. But then it comes down to how exactly does WotC get the products out to people?
> 
> Do they offer them to DriveThruRPG or RPGNow to sell? But what if those companies can't handle the volume or give the same customer assurances or security that WotC would demand of a store like that? Does WotC sell these files themselves? But do they have the capabilities at this time to actually be an internet store in addition to being a production game company? How much time, money, and staff would be required to set something like this up, and is the money from potential sales worth that outlay of cost at this time? Are the current ebooks like Kindle or Nook in a place at this time to be worthwhile formats to present WotC material (since images are not able to be sent through them)? Are they waiting for the iPad and other iPad style computers to grab a bigger part of the marketplace so that they CAN produce their books with all requisite imaging without having to use the PDF file format (which might be more likely to be able to be easily pirated)?...




I agree with most of this. As far as RPGNow, I'm pretty sure they can handle the volume, as they did so for years before the pdf's were pulled, and for nearly a year after 4E was released (when volume was probably at it's highest). As for the rest, they are all very valid points and questions. They could definitely be factors in the situation. But, we don't know cause they ain't talkin...


----------



## ST

This looks to me like a subgroup of gamers doing identity politics. 

Wizards wouldn't chase those consumers for a very simple reason. They're binding their product-purchasing decisions up in their own sense of self, of what D&D "means to them". That's an extremely difficult market to chase, and at its core, is a collection of markets of one. 

Chasing a market that will purchase your product based on what it makes THEM feel like is just a hard sell. If Wizards has a marketing strategy, it's intended to efficiently maximize market share. 

Heck, when I was in software, we had the experiences of having customers we actively DIDN'T want, because the after-sales cost of support were in excess of the money made. We lost money pursuing those consumers, so we stopped. (Actually, they didn't in time, and the company eventually folded, but we sure tried. )


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

El Mahdi said:


> Also, anyone who thinks that anything short of an uncopyable, unhackable, electronic format is going to reduce piracy is simply kidding themselves.  Piracy will not go away or shrink until then, if ever.  There is no countermeasure short of an iron-clad format that ever will.  And it may just be lilely that such a format won't really ever be possible or feasible.




Thievery has been around longer than humans have: you're not ever going to stop piracy.

However, civil and criminal prosecution on both the supply_ and_ demand side do an OK job of keeping the numbers down (this is sometimes called "The Swiss Model" in other areas of the law).

The REAL way to put a dent in piracy, though, is in ethics education, be it secular, religious or both.  Those who_ really_ understand what piracy costs pretty much don't do it...or do it at such minimal levels that its not worth mentioning.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

El Mahdi said:


> All I know for sure is this: I would love to have access to 3E (and earlier editions) support through DDI - and I would spend good money for it.  Unfortunately it doesn't exist.  That's real money not going to WotC.  From threads like this, I think it's pretty obvious I'm not the only one, that there's a fairly significant group of people and their money that WotC is not tapping...but could.
> 
> _ <snip>_
> 
> I don't buy into the disgruntledness over edition changes or even campaign world changes.  They both have to evolve and change in order to have anything to sell.  It's silly to get angry at WotC for doing that or expecting them not to change (and some do...not all, but some).  If those changes aren't to my liking, I simply don't buy the products.  However, even though I don't play 4E, and don't prefer it, I have bought some 4e products (namely the core books) and occasionally mine them for ideas.  I have never begrudged WotC their right to make or alter their system, nor criticized their system or campaign world changes.  In truth, I've complimented 4E for many aspects of the system right here on these boards.  But regardless of all that, since I no longer have a reason to visit their website, or be involved in organized play events, I have virtually no exposure to their products anymore.
> 
> So, even if they started selling older edition products in electronic format, and I stopped purposely not-buying their products because of it, I am exposed to almost zero marketing for their products.  I'm not going to seek them out.  If they want my money, they need to give me a reason to come to the WotC website and see their products.  There are products and services that as a customer I desire...and only WotC has the ability to produce them.  But they won't.  I don't understand this seemingly purposeful rejection or overlooking of an entire segment of potential customers.  I don't take it personally (anymore), but I still don't understand it.




QFT.

I once stated that 4Ed for me was like GURPS- a reasonably well-thought out system that I just don't happen to like much.  And because of this (and like GURPS), I won't be buying 4Ed products to run a game (which I'll never do) but I will buy products to _play in _a game.

Because of this (and because I've always been a "Group Librarian"), besides the Core3 I own PHB 2&3, MP 1&2, AP, PP, AV 1&2, DMA, FRPG and EPG (all bought at discounts of at least 25%).

I was still buying the minis for a while.  But they started looking bad...and they didn't support the full range of 4Ed PC races in anything resembling a real effort.  So I stopped buying those.

In the future, I'm planning on getting DSPG.  That may just wrap up 4Ed for me.  I've even let my account over at WotC's forums lapse.  Well...I haven't tried to access it in more than a year.

But if WotC released in-house, freelance or player-generated material for legacy games on DDI or in physical format, that might give me a reason to stay engaged with the company.  If nothing else, I'd recommend it to my buddies who are more interested in legacy material than the new stuff.


----------



## Verdande

Saint&Sinner said:


> Would you please explain what you meant?  I would love to run D&D (there are a lot more players available).  But the amount of material and rules are daunting for me.  I'd love a truly rules lite version of D&D I could play in a pick up fashion.




I would like to recommend to you the Labyrinth Lord game- its a retroclone of basic edition D&D that really is pick up and play. The rules are simple and there's not any of the tedious wargaming aspects that a lot of new roleplayers have a hard time understanding. I tried it, and I loved it. 

Don't let anybody lie to you. The 4th edition of D&D simply isn't the same game as the 3rd edition. It has the same subject matter, but is an entirely new system and is not even slightly compatible with any of the other sets of rules. If you pick up a 1e book and then a 4e book, there will be no similarities. Whatsoever. Don't be fooled!


----------



## Jack99

Mark CMG said:


> People generate goodwill in a messageboard community by how they post.



Or how they do not post. It's one of the ways to generate goodwill, there are plenty others.



> Mods (ideally) treat everyone in the community equally.



Yeah, but they don't. If you posted a storyhour here and I subsequently made a thread where I told everyone that your writing was crap and written for slightly mentally deficient people, I would be banned before I could say P-kitty. Yet WotC writers are fair game to comments like these. 

Look, I am not saying people should be critical - not at all. And I also think writers/developers/designers should have a thick skin, when coming to places like this and interacting with the "fans". I do however think that a select group of people go way too far in their criticism of the products produces and way too far in the way said criticism is presented.



El Mahdi said:


> I don't agree that they aren't incorporating ideas because they are taking crap here (at least I think that's part of what you said)...but you are 100% right in that they do take a lot of crap that they shouldn't have to.
> 
> Snip
> 
> But anyways, as cool as ENWorld is, I don't think this place has the impact to convince WotC to not pursue a group of customers, solely because some here are blatantly insulting to them.  So, other than taking a lot of crap that they shouldn't have to, why do you think WotC _shouldn't_ go after these customers?  What reasons do you think they have for this?
> 
> If the disrespect they endure is the main reason why you think they don't target these customers, then cool.  I disagree with you...but it's cool.  But if you think there are other reasons, I'd be interested in your point of view on this.




You must have misunderstood something. I never said that WotC did not produce stuff for prior editions because of the crap they are taking here. No, not at all.

I said that I do understand if the WotC guys do not bother to participate/read threads like this one. And this one is one of the more civil there has been on the subject. I mean, why bother answering questions if you just get a bucket of  in your face every time? At some point, the false entitlement and self-righteousness permeating certain members of ENworld gets old.

As for your question - I do not know. I was pretty annoyed they pulled back the PDF's of the old editions but even more of the 4e books. Hell, I occasionally ask them about their promise of making the books available electronically. But so far, only crickets.

As for the whole 3.5 DDI. I simply think you are underestimating the cost of implementing and running 3.5 in it. They either have some analysis showing that it would cost more than it would bring in, or perhaps it shows that it would increase interest in 3.5, making 4e lose money (comparatively more than the 3.5 would bring in), or a lot of other things. 

Or maybe Erik won a beer-drinking-contest over Bill and thus WotC has to stay the hell out of the 3.5/PF market


----------



## Mark CMG

ST said:


> If Wizards has a marketing strategy, it's intended to efficiently maximize market share.





Not selling something you already have made, to people who already know it and want it, seems to argue against this intention.  WotC has cited the piracy factor but that seems to be a bugaboo that some persons in management have talked others into believing and thus influenced policy.  Hopefully, with the regular management changes that seem to be inevitable, things will shift back to making the PDFs available again.  They seem to already be hyping the idea that they want to win back lapsed D&Ders, now they can start proving it by simply turning the proverbial older edition PDF spigot back on.


----------



## Mark CMG

Jack99 said:


> If you posted a storyhour here and I subsequently made a thread where I told everyone that your writing was crap and written for slightly mentally deficient people, I would be banned before I could say P-kitty. Yet WotC writers are fair game to comments like these.





That's untrue.  If you see someone bahaving in that manner, toward any community member, whether they are a WotC employee or not, you need to report such a post.


----------



## Oldtimer

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Thievery has been around longer than humans have: you're not ever going to stop piracy.



I am amazed that a lawyer doesn't know the difference between thievery and copyright infringement. 



> The REAL way to put a dent in piracy, though, is in ethics education, be it secular, religious or both.



This has nothing to do with ethics.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Oldtimer said:


> I am amazed that a lawyer doesn't know the difference between thievery and copyright infringement.



Copyright infringement, like embezzlement, larceny and a lot of other nifty legal terms is but one of a subset of crimes that fall under the general definition of "theft."  Theft, in its simplest formulation, is taking and/or using something that doesn't belong to you without permission.

As I've posted here elsewhen (one of several similar posts on this subject exist- many with more detail and some with case sites- but this is the first one I found):



> From *Black's Law Dictionary:*
> Stolen: Acquired, or possessed, as a result of some wrongful or dishonest act or taking, whereby a person willfully obtains or retains possession of property which belongs to another, without or beyond any permission given, and with the intent to deprive the owner of the benefit of ownership (or possession) permanently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, by infringing on someone's copyright, you are stealing because:
> 
> 1) One of the fundamental powers of owning a copyright is the right to distribute or to choose not to distribute by any legal means. If you obtain copyrighted material without compensating the IP holder, you've done so by not honoring the terms by which he has offered to distribute the IP. IOW, you have deprived the owner with at least one benefit of ownership- the right to sell (or not sell) it to you.
> 
> 2) You have intentionally obtained & retained possession of the property without/beyond the permission of the owner.
> _<edit>_
> 
> 
> 
> From *Black's Law Dictionary*:
> Theft: The taking of property without the owner's consent...
> 
> The fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking...
> 
> ...it includes swindling and embezzlement and that generally, one who obtains possession fo property by lawful means and thereafter appropriates the property to the taker's own use is guilty of a "theft"...
> 
> ...any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use, or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; or (b) Obtaining by deception control over the property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to be stolen by another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copyright infringement satisfies several clauses above, (a) at the very least (especially that "exerting unauthorized control over" language), and quite often in the age of file sharing, (d).
Click to expand...



Even within the realm of the purely physical, theft doesn't require that the item to be stolen even be moved off of the owner's property.  The crime of shoplifting is complete as soon as you pocket the item- letting you get out of the store is just the cherry on top that makes things easy.  Moving something in a stockroom to a different location and locking it away elsewhere on the premises so that you can take it home after work is a complete theft the moment you shift that item with the intent to take it later.

So, if you're one of the types who believe that information should be free, and/or that its not theft if the person still has possession of the item stolen, please send me a message containing your real name, drivers license numbers, social security numbers, bank account numbers, pet names, parent's names- including maiden names- and anything else I'd need to steal your identity.



> This has nothing to do with ethics.




This has_ everything _to do with ethics.


----------



## El Mahdi

Jack99 said:


> ...




Off-topic, but I just noticed you've got that double "Community Supporter" thing going on also.  Piratecat said it might be something in our User Settings that might be causing it, but I couldn't see any settings that affected it.  He said he was going to take a look at mine and see if he could fix it.  If he figures it out, I'll drop you a pm and either tell you how he did it or let you know he can fix it.


----------



## MrMyth

BryonD said:


> There is a huge difference between "is unsuitable", which I never said, and "one things provides more support than the other", which I did say.
> 
> There is a difference between the two games. Andy described a root cause.
> If you can't see it, then fine, you can't see it. It makes no difference to me.
> *But if you say it isn't then, then, quite simply, you are wrong*.




I know this is the thread specifically for sharing what you feel WotC can do to bring you back to their game. But this quote is why I think the specific opinion being shared here is useless to them - it takes the position that your personal view is absolute truth. 

And I know it can seem like that, at times. But you need to realize this isn't the case. _For me personally_, 4E provides _more_ support for Roleplaying that 3rd Edition did, and in some part due to the very philosophy that appals you - for myself, feeling like I can build a flavorful character without worrying whether my choices will hinder me mechanically gives me free reign to embrace roleplaying and flavor over mechanics and stats. Similarly, I find support in other areas - xp guidelines for roleplaying, quests, easier encounter develop giving more time to focus on story, etc - help me with RP as a DM. 

At the same time, I absolutely recognize that there are other things it _doesn't _offer, that older editions do, which others might find more of a selling point. I'd love for 4E to really overhaul its background system into a secondary skill system that revitalizes crafting and professions and other elements of flavor. I can totally understand the concerns about certain narrative conventions in 4E breaking suspension of disbelief. 

And I think that those things are what this thread should be about - providing specific examples of what you would want changed. So that WotC can find a way to work those elements in alongside other elements current players enjoy. 

But stepping up and saying that '4E provides less support for roleplaying, and anyone who disagrees is *wrong*' is useless. Especially when the support for this argument is based on a philosophy that many 4E players find _enhances_ roleplaying, rather than detracts from it. 

The argument you are making is that 'by focusing on mechanics over story, they are providing less support for roleplaying'. But that's a useless statement. We've already seen that people disagree with that as an accurate interpretation of what the designer was even saying. If you want to genuinely give feedback on a change they can make, give us an actual example. 

The Monk, in third edition, had various abilities that lent it excellent flavor - the ability to slide down walls, being an unparelled master of leaping and tumbling and acrobatic tricks, moving across the field with greater speed than anyone else, and developing such control over his body as to resist poisons and spells and even perform feats like teleportation. In combat, he fought with his hands by unleashing a flurry of blows, was adept at combat tactics like tripping his foes, and could even acquire special attacks that could stop an opponent's heart. He was adept at fighting without armor, relying on his natural insight and speed to avoid blows. 

All of those are excellent elements of flavor. Yet the designer commenting on the monk felt the monk also had potential downsides - his reliance on multiple stats, his need for magical items or really focused builds and feats to keep his defenses viable, etc. Could you build an effective and potent monk? Absolutely. But it was also very easy to build one and discover that he wasn't actually all that good at dodging attacks, and that his flurry of blows was relatively inaccurate and didn't hit all that hard. He was still fast and agile, but so were rogues and rangers that were also quite effective at what they did, and might bring even more non-combat tricks to the party.

So, for me, the idea of being able to play a monk, embrace its flavor, and still feel effective at the table - that's a big selling point for me. And I'm confident that your argument isn't that this desire is a bad thing - you are fine with them making an effective monk. You just don't want them to sacrifice the story and flavor of the character to do so. 

I can understand that. What I want to actually know... is how you feel they have done so. For me, the 4E monk still has all the old flavor. A master of agility and movement and acrobatics, who moves quickly across the field, scales buildings with ease, knocks enemies to the ground. Who has even more martial arts tricks, in many ways, and is adept at fighting without armor. Where do you feel they have sacrificed mechanics for story? He has abilities that let him purge his body of impurities, he can strengthen his will against magical assaults, and even attune his body to shrug off the most powerful of blows. 

So - you feel that WotC has taken on a philosophy you disagree with. They set out to make a monk that they felt would be more balanced with the other classes. You view this as them having decided to sacrifice story for mechanics. 

I want to know exactly _how_. Where do you actually feel they went wrong? What can they _actually_ fix to bring you back? 

I don't want - and I suspect they don't either - to hear some commentary about how 4E is like a tattered deck of cards, and it isn't as useful as one that would be fresh and clean. That doesn't tell me anything, other than that you don't like 4E - which is fine, that is an opinion you can have. But the point of the thread is to share actual reasons. 

You feel people disagreeing with you are misrepresenting what you have said. I'm saying the problem is that you haven't really said _anything_. You've told us you want them to ditch a philosophy that you feel moves away from support for roleplaying. But you haven't actually shown that it does so - instead, others (and probably the designers themselves) might actually feel this philosophy supports roleplaying in many ways. 

I can accept that you want more support for roleplaying. I can accept that you fear that focusing on balanced mechanics could come at the cost of the flavor and story of a class. 

But just because you fear that result doesn't make it so. If there are actual changes they've made that have caused that fear, _those_ are what you need to talk about. Maybe they will be changes too fundamental to the edition for them to do anything about - but maybe they won't be. Maybe there is a common ground. Finding what can be fixed, and leave everyone happy - _that_ is what this thread is all about. 

But just tossing out your opinion, and outright insisting that anyone who disagrees is wrong? 

Sorry, but that's not going to do any good. And as long as that outlook is the one you have, it is pretty much certain that _nothing_ WotC does - no matter how reasonable - will every win you back.


----------



## Lanefan

El Mahdi said:


> Off-topic, but I just noticed you've got that double "Community Supporter" thing going on also.



off topic

Check yer paypal statements - maybe it means you're paying twice. 

/off topic

Reading this long and quite fascinating thread, it seems there's at least some general consensus that WotC could win back quite a few lapsed customers by doing at least one of:

1. re-releasing and augmenting older edition material in pdf form
2. re-releasing and augmenting older edition material in print form
3. designing and releasing a simpler, less rules-focused game in parallel with 4e and-or 5e
4. supporting older editions in DDI, Dungeon, etc.
I can think of absolutely no good reason why they don't do #4 right now.  As has been pointed out elsewhere, the cost of doing so would doubtless be covered and then some by the increase in subscription revenue, and assuming said support was generally any good the increase in goodwill value would be tremendous.

To do #3 would take time and resources but if time and resources are going into 5e design anyway (now or in the future), why not design two games at once?

#2 is my own little pipe dream as I *far* prefer books to pdfs; while I have a printer here I do not have an in-house bookbindery, and thus it's just not the same. 

And #1 has been hashed to death - WotC have to have heard the uproar by now and one can only assume it'll happen at some point, whenever the stars align just right...

Thoughts?

Lanefan


----------



## I'm A Banana

I will say that I don't think it's realistic to expect WotC to maintain any sort of ongoing support for older editions.

They can sell you PDFs. They can sell you a searchable database. They can not just sit on a mountain of stuff that they could be getting people to buy. That seems theoretically possible (barring aforementioned piracy paranoia and DDI backlog)

But I really don't think that WotC would spend anything on ongoing support for older stuff. For that, your best bet is the community. And one of the great things about D&D of every edition so far is that it has a marvelously generative community. So you're not loosing much.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I will say that I don't think it's realistic to expect WotC to maintain any sort of ongoing support for older editions.
> 
> They can sell you PDFs. They can sell you a searchable database. They can not just sit on a mountain of stuff that they could be getting people to buy. That seems theoretically possible (barring aforementioned piracy paranoia and DDI backlog)
> 
> But I really don't think that WotC would spend anything on ongoing support for older stuff. For that, your best bet is the community. And one of the great things about D&D of every edition so far is that it has a marvelously generative community. So you're not loosing much.




Beyond the possible inclusion of submitted articles dealing with "D&D Classic" being included in the DDI/Dragon/Dungeon/whatever, I don't think anyone realistically expects real support for older editions of the game.

For most, I think the pdfs & database, etc. would be a significant resource by itself.


----------



## Umbran

Folks,

I see folks getting nasty in this thread.  I see people people invoking the language filter, getting snippy, and otherwise trying to "win".

Please stop it.  It isn't constructive.  Whatever your side, being a jerk about it won't win anything for you.  This is the internet, and being rude doesn't get anyone else to back down.  So, there's no point to such behavior. 

I'll thank you all ahead of time for your sterling comportment form this point on.


----------



## BryonD

Dannyalcatraz said:


> QFT.
> 
> I once stated that 4Ed for me was like GURPS- a reasonably well-thought out system that I just don't happen to like much.  And because of this (and like GURPS), I won't be buying 4Ed products to run a game (which I'll never do) but I will buy products to _play in _a game.



I agree completely.

(except I like GURPS...)


----------



## BryonD

MrMyth said:


> I know this is the thread specifically for sharing what you feel WotC can do to bring you back to their game. But this quote is why I think the specific opinion being shared here is useless to them - it takes the position that your personal view is absolute truth.
> 
> And I know it can seem like that, at times. But you need to realize this isn't the case. _For me personally_, 4E provides _more_ support for Roleplaying that 3rd Edition did, and in some part due to the very philosophy that appals you - for myself, feeling like I can build a flavorful character without worrying whether my choices will hinder me mechanically gives me free reign to embrace roleplaying and flavor over mechanics and stats. Similarly, I find support in other areas - xp guidelines for roleplaying, quests, easier encounter develop giving more time to focus on story, etc - help me with RP as a DM. .



No, you are failing to understand the point I am making.

I don't doubt for a second that 4E provides you with the same roleplay support that 3E provided to you.

But it doesn't do all the things that 3E did.    Just as it DOES do some things that 3E didn't do.

If the kind a roleplay support that a player (such as myself) is looking for is roleplay support that puts first "imagining what could exist in the D&D world" and "assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done", as Andy directly stated prior editions did and 4E does not, then 4E is not going to provide that.  And that isn't a subjective assessment.  That is the way the game was designed.

Whether or not that is a GOOD THING is, of course, absolutely, subjective.

If I liked football more than baseball, I might say that it is better because you can tackle guys in football.  You could, mistakenly claim that I'm presenting my opinion as an "absolute truth", when if fact, I simply stating the absolute truth that, you really can't tackle guys in baseball.  Agreeing with my opinion that this makes it better is completely up to your tastes.  But it is true no matter what your opinion may be.

If you step back and look at what I'm actually saying, you will see that I fully understand the difference between the objective differences and opinions on those differences.  If you think I'm stating a personal view as truth, you've misunderstood.

There isn't a drop of badwrongfun in 4E.  4E is designed with certain goals in mind and an excellent job was done in meeting those goals.  But, those goals are different than the goals of some other games, 3E being one example.

They are different.  And there are pluses and minuses.


----------



## rgard

El Mahdi said:


> Off-topic, but I just noticed you've got that double "Community Supporter" thing going on also.  Piratecat said it might be something in our User Settings that might be causing it, but I couldn't see any settings that affected it.  He said he was going to take a look at mine and see if he could fix it.  If he figures it out, I'll drop you a pm and either tell you how he did it or let you know he can fix it.




Hmmm...I think the double 'Community Supporter' is very cool and I'm hoping I get one when I convert to monthly from annual!

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## rgard

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Copyright infringement, like embezzlement, larceny and a lot of other nifty legal terms is but one of a subset of crimes that fall under the general definition of "theft."  Theft, in its simplest formulation, is taking and/or using something that doesn't belong to you without permission.
> 
> As I've posted here elsewhen (one of several similar posts on this subject exist- many with more detail and some with case sites- but this is the first one I found):
> 
> 
> 
> Even within the realm of the purely physical, theft doesn't require that the item to be stolen even be moved off of the owner's property.  The crime of shoplifting is complete as soon as you pocket the item- letting you get out of the store is just the cherry on top that makes things easy.  Moving something in a stockroom to a different location and locking it away elsewhere on the premises so that you can take it home after work is a complete theft the moment you shift that item with the intent to take it later.
> 
> So, if you're one of the types who believe that information should be free, and/or that its not theft if the person still has possession of the item stolen, please send me a message containing your real name, drivers license numbers, social security numbers, bank account numbers, pet names, parent's names- including maiden names- and anything else I'd need to steal your identity.
> 
> 
> 
> This has_ everything _to do with ethics.




This non-lawyer agrees with you.

Tried to give xps, but I have to spread some around.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Copyright infringement, like embezzlement, larceny and a lot of other nifty legal terms is but one of a subset of crimes that fall under the general definition of "theft."  Theft, in its simplest formulation, is taking and/or using something that doesn't belong to you without permission.




Like the public's right to enjoy the useful arts and sciences. I'm comfortable labeling Sonny Bono a thief by that definition, although I'm sure others may find it contrary to their understanding.



> So, if you're one of the types who believe that information should be free, and/or that its not theft if the person still has possession of the item stolen, please send me a message containing your real name, drivers license numbers, social security numbers, bank account numbers, pet names, parent's names- including maiden names- and anything else I'd need to steal your identity.




I don't believe assault is theft, that doesn't mean I'm going to close my eyes and ask you to take your best shot.

And really, the threat of identity theft has a lot to do with the artifical and dangerous nature of intangible ownership. If someone believes in free information, it's hardly their fault that someone else believes in giving away credit cards in the mail.


----------



## Herschel

innerdude said:


> 1. I'd like to hear just once from someone at Wizards issue a public statement to the effect that, "Hey, we screwed up." I'm not asking them to apologize for 4th Edition...
> 
> But the fact is, if they want customers like me back, I'd like them to show just a little bit more appreciation for the people that kept D&D alive before 4th Edition arrived.
> 
> 2. Bring back PDFs.
> 
> If I wanted to pirate your crap, WotC, I would, but I don't, and I'd love to PAY YOU MY HARD EARNED MONEY for material that is no longer in your "current library," but continues to have tremendous value to the gaming community.
> 
> 3. Make DDI what you said it would be.
> 
> The character builder is useless to me, because I don't play 4e. But if you were to put a working tabletop system into play, and charge the small premium for it? Now we're talking. DDI as it currently stands has zero interest to me.
> 
> 4. Incentives to play that DON'T include living FR, or D&D game days, or whatever RPGA schlock you're hocking.




1. For a rather huge number of people, they didn't screw up. 4E is a great game enjoyed by oodles and scads. Because you don't like it means you're just in the group they knew were going to be mad and expected to see "go". You were simply an expected casualty in gaming progress. I've been one too. There will always be people upset regardless, this time it happened to be you. It sucks, but it is what it is.

2. PDFs? Really? They're kind of nice I suppose but between the books and DDI they really aren't necessary for their _current_ product line.

3. Again, DDI is geared towards those playing the _current_ edition. Your wants aren't important to them so long as you're not a current consumer. Move on,publish or perish. Why would they take their core e-product and put more resources in to an essentially unneeded and more involved application? That's not a good business proposition.

4. So you want it cheap on the off-chance you decide to buy. Again, why should they cater to that desire? That's an idiotic business strategy. Like it or not, LFR, game days, etc. introduce people to the game and each other, enlarging and enhancing the player base in meaningful (from a business/numbers standpoint) ways.  

At the end of the day, WotC wants as many customers as they can get in a profitable way. Your wants aren't really profitable.


----------



## Mournblade94

Jack99 said:


> At some point, the false entitlement and self-righteousness permeating certain members of ENworld gets old.




ENTITLE V>
1.to give (a person or  thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for  laying claim

ENTITLEMENT N.
1.the  act of entitling. 

 2.the state of being  entitled. 

 3.the right to guaranteed benefits under a government  program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation. 



This is not directed at you personally, it is directed towards the many comments I have seen with 'entitlement'.

It is ridiculous.  This is not welfare, or social security, or even education.  There is no entitlement and I doubt anyone feels entitled to anything in regards to the gaming hobby.  Fans of 4e use it to blow off complaints by anyone not on their side of the market.  It is very easy to be the side being served by WOTC and throw that word around.  You are perfectly happy with the state of things, so why should it change?  Is it perhaps that WOTC is giving the 4e fans what they are entitled too?  NO.  They happen to have enough people too support them in the direction they wish to market.

People are allowed to be upset with a company.  There is no entitlement about it.  To say it is entitlement is an exercise in hyperbole and nothing more.  

There are people that will criticise WOTC.  Not due to entitlement, but because WOTC is a public company that no longer serves a part of the market.

IF Ice Cream manufacturers suddenly stopped making Vanilla Ice Cream, and made only chocolate available, you would have angry people criticising the manufacturer, not out of entitlement but out of angst that their flavor is no longer available.

I am no longer angry at WOTC, simply because somebody else (PAIZO) picked up that part of the market.

However, if PAIZO did not fix the problem I would still be angry at WOTC.  Not due to entitlement, but because I simply would have lost a game I enjoyed.  (YES, I know that nobody is stealing my books.  But the game I enjoy would no longer be supported.  I have all my old toys still, but I will never get anything new)

I honestly do not think that WOTC expected the AMOUNT of lost customers they caused with 4e.  Certainly they expected some, but I doubt they expected the market to fracture the way it did.

Perhaps the nostalgia marketing is a result of that.

Also, when I ran 4e, I did not allow Dragonborn.  A player wanted to play the Dragonborn.  Should I be forced to allow Dragonborn because a player is entitled to it because it is in the rules?  That player did not play in my game.  Did that player leave because he felt I was not giving him something he was entitled to, or did he leave because the game would not be the game he wanted?


----------



## Shemeska

Herschel said:


> 1. For a rather huge number of people, they didn't screw up. 4E is a great game enjoyed by oodles and scads. Because you don't like it means you're just in the group they knew were going to be mad and expected to see "go". You were simply an expected casualty in gaming progress.




I'm not terribly convinced that everyone who didn't switch to 4e was well in advance anticipated by WotC to be acceptable losses from their customer base. We don't know how many didn't versus new people coming into 4e and staying. It's entirely possible that the buying and playing base for 4e shrank versus that of 3.x but there's no way of knowing presently.

I would infer from the marketing and content of Essentials that a large number of people did not switch and they're having to make a conscious effort to make a play for them, since they didn't get them the first time around. Others will likely read very different things from the same details.


----------



## Mournblade94

Shemeska said:


> I'm not terribly convinced that everyone who didn't switch to 4e was well in advance anticipated by WotC to be acceptable losses from their customer base. We don't know how many didn't versus new people coming into 4e and staying. It's entirely possible that the buying and playing base for 4e shrank versus that of 3.x but there's no way of knowing presently.
> 
> I would infer from the marketing and content of Essentials that a large number of people did not switch and they're having to make a conscious effort to make a play for them, since they didn't get them the first time around. Others will likely read very different things from the same details.




As I said above, I am convinced the market split was a magnitude above what WOTC anticipated.

I would have given you experience but apparently I gave you some earlier.

Sorry


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Today at Borders I saw some twenty-something gamers discuss which 4e book they were going to get, then walk out with a bunch of Pathfinder stuff instead.

Part of the discussion was based on rules, more was based on format, and most seemed to just be that the Pathfinder books looked better.... 

I prefer Pathfinder, I am glad that they went with Pathfinder, but their reasons for doing so just seems wrong, somehow....

What does this mean? Danged if I know, but something in my soul is crying....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I have an MBA in marketing entertainment & sports: _*NEVER*_ underestimate the power of kewl packaging.

What's the old saying?  "You eat first with your eyes..."


----------



## Jack99

El Mahdi said:


> Off-topic, but I just noticed you've got that double "Community Supporter" thing going on also.  Piratecat said it might be something in our User Settings that might be causing it, but I couldn't see any settings that affected it.  He said he was going to take a look at mine and see if he could fix it.  If he figures it out, I'll drop you a pm and either tell you how he did it or let you know he can fix it.




I have been wondering about that. Send away if you hear anything.


----------



## Orius

Jack99 said:


> Seriously, nothing is worth how some of you are treating them. I am often ashamed. Sure the mods do some to protect them, but not enough by far, IMO.




Perhaps.  Personal attacks usually do get addressed by the mods.  But OTOH, this isn't a WotC forum, and people have the right to say what they wish provided they do so cordially.  There's no reason for ENWorld to suppress posts that disargee with WotC's positions.  



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I will say that I don't think it's realistic to expect WotC to maintain any sort of ongoing support for older editions.




I have to agree.  They may make the .pdfs available, but I don't expect them to go any further than that.  Reprints on demand aren't unreasonable, but if WotC doesn't think it's profitable, I don't see it happening.  And I suspect a lot of the big boxed sets from the 2e days would likely not be cost effective to reproduce.  Having officially supported tools for players and DMs might be nice, but I doubt they'll put any effort into it.  I think a decent alternative is to let someone in the fan community produce a set of tools kind of like how there are official websites for the unsupported campaign settings.  

They're not going to print stuff for 1e/2e/Basic/3e or whatever.  It's just not going to happen.  I doubt the audience for this stuff is really large enough for them to bother with the costs involved in making anything new.  Maybe 3.x is an exception, but they at least have stuff like Pathfinder, C&C or whatever else to satisfy their needs.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Reprints on demand aren't unreasonable, but if WotC doesn't think it's profitable, I don't see it happening.




Most of the costs on the old stuff should be sunk costs- I'm pretty sure pdfs/downloads of that IP should be fairly profitable per unit.


----------



## HeinorNY

BryonD said:


> First, if anyone dares to suggest that 4E is geared to "new" and/or "casual" gamers, they immediately get flamed for being insulting.




But it is. I remember Mearls saying (or some other designer back then) that they put some kids that never played RPGs in a room with 3.5 books so they could play D&D. They took like 4 hours learning the rules in order to play it, IIRC. So one of the design goals for DD4 was to make it easier for newbie players to start playing the game as fast as possible.

Did it hurt the game as a whole for the more seasoned player?
IMO yes.

What would WotC need to do to win me back?
Hardly anything since I'm obvious out of their demographics, but releasing old school material as PDFs would be a nice start. 
Think of a Vintage D&D product line. "There is no need for one system to rule them all, we got D&D for all tastes!"


----------



## Beginning of the End

Herschel said:


> 2. PDFs? Really? They're kind of nice I suppose but between the books and DDI they really aren't necessary for their _current_ product line.
> 
> At the end of the day, WotC wants as many customers as they can get in a profitable way. Your wants aren't really profitable.




First, the exchange you've engaged in here is absurd:

Q: What would WotC need to do to win you back?
Innerdude: Make stuff I want to buy.
Herschel: Well, WotC doesn't want you to buy their stuff.

Second, as far as PDFs are concerned your claim that they "aren't really profitable" is, frankly, absurd. The production costs for pre-4E PDFs have already been completely paid. The distribution deals WotC had in place literally didn't cost WotC a penny. They could almost certainly have those distribution deals back any time they were willing to give them.

It's literally free money. WotC does absolutely nothing and a check gets deposited in their bank account every single month. It took them more effort to stop selling those PDFs than it would have taken them to continue selling them for the next decade (at least).

So if we're looking at the question, "Why are people disenchanted with WotC?" This is perhaps the purest distillation of it. Because there are only two explanations for this behavior:

(1) WotC is stupid.
(2) WotC is deliberately turning down free money in order to spit in the eye of their (now former) customers.

That's what causes disenchantment.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

In all fairness to WotC, there may be issues we don't know about- say, indeterminate values of royalty fees or wages for certain products- connected to the sale of old IP in digital form.

For example, there could be fees that would be owed to the estates of Gygax and Arneson and others if AD&D material were placed in DDI.  Worse still for WotC, they may have found that they may not have negotiated for all of the digital rights in the original game's material.

Stranger things happen, after all.

The possibility of such unknowns is why I said that the costs in making the digital versions of old IP were "most(ly)" sunk costs.


----------



## ST

So, in theory, all they need to do is

- convince management that selling PDFs is a good idea 
- make a case for having both 3.x and 4e products available on their site isn't causing confusion with their IP
- show that the money 3.x fans would bring in would cover the costs of setting up the system

stuff like that, right? Compared to the risk and difficulty involved in questions like those (and more), the cost of scanning the material is pocket change whether it's already done or not.

The biggest issue, and one Hasbro would have a very strong opinion about, is Wizards having confusion about their intellectual property. 

"Customer support may I help you?"
"My son bought this D&D module online for his D&D game, but the rules are all different."
"Sir, that's Third Edition material, it's not compatible with the Fourth Edition game sold in stores."
"Then why are you selling it on your website next to the new stuff?"


As a gamer, this seems silly and easily explainable. As an executive making decisions about moving product, this seems like a situation you do not want to be in.


----------



## pemerton

Diamond Cross said:


> Stop making books so expensive.



My 3 core AD&D hardbacks, bought towards the end of 1984, cost almost AUS$60 in total ($16.95 for the MM, $19.95 for the PHB and $22.95 for the DMG). 4e hardbacks, 25 years later, cost $36 or $40. That's almost a doubling in price in a time when median incomes (in Australia at least) would have also doubled, I think, or maybe more than doubled.



cperkins said:


> To me, it looks like they made a deliberate point to move away from D&D's roots and classic elements in order to redefine the game for a new generation.



These sorts of claims are very hard to take seriously in the absence of statistical date about purchasing patterns of a range of RPGers over time. To just take one example - namely, me - I've purchased 20 4e hardbacks over the past two years, which is more than the entire number of 3E hardbacks I purchased over the 8 or so years of that edition. And by GMing a 4e game I've given rise to multiple DDI subscribers who otherwise wouldn't have been playing D&D (because if I was still GMing Rolemaster they'd be playing that game).

In short - I have no doubt that 4e lost customers. But it also attracted customers. What the balance is between the two only WotC knows.



Verdande said:


> If you pick up a 1e book and then a 4e book, there will be no similarities. Whatsoever. Don't be fooled!



Well, I've run Night's Dark Terror in 4e without much trouble - maps, storyline, monsters can all be carried over reasonably straightforwardly. Now I'm used to converting adventures between systems, and I wouldn't necessarily recommned it to a newcomer to RPGs, but presumably a newcomer won't be picking up AD&D books!



TheYeti1775 said:


> I think a better winner for WotC might be a few heavy fluff books, that are fairly edition neutral.



In my view The Plane Above, The Plane Below, The Manual of the Planes and The Underdark would all fit this description. Even where they have mechanics, they should be pretty easy to convert to other systems (eg a plane with the Fire trait gives a boost to fire attacks and impedes cold attacks), with the possible exceptions of monster and trap/hazard statblocks. But those are not a huge part of any of these books.


----------



## pemerton

pawsplay said:


> You mean besides ICE



In ICE's case I think it is hurting the company. The number-one topic on the ICE boards always seems to be about the damage done to the company's games by the split between RMSS, RMC, RMexpress and HARP. None of the games is getting adequate support. I find it hard to believe that any is growing at a great rate, or even standing still. I don't think there's been a new book for HARP since the Codex in 2006.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> 4e is unabashedly gamist first... yet you believe the mechanics don't come before the "story"?





Neonchameleon said:


> You miss what 4e is.  It's Gamist/Dramatist.





Beginning of the End said:


> I think the whole "4th edition has narrative control mechanics" is, with rare exception, a bit of a misnomer.
> 
> Narrative control mechanics are dissociated mechanics. 4th Edition has dissociated mechanics. This doesn't mean that 4th Edition's dissociated mechanics are, by and large, narrative control mechanics. (Although it's true that a few of them could probably be classified as such.)
> 
> CAGI, for example, gives the player control over an NPC's actions in a way that would traditionally be reserved for the GM. But it's not really narrative control that's being taken. It's, for lack of a better term, gamist control.



A lot of RPGs have mechanics leading the story. This is the whole point of a lot of "indie" design - apply the mechanics and an awesome adventure story will follow! It's a deliberate contrast with "traditional" design like AD&D (especially 2nd ed) and (perhaps) 3E, which encourages the GM to disregard or override the mechanics in the interests of story. But the mere fact that mechanics lead story doesn't produce "gamism" or undermine roleplaying.

I think Beginning of the End has (implicitly) identified the real issue here, which is - who bears the narrative onus? If it is the GM - that is, if a player is allowed to use Come and Get It without regard to the story, and it is the GM's job to explain what is going on in the gameworld - then the story might be undermined. But if it the player - that is, if the player who want to use Come and Get It has to explain how it is working in the story - then (in principle, it seems to me) the upshot should be engaged players engaged in high quality roleplaying. (There is a resemblance here to augments in HeroQuest - in principle, any augment of any ability by any other abiliy is possible, but on any particular occasion the onus is on the player to explain how a particular augment is taking place, in a manner that is engaging for everyone else at the table.)

The 4e rulebooks don't really address this issue. In theory, at my table the onus is on the player. In practice, the player whose PC has Come and Get It isn't the most roleplaying-engaged of my players and I tend to let it slide a bit. It hasn't killed the game yet.


----------



## pemerton

Doug McCrae said:


> Nah, I'm saying they should change all the people into ships. HMS Gutboy Barrelhouse versus USS Aggro the Axe.
> 
> Hey, at least it would be verisimilitudinous!



Wins the thread!


----------



## Hussar

This has been brought up before in other threads, but, sorry, no, old pdf's are not free.

You need to account for the revenue stream - that costs money.
How long does it take between sales and when WOTC gets paid? - that has to be calculated in.
Who else has rights to this material?  The reason you will never see another digital Dragon Magazine compendium is because many of the articles do not have proper ownerships assigned.
How much money/time needs to be spent on product questions?
For older products (anything pre 3e anyway), how much time will it take to turn it into a pdf, along with bookmarking and whatnot?  It's not like you can just scan it in and turn it loose.

The myth that this is just free money that WOTC is turning away is just that.  It's a myth.  Producing OOP PDF's costs money.  It costs money to maintain and it costs money to produce.  It is not free.

And, apparently, it's not worth the time/money to do.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Well, I've run Night's Dark Terror in 4e without much trouble - maps, storyline, monsters can all be carried over reasonably straightforwardly.



off topic

Maybe fodder for a different thread, but I'm curious how that worked out.  I've converted the other way (run Keep on the Shadowfell in 1e) and while the conversion itself was relatively easy the result wasn't quite what I'd hoped once the dice started flying.  I'd be interested in hearing how well a Basic adventure ported to 4e in terms of how well it played.

/off topic

Lanefan


----------



## Mark CMG

Hussar said:


> (snip)





This might be a better argument if they didn't already do this, before rescinding the program due to "piracy."  I have no idea why you are throwing out a bunch of false arguments against a program they already had in place without any of the problems you suggest would prevent them from doing it again.  The fact that they have previously done this speaks clearly to how ill-informed your suggestions are.


----------



## Ranes

Accounting for the revenue stream is something that has to be done, of course. And, of course, it has been.

ST's point, I think, about customer confusion is more likely to have to do with WotC's stance on this (although they could have made that argument instead of the piracy one).

Oh well. It looks like the practical answer to the original question is, for me: nowt, nada, zilch.

Fortunately, there's still great third party support (for 3e, at least).


----------



## Hussar

Mark CMG said:


> This might be a better argument if they didn't already do this, before rescinding the program due to "piracy."  I have no idea why you are throwing out a bunch of false arguments against a program they already had in place without any of the problems you suggest would prevent them from doing it again.  The fact that they have previously done this speaks clearly to how ill-informed your suggestions are.




Just because they were losing money, or not making enough profit to make it worth the time (take your pick which one) does not mean that it was a good idea in the first place.

Would you be content if they only offered those products that they offered previously?  No additional products?  Because, the second you want more, there goes your argument.

Look, time and again, people have said "vote with your wallets" and this is precisely what happened.  People voted with their wallets and the pdf's lost.  It sucks.  I realize and empathise.  But, saying that they're just too stupid to take your money does not help your position.  

There are any number of perfectly reasonable reasons why they don't sell pdf's anymore that have nothing to do with this mad bolus of conspiracy theory that they are somehow either afraid of OOP products or want to "get" older players somehow.

The bottom line is that the pdf's didn't make enough money.  End of story.

You want pdf's back?  Get ten thousand people to sign a petition to get them back.  Prove that pdf's would actually be profitable enough.

Otherwise, you're just howling at the moon.

Print Dungeon and Dragon combined sold about 50 000 issues a month under Paizo.  That wasn't profitable enough to keep them in print.  What makes you think that a couple of thousand OOP pdf's is profitable enough?


----------



## Mark CMG

Hussar said:


> Just because they were losing money, or not making enough profit to make it worth the time (take your pick which one) does not mean that it was a good idea in the first place.





Obviously you are just making up reasons to justify your own position (though I cannot understand how sales of older edition PDFs harms you), since the WotC position is that they cut off PDF sales due to piracy issues.  Financial concerns were not cited and since they were traditionally at the top of RPGnow's sales lists, it obviously wasn't a concern at the time (nor likely would be).


(BTW, Really?  You're going to throw up the incredibly weak "conspiracy theory" method of trying to discredit people who want to give revenue to WorC?  That's your fallback?  Let's set that old chestnut aside, please.)


----------



## scruffygrognard

pemerton said:


> These sorts of claims are very hard to take seriously in the absence of statistical date about purchasing patterns of a range of RPGers over time. To just take one example - namely, me - I've purchased 20 4e hardbacks over the past two years, which is more than the entire number of 3E hardbacks I purchased over the 8 or so years of that edition. And by GMing a 4e game I've given rise to multiple DDI subscribers who otherwise wouldn't have been playing D&D (because if I was still GMing Rolemaster they'd be playing that game).




It wasn't a claim... I was offering my perception of WotC's actions in both the marketing and creation of 4th edition.

To my eyes there were enough significant changes made to the game, whether they be in style, implied background, rule mechanics, etc, that I could only conclude that they were breaking from what D&D was in order to rebuild the game for a new audience.

Whether I was correct in my perception or not I know that the broad changes to the game turned me off and drove me away.


----------



## Hussar

All right.  Let's play it straight then.

WOTC cuts off the PDF's due to piracy.  We'll take them at their word.

Where's the problem?  They are not obligated to sell anything.  They stopped selling a product because, apparently, piracy was a concern and to combat this, they chose to take their ball and go home.

Why the angst then?  Why the claims that WOTC is afraid of pdf's cutting into their profits?  Why aren't you equally critical of these claims?  After all, apparently the piracy claim is the ONLY valid interpretation.

You can disagree with their policy.  Sure.  That's groovy.  You can be annoyed about it.  But, boycotting a company because they choose to no longer make something available seems incredibly self centered.  

"Hey this company makes all these things that I want to buy, but, because they no longer make THIS, I won't buy from them."

Buh?  What?

The sale of older pdf's doesn't harm me in the slightest.  I couldn't care less whether they were there or not.  Do not care.  But, what annoys the crap out of me, is self-righteous fans demanding that their needs be served, and any counter argument is summarily dismissed as "making up reasons".

They don't sell pdf's.  Let it go.  Why keep bitching and whining about it?

The fact that the WOTC pdf's were often best sellers on Drive Thru only proves how incredibly small Drive Thru's sales are.  When a twenty year old OOP product sells better than any new one is a commentary on new products.  

It's pretty obvious to me.  If the pdf's were a signficant revenue source, they'd be selling them.  They're not selling them, therefore, they were not a significant revenue source.  People voted with their wallets and the pdf's lost.  Sucks to be a fan of the pdf's, but, them's the breaks.  Get over it and move on.


----------



## Sammael

WotC currently makes virtually nothing that I want to purchase. If they were to add older edition materials to the DDI, I would likely subscribe to the DDI for the convenience. Judging from the response to this thread, I'm not alone. Now, if WotC market research shows that the cost/benefit ratio of this operation is not favorable, then it makes little sense for them to do it. However, the only public reason WotC gave for pulling the PDFs was "piracy," which, of course, is ridiculous, since any given 4E book is now scanned and available from the usual illegal DL sites within a week of its release. The only think different is the quality of the release, but OCR works wonders nowadays. In other words, the pulling of PDFs did absolutely nothing to reduce piracy, so their only stated reason for not selling the PDFs is moot. Anything else, including Hussar's arguments is pure speculation.


----------



## Mournblade94

NOTE THIS POST WAS IN REFERENCE TO DANNYALCATRAZ ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 23.  For some reason I screwed up quoting.

Yeah its weird!

Marvel has licensed characters to movie studios like fox.  Basically they have no legal input on what Fox does with the characters in film.  If FOX wanted to make Wolverine:  The Gardening Years, Marvel has no say as long as they produce movies.

Incidentally that is why Spiderman went back to Marvel.  They could not get a director for Sony's SPiderman IV.  Now marvel is producing it in house.  Marvel is no longer licensing characters.  Unfortunately XMEN and Wolverine still have a long duration.  

If Marvel wanted to make their own WOLVERINE movie, or include Wolverine in the AVENGERS movie they would be sued.  Marvel essentially has no right to make a Wolverine movie at this point, only fox can.

The character she hulk was created by Marvel when Marvel got word the original Lou Ferigno HULK SHOW was going to make a female version of hulk.  Marvel went to work right away and created her immediately for the next month.  WHY?  If the TV show made She Hulk first, they own the rights to the character, and too this day, the She hulk would have to be LICENSED by marvel.

I often suspected there could be weirdness involved with 1st edition PDFs and such, of the same sort.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> WOTC cuts off the PDF's due to piracy. We'll take them at their word.
> 
> Where's the problem? They are not obligated to sell anything. They stopped selling a product because, apparently, piracy was a concern and to combat this, they chose to take their ball and go home.




Only two main problems with this, really.


 The approach is ineffective in achieving its stated goal. Anyone who cares to can find pirated, recent WotC material easily. Stuff like the Essentials line -- which gives you counters and dungeon tiles -- is probably a more effective approach, since it gives you things that cannot easily be reproduced.
 They aren't currently selling older edition material, so fears about piracy cutting into current sales of things they don't currently sell are paradoxical and paranoid.

They can do whatever they want with their product, but I am free to call it out as (from my perspective) a pretty ignorant approach, if I see it that way. In the case that PDFs are pulled due to piracy, I do see it that way. 

In the case that they're pulled due to being unprofitable, I could understand it, though I'd wonder why they said it was due to piracy, then. 



> But, boycotting a company because they choose to no longer make something available seems incredibly self centered.




Unless, of course, they no longer make what you want to buy.

For people who are not fans of 4e for some fundamental reason, that's pretty much the case. 



> They don't sell pdf's. Let it go. Why keep bitching and whining about it?




Dude, check the thread title.  The PDF issue is clearly something that would "win back the disenchanted," and that pretty much makes sense to me, since it would involve WotC selling things for a game that those people play.

The message is, essentially, like asking _Nickelodeon_ to sell you DVDs of _The Adventures of Pete & Pete_. They no longer make this thing, they've moved on to other things, but people still fondly remember and watch the show, so you can sell the show to them, still.


----------



## Coldwyn

Sammael said:


> WotC currently makes virtually nothing that I want to purchase. If they were to add older edition materials to the DDI, I would likely subscribe to the DDI for the convenience. Judging from the response to this thread, I'm not alone. Now, if WotC market research shows that the cost/benefit ratio of this operation is not favorable, then it makes little sense for them to do it. However, the only public reason WotC gave for pulling the PDFs was "piracy," which, of course, is ridiculous, since any given 4E book is now scanned and available from the usual illegal DL sites within a week of its release. The only think different is the quality of the release, but OCR works wonders nowadays. In other words, the pulling of PDFs did absolutely nothing to reduce piracy, so their only stated reason for not selling the PDFs is moot. Anything else, including Hussar's arguments is pure speculation.




Jut some thoughts to that:
Illegal PDFs of OOP products were availlable way longer than the official PDF for sale. So I guess it´s not "The official PDF got pirated" but rather "No on buys the official PDFs because the pirated ones are already in circulation".
For me, the question here is, which person who already has his pirated copies of every book out there would re-buy all that stuff just because it´s on sale now?
On the pirated 4E books: Well, they are not a total loss. People still pay for their DDI account, so there is still a revenue stream fueled by the products.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Mournblade94 said:


> Yeah its weird!
> 
> Marvel has licensed characters to movie studios like fox.  Basically they have no legal input on what Fox does with the characters in film.  If FOX wanted to make Wolverine:  The Gardening Years, Marvel has no say as long as they produce movies.
> 
> Incidentally that is why Spiderman went back to Marvel.  They could not get a director for Sony's SPiderman IV.  Now marvel is producing it in house.  Marvel is no longer licensing characters.  Unfortunately XMEN and Wolverine still have a long duration.




Tangent : Spider-Man is still licensed to Sony. It's why Sony kicked into overdrive after Sam Raimi left the franchise. They had to produce a new Spider-Man movie by a certain date or the property reverted BACK to Marvel.


----------



## Mournblade94

ST said:


> The biggest issue, and one Hasbro would have a very strong opinion about, is Wizards having confusion about their intellectual property.
> 
> "Customer support may I help you?"
> "My son bought this D&D module online for his D&D game, but the rules are all different."
> "Sir, that's Third Edition material, it's not compatible with the Fourth Edition game sold in stores."
> "Then why are you selling it on your website next to the new stuff?"
> 
> 
> As a gamer, this seems silly and easily explainable. As an executive making decisions about moving product, this seems like a situation you do not want to be in.






Ranes said:


> ST's point, I think, about customer confusion is more likely to have to do with WotC's stance on this (although they could have made that argument instead of the piracy one).




IN all reality, I think the magnitude of fury would have been greater if in fact they admitted to ST's point above.  

I know it is a rational decision.  I for one would have been furious even though the company has very little choice.  The simple reason is I hate when things get dumbed down for the general public (STOP!  I DO NOT MEAN 4E is DUMBED DOWN, what I mean is customer service now needs to deal with people who does not understand gaming conventions).  Happens with movies all the time, and before the internet age, was the biggest complaint of fans, i.e. how they 'ruined' an ip by dumbing it down for the general viewing public.

NOTE:  Very often I was the one complaining about it.


----------



## Shazman

AllisterH said:


> Personally...I'm kinda amused that WOTC is being faulted for trying to appeal to a new generation of gamers who have grown up on anime and videogames...
> 
> I mean, AD&D would never try to be hip by stealing something from popular culture like say a tv show about some white guy playing a monk in a western setting....




I don't think anyone is faulting WotC for trying to get younger players involved in D&D.  The fact that they are doing it in a way that completely alienates long time fans of the game, many of which have spent a lot of money on the hobby over the years, is what many are upset about.


----------



## Mournblade94

ShinHakkaider said:


> Tangent : Spider-Man is still licensed to Sony. It's why Sony kicked into overdrive after Sam Raimi left the franchise. They had to produce a new Spider-Man movie by a certain date or the property reverted BACK to Marvel.




AH!  Well my comic guruness has been defeated.  Anyway I thought SOny lost the license.  I know that Bendis is working on the script, but the information funnleing through the comics network has a fault somewhere... many thanks.

I thought they DIDN'T complete it by the date.


----------



## El Mahdi

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ...your best bet is the community. And one of the great things about D&D of every edition so far is that it has a marvelously generative community. So you're not loosing much.




I can't agree more.  ENWorld is a perfect example of just how good the community is.  I've seen more creative and innovative D20 mechanics since the end of 3E, than I have during.  And almost all from community generated submissions.  Doesn't really matter the edition, there's an awesome community out there.  And despite the sometimes edition wars, there's some very helpful cross-edition sharing.  I may not play 4E, but it is D&D...and Man, I Love D&D!


But the "official" support would still be extremely welcomed.


----------



## Reynard

If WotC put out X Anniversary Editions of Older books/modules/campaign setting, just as they were originally printed, with perhaps new covers or nice bindings, I'd buy every one -- even those I already own -- simply because I think WotC should be rewarded for appreciating and embracing the very long history of the game and the people that have kept it alive for decades.


----------



## MrMyth

BryonD said:


> If the kind a roleplay support that a player (such as myself) is looking for is roleplay support that puts first "imagining what could exist in the D&D world" and "assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done", as Andy directly stated prior editions did and 4E does not, then 4E is not going to provide that. And that isn't a subjective assessment. That is the way the game was designed.
> 
> Whether or not that is a GOOD THING is, of course, absolutely, subjective.




I'm sorry, but I'll continue to maintain that believing that is how the edition is designed _is_ an subjective opinion.  

I do get that the editions are different. There are elements that some players will prefer in each, absolutely. 

But rather than pointing out any actual elements that fit this concern you have, you keep returning to this one quote, and reading things into it that aren't there. 

Look, here is what you said - you said you want to play a monk because "I want to be the guy who masters his body and contemplates his place in the multiverse and through all of this achieves a supernatural ability to jump and kick, amongst other things."

You then implied that 4E is sacrificing those desires - or putting less importance on them - in order to ensure that the jumping is mechanically balanced. That this is a "ruleset that puts 'being the character' as a secondary tier subservient to tabletop miniature equity".

That is not an objective fact. That is making a claim about the game that, if you really want them to fix, you need to genuinely demonstrate where the problem is. 

Because the 4E monk seems to be built around exactly those elements you are looking for. I don't see its character being placed second to other elements. If you genuinely do, then I really want to be shown how. 

Sure, both games have elements they offer that appeal to different people. But the reason I've been commenting on your posts is because you have been avoiding talking about any actual elements. You've just made a claim about 4E philosophy and indicated that your opinion of it is objective fact - that any who disagree with you are simply wrong, or are denying reality, or proclaiming that 'you can tackle people in baseball'. And that just isn't helpful, in my view, to either you or WotC in a discussion of this nature.


----------



## Umbran

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Unless, of course, they no longer make what you want to buy.




Well, it is hardly a boycott then.  I cannot boycott Coca-Cola by refusing to buy their gasoline.  Not buying that which you weren't going to buy anyway isn't a boycott.


----------



## MerricB

Lanefan said:


> Reading this long and quite fascinating thread, it seems there's at least some general consensus that WotC could win back quite a few lapsed customers by doing at least one of:
> 4. supporting older editions in DDI, Dungeon, etc.[/list]
> I can think of absolutely no good reason why they don't do #4 right now.  As has been pointed out elsewhere, the cost of doing so would doubtless be covered and then some by the increase in subscription revenue, and assuming said support was generally any good the increase in goodwill value would be tremendous.




Let's say that Wizards include one previous edition adventure in each month of Dungeon Magazine. Month one, OD&D, Month two, AD&D, Month three, AD&D2, Month four 3.5e, then repeat.

Is that worth your money? $10 each month for just those adventures?

I would suggest that most people _wouldn't_ consider it worth it. And the "goodwill" you create by publishing those adventures is nice, but unfortunately you lose the goodwill of the 4E customers who are losing the 4E content you sacrifice to put in the older edition material.

Splitting the market is such a major thing to RPG publishers and players because RPGs are so time-intensive. I have over 200 boardgames, but each weekend I'm likely to play 5-10 different games. In a year, I'd be lucky to play three different RPGs. I do not believe that RPG players in general and D&D players in particular tend to hop from RPG to RPG.

The making available of previous edition PDFs is another matter entirely.

Cheers!


----------



## renau1g

If they could do that without reducing their support for the current edition maybe, but in all liklihood they'd have to print one less 4e adventure per month and I really would be upset by that. There's already enough Dungeon adventures for those that want them in back issues.


----------



## renau1g

Shazman said:


> I don't think anyone is faulting WotC for trying to get younger players involved in D&D.  The fact that they are doing it in a way that completely alienates long time fans of the game, many of which have spent a lot of money on the hobby over the years, is what many are upset about.




From a business perspective, money you spent in the past doesn't matter. They only care about current/future profits, therefore current/future sales, just as any business that makes money should. Wizards doesn't care that you bought every 1e book that was published, or even that you bought every 3e book. Those profits have already been booked, the shareholders have received their dividends (or increased share value) and the managers their bonuses. Now they look forward and try to gain customers who will spend more money. Younger individuals have more time, and likely will spend more money as they don't have a family, mortgage payments, car payments, utilities, etc. that most of those playing for years have. 

It's a cold rationalization, but look at Jack Welch, he was certainly not a loving, feel good CEO, but damn he increased shareholder value and that's what every business strives to do.

Also, I've played since 2e and I feel no alienation, so please don't paint everyone who's played for a long time with the same brush. Thanks.


----------



## renau1g

Coldwyn said:


> Jut some thoughts to that:
> Illegal PDFs of OOP products were availlable way longer than the official PDF for sale. So I guess it´s not "The official PDF got pirated" but rather "No on buys the official PDFs because the pirated ones are already in circulation".
> For me, the question here is, which person who already has his pirated copies of every book out there would re-buy all that stuff just because it´s on sale now?
> On the pirated 4E books: Well, they are not a total loss. People still pay for their DDI account, so there is still a revenue stream fueled by the products.




Yeah, this is my perspective as well. As has been hashed out in dozens of threads, we have incomplete information on their decision to stop selling PDFs. If you try for 5 minutes I'm sure you could locate the pirated PDFs of older editions. End of the day WoTC is a business and if the business didn't have a positive ROI, or even a high enough ROI vs. comparable opportunities for their limited investments, then that's likely why they shut it down. They might have officially said pirated copies were the culprits because the backlash might even be greater if they said they weren't making enough money on it.


----------



## Wicht

renau1g said:


> From a business perspective, money you spent in the past doesn't matter. They only care about current/future profits, therefore current/future sales, just as any business that makes money should. Wizards doesn't care that you bought every 1e book that was published, or even that you bought every 3e book. Those profits have already been booked, the shareholders have received their dividends (or increased share value) and the managers their bonuses. Now they look forward and try to gain customers who will spend more money. Younger individuals have more time, and likely will spend more money as they don't have a family, mortgage payments, car payments, utilities, etc. that most of those playing for years have.




I don't buy into the "younger people have more money" idea.  More time yes. Money no. I spend more now, in my 30s on my hobby, than I ever did in my 20s (of course I blame Paizo). 

As well, while past sales may not count towards future profits, the habits of past customers should not be ignored. Its foolish to write off faithful customers in an attempt to gain younger customers. I have come to believe this was not their intention, though it was, for many of us, what did happen.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> The fact that the WOTC pdf's were often best sellers on Drive Thru only proves how incredibly small Drive Thru's sales are.  When a twenty year old OOP product sells better than any new one is a commentary on new products.




Or that there's a significant demand for 20 year old OOP products in electronic formats. Without specific sales numbers, there's no way to tell the difference between your guess and the opposite.



Hussar said:


> It's pretty obvious to me.  If the pdf's were a signficant revenue source, they'd be selling them.  They're not selling them, therefore, they were not a significant revenue source.  People voted with their wallets and the pdf's lost.




But we don't know that, do we? WotC cited piracy and nothing else. You're making a big assumption. 

I will say that even your assumption gets at some of this thread's complaints about WotC. Your assumption tells me that even *you* aren't taking WotC at their word. But apparently you *don't* see why that might make for disgruntled, disenchanted customers (or even ex-customers). Personally, I don't like being lied to that much. Do you?


----------



## billd91

Wicht said:


> I don't buy into the "younger people have more money" idea.  More time yes. Money no. I spend more now, in my 30s on my hobby, than I ever did in my 20s (of course I blame Paizo).




I don't buy it either, particularly when WotC's market survey data 10 years ago indicated the opposite. The highest spending group by far was the oldest (25-35) age group. Gamers over 35 weren't studied by the survey, so we don't know anything about their buying habits from this particular survey. 

It's possible that practices have changed somewhat, but I see no reason to believe they've changed that significantly.


----------



## renau1g

It certainly wasn't their intention, I'm also sure of that. I'm also sure that Wizards has a lot of demographic information on sales, spending habits, etc. that most of us don't have. I know I spent more in my 20's than I do now in my 30's precisely because I'm working full time, have children to pay for, a mortgage, car payments, etc and have less disposible income than when I was in high school or university, despite increased earnings. 

I really don't think they "wrote off" customers, but rather focused on their core brand and core products to increase profitability. Just like GM cut out Pontiac and Saturn to focus on their core brands (which seems to have resulted favourably for them) and GE did the same back in the 80's, which also was successful, Wizards is likely focusing on 4e, the DDI, and Essentials to maximize profitability.


----------



## renau1g

billd91 said:


> But we don't know that, do we? WotC cited piracy and nothing else. You're making a big assumption.
> 
> I will say that even your assumption gets at some of this thread's complaints about WotC. Your assumption tells me that even *you* aren't taking WotC at their word. But apparently you *don't* see why that might make for disgruntled, disenchanted customers (or even ex-customers). Personally, I don't like being lied to that much. Do you?




I actually have no issues with their discontinuation of sales of the PDFs, but I an in agreement with Hussar here. If they were making money hand over fist and it was generating as much or more than 4e, there is no way they'd stop selling them.

Look at companies who operate factories in China. Sure their designs are stolen as soon as they start building them and knock-off products are on the street at nearly the same time as official ones are. But companies still operate there as they are still able to make more money by having production costs low and losing a small amount of potential customers who purchase the knock-offs, than by producing them in say USA and having much higher costs.


----------



## renau1g

billd91 said:


> I don't buy it either, particularly when WotC's market survey data 10 years ago indicated the opposite. The highest spending group by far was the oldest (25-35) age group. Gamers over 35 weren't studied by the survey, so we don't know anything about their buying habits from this particular survey.
> 
> It's possible that practices have changed somewhat, but I see no reason to believe they've changed that significantly.




Hehe, I considered the 25-35 group to _be_ the younger ones as there's little chance that anyone 25 was playing D&D in 1977, as we weren't even born then.


----------



## ggroy

renau1g said:


> It certainly wasn't their intention, I'm also sure of that. I'm also sure that Wizards has a lot of demographic information on sales, spending habits, etc. that most of us don't have. I know I spent more in my 20's than I do now in my 30's precisely because I'm working full time, have children to pay for, a mortgage, car payments, etc and have less disposible income than when I was in high school or university, despite increased earnings.




The real life equivalent of "always fighting orcs" as one advances up in levels (or age).


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> It's possible that practices have changed somewhat, but I see no reason to believe they've changed that significantly.




Don't confuse current practices with potential market.

Yes, in 1999, the research showed that older gamers tended to spend more than younger gamers.  Those were spending habits largely associated with folks who were already players of 2e.

A study I saw recently suggests that teens spend about 8% of their budgets on video games, and that teens represent about 35% of the video game market.

Note that video games are a $7.3 _billion_ dollar business.  If 35% of that is teens, that's $2.5 billion on games (and their budgets totaled up are something like $30 billion).

So, as a company you have a choice - market to a few old warhorses, or try to get a hunk of that $30 billion (or that $2.5 billion).  Relying on spending patterns from 10 years a go is perhaps not the best way to grow a business.


----------



## Shazman

renau1g said:


> From a business perspective, money you spent in the past doesn't matter. They only care about current/future profits, therefore current/future sales, just as any business that makes money should. Wizards doesn't care that you bought every 1e book that was published, or even that you bought every 3e book. Those profits have already been booked, the shareholders have received their dividends (or increased share value) and the managers their bonuses. Now they look forward and try to gain customers who will spend more money. Younger individuals have more time, and likely will spend more money as they don't have a family, mortgage payments, car payments, utilities, etc. that most of those playing for years have.
> 
> It's a cold rationalization, but look at Jack Welch, he was certainly not a loving, feel good CEO, but damn he increased shareholder value and that's what every business strives to do.
> 
> Also, I've played since 2e and I feel no alienation, so please don't paint everyone who's played for a long time with the same brush. Thanks.




Except that a lot of those gamers have shown that they were willing and able to spend a lot on RPG products and that money would most likely still be going to WotC, if WotC were making a game they wanted to play.  There are a lot of us that went from buying a lot of WotC products to "WotC now gets none of my money" with the edition switch or as a result of their horrendous PR blunders.  The constant layoffs and the change in direction with the Essentials products seems to indicate that they lost more money from those fans that didn't swith than they planned on and would like some of it back.  Maybe they "fired" too many customers and didn't replace them with enough new customers, or the new customers aren't buying as many products.  Perhaps the "fire the audience" policy didn't work out for them like they planned.


----------



## The Ghost

renau1g said:


> From a business perspective, money you spent in the past doesn't matter. They only care about current/future profits, therefore current/future sales, just as any business that makes money should. Wizards doesn't care that you bought every 1e book that was published, or even that you bought every 3e book.




They should. It is a known market with a predictable spending pattern.


----------



## Umbran

The Ghost said:


> They should. It is a known market with a predictable spending pattern.




Maybe it being a known market is what keeps them from doing it?  It is known, but quite possibly _small_.  Niche of a niche, and all that.


----------



## renau1g

The Ghost said:


> They should. It is a known market with a predictable spending pattern.




With 4e, it's the largest change in mechanics between any of the editions IMO, so the current patterns aren't ones that can be counted on continuing as I'm sure they did market research and there was certainly some 1/2/3e players who felt the changes were too drastic and too video game-y (as I've heard from many here). 

Their predictable spending patterns are on past products, which may or may not still hold true based on the reactions of those customers to the new product offerings.


----------



## Wicht

Umbran said:


> Don't confuse current practices with potential market.
> 
> Yes, in 1999, the research showed that older gamers tended to spend more than younger gamers.  Those were spending habits largely associated with folks who were already players of 2e.
> 
> A study I saw recently suggests that teens spend about 8% of their budgets on video games, and that teens represent about 35% of the video game market.
> 
> Note that video games are a $7.3 _billion_ dollar business.  If 35% of that is teens, that's $2.5 billion on games (and their budgets totaled up are something like $30 billion).
> 
> So, as a company you have a choice - market to a few old warhorses, or try to get a hunk of that $30 billion (or that $2.5 billion).  Relying on spending patterns from 10 years a go is perhaps not the best way to grow a business.




The main problem with your reasoning is that while teens may represent 35% of the market, non-teens must represent close to 65% percent of the video game market.

If your company targets the 35% and mine targets the 65%, if we both pull in just ten percent of the people we target, I'll make twice as much money as you do, more or less.


----------



## renau1g

Shazman said:


> Except that a lot of those gamers have shown that they were willing and able to spend a lot on RPG products and that money would most likely still be going to WotC, if WotC were making a game they wanted to play.  There are a lot of us that went from buying a lot of WotC products to "WotC now gets none of my money" with the edition switch or as a result of their horrendous PR blunders.  The constant layoffs and the change in direction with the Essentials products seems to indicate that they lost more money from those fans that didn't swith than they planned on and would like some of it back.  Maybe they "fired" too many customers and didn't replace them with enough new customers, or the new customers aren't buying as many products.  Perhaps the "fire the audience" policy didn't work out for them like they planned.




Without actual figures, "a lot' isn't a definable amount. Even if half of Enworld's user base is of those "I hate 4e, I am not playing it" group (that may be high) then that's approx. 45k users. 

Constant layoffs have been shown to be SOP at Wizards since 3e, so don't blame 4e for that. PR blunders? *sigh* IF you can demonstrate with financial information that WoTC is making less money now with 4e + DDI than with 3.5e I will concede that you seem to have a point, but monthly subscriptions have shown to be excellent, reliable sources of revenue (ask Morrus or check out Blizzard's earnings for examples) and I'm fairly certain that DDI is doing very well for WoTC. 

There's something you learn in business and not every customer is desirable. You have to look at each customer to determine their profitability, and sometimes its better for you to cut a customer loose than it is to continue to try and service them. It's called Customer profitability analysis, and it's an excellent tool to use when running a business. My first reaction when I encountered this in my organization was "OMG, we can't just let that really small client go, how can we make money letting clients leave?" but now I see, it took our firm too much resources for too little return to service them. 

WoTC has limited resources and must focus those resources on the areas that they make the most money.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

Wicht said:


> I don't buy into the "younger people have more money" idea.  More time yes. Money no. I spend more now, in my 30s on my hobby, than I ever did in my 20s (of course I blame Paizo).



To be accurate, renau1g said that yougner people will likely _spend_ more money, not that they _have_ more money.  And in my case, that is correct.  While I have more money now than I did when I was younger, I do not spend as much on gaming as I did since I have greater needs for my money.  Saving for that new house, college expenses and retirement takes precedence over buying the shiny new book.

The main difference now is that I plan and budget my gaming purchases; many fewer impulse purchases than when I was younger.


> As well, while past sales may not count towards future profits, the habits of past customers should not be ignored. Its foolish to write off faithful customers in an attempt to gain younger customers. I have come to believe this was not their intention, though it was, for many of us, what did happen



 Well, past history also says that, no matter what you will lose customers when you make an edition change.  I suspect that WotC knew moving to 4e would create a divide in the market, but their market research concluded that the potential gains outweighed the losses.


----------



## renau1g

Wicht said:


> The main problem with your reasoning is that while teens may represent 35% of the market, non-teens must represent close to 65% percent of the video game market.
> 
> If your company targets the 35% and mine targets the 65%, if we both pull in just ten percent of the people we target, I'll make twice as much money as you do, more or less.




But you're assuming 100% of people who are not teens suddenly abandon D&D and head to Pathfinder or other games. 

If they sold PDF's of older editions would you (or most of the others who are upset about it) buy 4e products? Or would your patronage be a one time, tiny boost to profits?


----------



## Umbran

Wicht said:


> The main problem with your reasoning is that while teens may represent 35% of the market, non-teens must represent close to 65% percent of the video game market.
> 
> If your company targets the 35% and mine targets the 65%, if we both pull in just ten percent of the people we target, I'll make twice as much money as you do, more or less.




My argument was merely to show that the teens have plenty of money, in general.

Now, add to the point from the WotC Market research:  While the teens may not spend as much on the game per individual, it turns out that (at the time) 79% of people who played tabletop RPGs learned D&D between the ages of 12 and 18!

The older folks are only spending more after years of already being gamers - if you don't already have them, they are a poor choice to target them for sales.  If you want to grow your long-term player pool, you need to get them while they are teens.  Failing to target teens is a good way to doom your long-term business.


----------



## renau1g

To further the information on teen purchasing power in the US

"Teen spending money, accumulated through paying jobs, allowances from parents, “as needed” money from parents, and monetary gifts, will increase an estimated 3.5% annually, raising the aggregate teen income 14.4%, from $79.7 billion in 2006 to $91.1 billion in 2011. The amount of money families spend on teens for food, apparel, personal-care items, and entertainment is expected to grow approximately 7%, from $110 billion in 2006 to $117.6 billion in 2011."


----------



## ggroy

Thornir Alekeg said:


> The main difference now is that I plan and budget my gaming purchases; many fewer impulse purchases than when I was younger.




When I was younger, I did a lot of impulse buying of rpg books.  Many rpg titles I picked up back in the day, were never used at all in any of my games.

These days I'll only buy new rpg books if I know I'll be using them in my games.  Though the only exception in regard to impulse buying, is if I come across rpg stuff at 2nd handed bookstores for really dirty cheap (ie. less than 5 or 6 bucks a pop).


----------



## mudbunny

Umbran said:


> My argument was merely to show that the teens have plenty of money, in general.
> 
> Now, add to the point from the WotC Market research:  While the teens may not spend as much on the game per individual, it turns out that (at the time) 79% of people who played tabletop RPGs learned D&D between the ages of 12 and 18!
> 
> The older folks are only spending more after years of already being gamers - if you don't already have them, they are a poor choice to target them for sales.  If you want to grow your long-term player pool, you need to get them while they are teens.  Failing to target teens is a good way to doom your long-term business.




And to further this, WotC needs to look at what gives a better return on investment:

1 - Chasing after teens, who often have only a vague idea of what they like or don't like, and who quite often have oodles and oodles of free time in which to try lots of different things; or
2 - Adults, who are often limited in what they can play both by time (kids, job, house) and what the people that they can play with will play.

It may take a lot more money to get group 2, and I suspect that the "tail" of purchases for group 2 will be, on average, much smaller and represent a much smaller source of revenue in the long run.


----------



## Falstaff

Bring back AD&D in print (both 1st and 2nd), as well as the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Jeff Wilder said:


> Goodwill has value.  (Seriously, actual monetary value.)




The goodwill you refer to has a specific accounting definition. It is not the same kind of goodwill being discussed in this thread. Monetary goodwill arises only when more is sepnt to acquire a company than its fair market value. This intangible asset is dubbed goodwill and is generally thought of as the value of the company's reputation, customer lists, and other aspects not quantifiable in a monetary sense.

Edit: How much another company is willing to spend to acquire Wizards of the Coast is going to be influenced more by the tough business decisions they have to make (net customer gain, trimming staff, etc.) than pandering to fans.


----------



## Wicht

renau1g said:


> But you're assuming 100% of people who are not teens suddenly abandon D&D and head to Pathfinder or other games.
> 
> If they sold PDF's of older editions would you (or most of the others who are upset about it) buy 4e products? Or would your patronage be a one time, tiny boost to profits?




Actually all I said was that if you target 35% of the market and I target 65%, all other things being equal, I'll make more money. The teen market is always held forth as being more desireable than the older market and I simply question that analysis. Teens may have buying power, but they are never the primary buying power in almost any market. 

As an added thought: it's just my opinion, and it may be biased, but if I was targeting an audience, I would target parents. My kids (of which 1, soon to be 2, are teens) are now faithful Pathfinder players because I, the parent, buy Pathfinder books. As they mature, their tastes will branch out, but I suspect Paizo has some loyal customers there in the future so long as they continue putting out good material. If WotC had kept my business, my children would be that much more likely to be exposed to their product and would have more exposure to the brand.


----------



## renau1g

My apologies Wicht, I misinterpreted, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Not sure about targeting parents though. Look at Disney, McDonalds, or most other toy companies, they advertise heavily directly to children (which is another discussion), but it works. My 2.5 year old boys go bonkers when they see a Thomas the Train anything, it could be a cup, or a towel, or a train, it doesn't matter, but they want it. If the parent isn't a gamer, they are probably less likely to buy the game for the child/teen. Heck my own parents would tell their friends we played poker on Saturdays as a teen instead of D&D because they thought it was more socially acceptable. 

I have no doubt that Paizo will have loyal customers, I am still theirs despite not playing Pathfinder as their adventures are second to none.

It's a bit hard to discuss as well, because RPG's are such a niche product and there's really only one large company in the field. Umbran's comment about most players learning to play between 12 - 18 is certainly the reason that they would want to focus on teens. Long term gains as you develop your future customers


----------



## Coldwyn

Wicht said:


> Actually all I said was that if you target 35% of the market and I target 65%, all other things being equal, I'll make more money. The teen market is always held forth as being more desireable than the older market and I simply question that analysis. Teens may have buying power, but they are never the primary buying power in almost any market.
> 
> As an added thought: it's just my opinion, and it may be biased, but if I was targeting an audience, I would target parents. My kids (of which 1, soon to be 2, are teens) are now faithful Pathfinder players because I, the parent, buy Pathfinder books. As they mature, their tastes will branch out, but I suspect Paizo has some loyal customers there in the future so long as they continue putting out good material. If WotC had kept my business, my children would be that much more likely to be exposed to their product and would have more exposure to the brand.




What you seemingly don´t understand is that the kid´s 35% mostly represent short-term spending while the 65% are long-term spendings. It really doesn´t matter when you or I as adults spent a thousand bucks in gaming stuff divided on ten years while a kid spents 400 bucks in one year.
Sure, the thousand bucks sound better, but take a kid each year, for ten years, and you quickly surpass them.
That´s why WotC can afford to lose us older players and I guess the byproduct is that companies like Paizo can strife.


----------



## Reynard

I'm not sure a discussion about what WotC should or should not do is going to particularly fruitful, since only those in charge have any real inkling of what the demographics look like.   But then, that's not really what the title of the thread asks, is it?

Assuming by "disenchanted" you're talking about people that are not playing and/or purchasing 4E, then the only real answer is to "undo" whatever drove them away in the first place. This is likely to be different for everyone for whom the "disenchatnted" label fits, but there's probably a few general categories:

1) People who don't like the fluff changes.
2) People that don't like the system changes.
3) People that don't like either of those things.

I am leaving off "grognards" and boycotters and others who have no interest at all in every buying or playing a WotC owned D&D. They don't count because they are not potential customers.

So, for category 1 disenchanted, it's easy: bring back pre-4E fluff, tropes, sacred cows, etc... that have been with the game for decades. This stuff never needed to be changed in the first place and while there's plenty of people that like the changes, I don't think the removal of the great Wheel brought any customers in and probably drove a few away.

Category 2 disenchated are a little more difficult, but it seems like from the description of the Essentials wizard they might be attempting to address this a little bit. i think WotC undervalued the sacred cows and D&D-isms and have realized those things, even the things that don't make any sense, are adored by many.


----------



## Jack Daniel

Falstaff said:


> Bring back AD&D in print (both 1st and 2nd), as well as the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.




Since that's not going to happen, we probably ought to be saying, "Make sure that 5th edition feels (and plays) more like these old editions than 4th does."  It could happen: 3e did a lot of hearkening back to 1e, flavor-wise, to "undo" what many older gamers saw as mistakes made in 2e.  3e brought back the demons and devils, the monks and half-orcs, the assassins and barbarians.

Of course 2nd edition wasn't a bad game.  (It's certainly one of my favorite editions.)  But it nevertheless has this unsavory reputation as the watered-down, corporate-shill, Gygax-booting, kiddie-cleanup of 1e.  Entirely unjustified IMO, but that was the perception.  And 3e handily addressed most of those (shallow and superficial) "mistakes."  The train of thought apparently went something like this: "If there are demons and devils back in the MM, the problems are solved and all is forgiven."

So, looking forward to the inevitable 5th edition, what can we count on?  WotC created 3e to respond to the problems that people had with 2e (the aforementioned flavor issues being only a small part of that, compared with the major notion that 2e was dated, clunky, and arbitrary, and that 3e would therefore need things like a universal task-res mechanic and ascending AC to bring it up to date).  Likewise, 4e seemed at least initially motivated by addressing the problems seen with 3e (bloat, complexity, prep-time, and game imbalance outside of the "sweet spot").  Thus, we can at least expect that the future designers of 5th edition will bend over backwards to correct whatever superficial problems are most vocally attributed to 4th edition (and when the PR campaign comes, they'll naturally go out of their way to explain their goals and demonstrate how they've met them).

Therefore, and I mean this in all seriousness, it's probably the shrillest set of voices on message boards like this one which will be heard and acknowledged when the time comes to create and release 5th edition.  So if you want to influence the future of the game, don't clamor for PDFs, because that's pointless.  Don't ask for nostalgic releases of out of print editions; it's a pipe-dream.  Instead, be clear about why 4th edition doesn't satisfy.  Don't quit discussing the relative merits of the various editions of the game.  Don't be intimidated into silence at the first alarmist cry of "edition war!"  It's the only way we'll ever see a new edition of the game that draws upon all the best aspects of its predecessors.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Wicht said:


> Actually all I said was that if you target 35% of the market and I target 65%, all other things being equal, I'll make more money. The teen market is always held forth as being more desireable than the older market and I simply question that analysis. Teens may have buying power, but they are never the primary buying power in almost any market.




You won't make more money in the long run. That's why (mostly) everyone markets to youth, and why getting old sucks.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Jack Daniel said:


> we probably ought to be saying, "Make sure that 5th edition feels (and plays) more like these old editions than 4th does."



In many ways, 4e hearkens back to older editions. Gamist, like 1e and OD&D rather than simulationist - 3e - or dramatist - 2e. Highly focused, like OD&D. Simpler rules than 3e. Multiclassing tightened. Monsters built using different rules than PCs. Minimal fluff in descriptions, like 1e. 3e magic item Xmas tree toned down. Strong emphasis on miniatures, like OD&D, or even Chainmail. (Now that's old school!)


----------



## UniversalMonster

Jack Daniel said:


> So if you want to influence the future of the game, don't clamor for PDFs, because that's pointless.  Don't ask for nostalgic releases of out of print editions; it's a pipe-dream.  Instead, be clear about why 4th edition doesn't satisfy.  Don't quit discussing the relative merits of the various editions of the game.  Don't be intimidated into silence at the first alarmist cry of "edition war!"  It's the only way we'll ever see a new edition of the game that draws upon all the best aspects of its predecessors.




I feel bad saying this. 

But what if 4th Edition _does _satisfy and has an enthusiastic and appreciative audience? (it does) What if it _already _draws upon the best aspects of it's predecessors and leaves the other stuff behind because _that other stuff isn't all that great_? (opinions here, but.. yes I think it does). 

That's the real issue. And this isn't about long time players. I've been playing D&D continuously since 1978. I played D&D3 and 3.5 weekly for the entire run of the game. (I think I may have missed a couple of holidays in there). 

What if 4th Edition is the greatest version of the game that has ever been published. I know I think it is. 

The reality is: the clock is never going backwards. Never. Never _ever_. 

There isn't going to be a 5th edition that looks anything like what the self-nominated non-customers want it to look like because they have defined themselves out of the equation. And nobody is going to bend over backwards to listen to the clamor of the avowed non-customer or the bitter ex-customer when there's an easy to deal with fan community readily available to cater to. If it changes at all, any new edition will look like 4th Edition, but with changes that actual 4th edition players have wanted or will be delighted by. Or it will incorporate more changes that they think will appeal to new players. But as far as "nods to older edition fans"? I doubt there will be any. 

I do agree that there will be no older edition PDFs. There will be no re-releases of AD&D2e or 1e or the Cyclopedia. That's just crazy. Why would they do that?


----------



## pawsplay

Peter said:


> I do agree that there will be no older edition PDFs. There will be no re-releases of AD&D2e or 1e or the Cyclopedia. That's just crazy. Why would they do that?




Why does Aerosmith keep selling their old albums?


----------



## Wicht

Peter said:


> I do agree that there will be no older edition PDFs. There will be no re-releases of AD&D2e or 1e or the Cyclopedia. That's just crazy. Why would they do that?




Why does Hasbro release a[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Library-Monopoly-Vintage-Book-Game/dp/B00285Q0R2"] monopoly board set [/ame]which hearkens back to the original? Or a [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Library-Scrabble-Vintage-Book-Game/dp/B00285IE58/ref=pd_sim_t_2]Scrabble board?[/ame] Or [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Risk-Vintage-Wood-Book-Edition/dp/B00285LV1C/ref=pd_sim_t_2"]Risk?[/ame] Or [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Hasbro-Clue-Vintage-Wood-Book/dp/B00285GXKG/ref=pd_sim_t_4"]Clue?[/ame]

Someone at Hasbro must believe that Nostalgia has value in a product. Not to mention thats just the vintage bookshelf editions of these games. They also have a Nostalgia line of the same games for which they charge 4-5 times as much.


----------



## El Mahdi

pawsplay said:


> Why does Aerosmith keep selling their old albums?




Because they ROCK!  Just like D&D ROCKS!

The only thing cooler would be playing D&D _with_ Aerosmith...which might just ROCK more than mortal man can handle.


----------



## Jack99

El Mahdi said:


> I may not play 4E, but it is D&D...and Man, I love D&D



I couldn't xp you, so I am quoting instead. Because I too love D&D!!!!


MerricB said:


> I would suggest that most people _wouldn't_ consider it worth it. And the "goodwill" you create by publishing those adventures is nice, but unfortunately you lose the goodwill of the 4E customers who are losing the 4E content you sacrifice to put in the older edition ...



Yep

Limited ressources is the key here, as someone else said. 


Peter said:


> I feel bad saying this.



Don't feel bad!! 



> But what if 4th Edition _does _satisfy and has an enthusiastic and appreciative audience? (it does) What if it _already _draws upon the best aspects of it's predecessors and leaves the other stuff behind because _that other stuff isn't all that great_? (opinions here, but.. yes I think it does).



I agree.  



> That's the real issue. And this isn't about long time players. I've been playing D&D continuously since 1978. I played D&D3 and 3.5 weekly for the entire run of the game. (I think I may have missed a couple of holidays in there).



Yes, yes and yes. It's a myth that it's primarily the old players who have been there since the beginning that doesn't like 4e. Lots of people who started with 3.x seem to fall in the dislike 4e category as well. 



> What if 4th Edition is the greatest version of the game that has ever been published. I know I think it is.



Aaaaaand one last quote just because I happen to agree wholeheartedly


----------



## UniversalMonster

Wicht said:


> Why does Hasbro release a monopoly board set which hearkens back to the original? Or a Scrabble board? Or Risk? Or Clue?
> 
> Someone at Hasbro must believe that Nostalgia has value in a product.




Link to this post and get back to me in 8 years and we'll see which one of us is right, then. Does that seem fair?


----------



## Umbran

pawsplay said:


> Why does Aerosmith keep selling their old albums?




For about the same reason game authors don't do concert tours - because listening to music is not very analogous to playing RPGs, so the business issues aren't the same.


----------



## Reynard

pawsplay said:


> Why does Aerosmith keep selling their old albums?




"You must spread some XP around..."


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> For about the same reason game authors don't do concert tours - because listening to music is not very analogous to playing RPGs, so the business issues aren't the same.




Exept authors do do concert tours. they are called conventions. And at least on some level the business issues are the same, because the record company is putting out money to print the old stuff knowing they will bring in more than the printing costs, and not hurt the sales of the current stuff, because people that like Aerosmith like Aerosmith.

Of course, there are differences. Edition incompatibility is a major problem. Editions copete against one another in ways that records by a given band don't. this problem is intentional, of course, so that customers have to buy the same books over and over again. Perhaps it is a mistake. Perhaps D&D would have been better off with a Call of Cthulu like approach instead.


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> Exept authors do do concert tours.




Oh, really? When Aerosmith does a concert tour, they get on stage and play instruments, doing roughly the same thing live as you buy recorded.

When an game designer does a convention, does he get up on stage and design a game for you?  Build a new D&D class on the spot for your amusement?  

No, the convention thing is a publicity tour (bands also do publicity appearances without performing), not a concert tour.  Different beast.


----------



## renau1g

And another point is that the market for music is huge, the market for D&D is small. If even a small amount of the potential customers buy older Aerosmith albums that's way more people than would be in the tiny subset of RPG gamers who'd buy the older editions.

Also, the printing cost of a cd is far less than the printing cost of a book. Try getting a small print run even at a small print shop and be blown away by the costs. I used to be in procurement and was stupified by costs of a small print run (despite working at one of the largest players in our market segment, the segment was small, therefore, our orders were small). Set-up fees, etc. are very, very costly.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I have been to hear authors' readings.  The last one I went to was Guy Kay.

EDIT:  I also went to see Stephen King speak about writing when he was last in Toronto.  It was quite interesting, and sold out.


RC


----------



## renau1g

I would love to see Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, and/or James Wyatt  sit down to read us the PHB for 4e  ... I love the book, but that may be more boring than watching paint dry.


----------



## Diamond Cross

Ooooooh!

Monopoly and Risk D&D!


----------



## ST

People have hit some fundamental "truths" of marketing in the last few pages. 

Selling to teens and young adults is the right move in a capitalist system. You hook them early, get them devoted to spending on your product over their lifetime.

The folks going "well I've been buying older edition stuff since the '70s" sort of proves that point. From the perspective of a capitalist system, those consumers are used-up, and it's time to make new 30-year value propositions with the young and malleable. Losing some older customers to get new, 'fresh' ones is just triage.

If you're older, they don't need you to spend your money. They can go for other parents your age, and spend _their_ money, through their kids. And they don't have to convince those parents of *anything*. That's just how the numbers break down.

Blame capitalism as it's currently practiced if you don't like it. But the very fact that some of the former consumers feel so strongly about the product sort of shows that it does indeed work. These products people are clamouring to have Wizards sell as PDFs are often available used online; but several people have put Wizards selling them again as something that would validate this relationship they have with the company. But consumers' only relationship with a company is to be exploited, to spend money on product. No company cares about you, personally, or ever did. The feeling that they did was just the result of marketing to your demographic.


----------



## ggroy

ST said:


> People have hit some fundamental "truths" of marketing in the last few pages.
> 
> Selling to teens and young adults is the right move in a capitalist system. You hook them early, get them devoted to spending on your product over their lifetime.
> 
> The folks going "well I've been buying older edition stuff since the '70s" sort of proves that point. From the perspective of a capitalist system, those consumers are used-up, and it's time to make new 30-year value propositions with the young and malleable. Losing some older customers to get new, 'fresh' ones is just triage.
> 
> If you're older, they don't need you to spend your money. They can go for other parents your age, and spend _their_ money, through their kids. And they don't have to convince those parents of *anything*. That's just how the numbers break down.
> 
> Blame capitalism as it's currently practiced if you don't like it. But the very fact that some of the former consumers feel so strongly about the product sort of shows that it does indeed work. These products people are clamouring to have Wizards sell as PDFs are often available used online; but several people have put Wizards selling them again as something that would validate this relationship they have with the company. But consumers' only relationship with a company is to be exploited, to spend money on product. No company cares about you, personally, or ever did. The feeling that they did was just the result of marketing to your demographic.




Would something like this still happen in a communist country and/or a totalitarian state?


----------



## Reynard

ST said:


> Blame capitalism as it's currently practiced if you don't like it. But the very fact that some of the former consumers feel so strongly about the product sort of shows that it does indeed work. These products people are clamouring to have Wizards sell as PDFs are often available used online; but several people have put Wizards selling them again as something that would validate this relationship they have with the company. But consumers' only relationship with a company is to be exploited, to spend money on product. No company cares about you, personally, or ever did. The feeling that they did was just the result of marketing to your demographic.




I am not particularly well versed in marketting or business strategies, but it has the ring of truth -- if a hard one. On the upside, though, us geezers and nostalgiacs *are* a source of revenue for other companies that have to risk less. Goblinoid Games, for example, has gotten more of my money this past year than WotC.


----------



## renau1g

Ironically, despite me only playing 4e, Paizo gets more of my gaming dollars each month as I subscribe to their adventure path and pay like $20/month, and with WoTC I only spend $6/month on the DDI. I really want Wizards to put out some better adventures


----------



## Wicht

Peter said:


> Link to this post and get back to me in 8 years and we'll see which one of us is right, then. Does that seem fair?




The Question I was answering was, "Why would they do that?"  The answer is Nostalgia sells. 

You may be right that they won't do it, but I'm not sure what I'm wrong about. Hasbro currently sells nostalgia markeketed games. Their Nostalgia Monopoly is priced at close to $100 on Amazon. Obviously, not only does Hasbro feels that Nostalgia sells, but they think there are some fans of  Monopoly willing to pay $100 for an 'antique' version of the game.


----------



## renau1g

Agreed. So they have done their market research and identified that there is a market large enough to sell $100 board games to that are replicas of the original game, *AND* that the amount they'll make on those sales will be greater than they could invest that money for with other opportunities. 

Nostalgia sells, but it must sell better than other options, especially with the credit market still being screwed up, it's still difficult for companies to get money to launch new products.


----------



## caelum

It seems self-evident to me that WotC is concerned about those who didn't convert to 4e.  Like it or not, the launch of 4e did alienate lots of D&D players, and the success of Pathfinder shows that those folks have moved on.  One rule of business is to keep your existing customer base - that ought to be a lot easier than breaking into a new demographic/area.  And 4e was not nearly as successful at that as 3e.  (I have no idea of the relative success of 4e and Pathfinder, except to say that both are obviously successful.)

If you don't believe the logic, look at Essentials.  The original strategy was for this line to draw in new players.  (The original strategy for the main line was to make existing customers happy - obviously that had mixed success.)  Now, with specialty classes and variable power structures and auto-hit magic missile, Essentials is also trying to bring back the "old school" feel.  Presumably that's to appeal to customers they have lost - because obviously the current 4e players don't care much.  So, evidently, WotC wants to appeal to their lost customer base.  If they believe they should do so, why shouldn't we?

Also:  hooking them young in order to maintain a long-term revenue stream only works if you can keep them hooked.  To the extent that older gamers drop out of the system because the company focuses on the next generation, it's not going to work.

On another topic, of course pre-3e pdfs weren't a big moneymaker.  But that's not the point:  WotC yanked them from the shelf and alienated even more people.  It takes almost no effort for them to be there - since all of that legwork had been done years ago - and, really, does anybody honestly believe that 1e adventures compete with 4e?  Fans of those editions have an absolute right to be angry at WotC over yanking the products they like, as I'm sure many 4e fans would be angry if they quit supporting that game.  

The reality is that older edition pdfs were a casualty over concerns about piracy of 4e books, and I believe an unnecessary (and unfortunate) one.  No doubt the profits were small, so they didn't bother distinguishing them.  I have no illusions that DDI should include support for past editions, but I think that making pdfs available is such a trivial thing, and would generate such goodwill, that they ought to do it.


----------



## renau1g

The fact that fans were kept for 30-ish years is definitely proof that they were "kept hooked". I'm not sure how many current 4e fans were alienated by the refusal to sell past edition source material. 

Fans of prior editions can be upset I suppose, but it's like being mad at Microsoft for not supporting Windows 95. Sure you _can_ use it, but Microsoft is only supporting their current OS (and I believe a few generations back). Or say Sony for not supporting PS2 anymore, mine still works in my basement, but they're focusing on PS3. 

I care about specialty classes and variable power structures, just because I currently enjoy the game doesn't mean I love every facet of it and this to me is a nice addition. 

Also, it's difficult to compare Paizo to WoTC, because they are not a similar size. Paizo is listed as 23 employees while WoTC is around 387 or so (according to Linked In), including freelancers. That means that Wizards is about 17x the size of Paizo. What Paizo might deem a success, Wizards may deem a failure.


----------



## Mournblade94

ST said:


> These products people are clamouring to have Wizards sell as PDFs are often available used online; but several people have put Wizards selling them again as something that would validate this relationship they have with the company. But consumers' only relationship with a company is to be exploited, to spend money on product. No company cares about you, personally, or ever did. The feeling that they did was just the result of marketing to your demographic.




I don't think anyone is clamoring for this.  The thread was what can WOTC do to get old customers back.  People listed what WOTC COULD do.

I know what WOTC could do, but I don't care if they do it, because I don't want them around anymore.  They make a game called D&D, that is great.  I recognize the game I play as truer to Dungeons and Dragons than the current one touted by WOTC.  So what do I care if they do something or nothing to get me back.  I will however address hypotheticals in a thread.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> Print Dungeon and Dragon combined sold about 50 000 issues a month under Paizo.  That wasn't profitable enough to keep them in print.



Something's wrong with this, in that there's many magazines out there that can only dream of those sales numbers and yet still manage to keep going...

Lanefan


----------



## BryonD

renau1g said:


> Fans of prior editions can be upset I suppose, but it's like being mad at Microsoft for not supporting Windows 95.



Win95 is technologically obsolete.   1E is not.

I don't think WotC should be expected to support any prior game.  It is silly to expect them to.

But your example is very flawed.


----------



## BryonD

ST said:


> People have hit some fundamental "truths" of marketing in the last few pages.
> 
> Selling to teens and young adults is the right move in a capitalist system. You hook them early, get them devoted to spending on your product over their lifetime.



You are 100% correct here.

As I said upstream, even if the "snot nosed kid" spends all his money on games, my small fraction of expendable income beats "all" of his.  But only for now.
Eventually, he will have the "small fraction of expendable income"  and I'll be dead.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Lanefan said:


> Something's wrong with this, in that there's many magazines out there that can only dream of those sales numbers and yet still manage to keep going...
> 
> Lanefan




On top of which, Paizo certainly wanted to keep them going, and WotC seems to have gotten an agreement from Paizo to not publish a magazine for a set period in order to avoid the competition.  It seems that both Paizo and WotC believed that the numbers were large enough to be a concern.


----------



## Mournblade94

renau1g said:


> Fans of prior editions can be upset I suppose, but it's like being mad at Microsoft for not supporting Windows 95. Sure you _can_ use it, but Microsoft is only supporting their current OS (and I believe a few generations back). Or say Sony for not supporting PS2 anymore, mine still works in my basement, but they're focusing on PS3.




This analogy does not apply here.  A PS3 is EMPIRICALLY a better system that PS2.  It can do more, better graphics, better gameplay because of the hardware.  Windows 95 cannot do all the things Vista or MS7 can do.

4e did not improve anything on an empirical level, and there are those, such as myself that think anything it improved, degraded other areas.  4e does not have better art than 3rd edition.  Find a person who would say the graphics on PS2 are better than PS3.  The gameplay is no better in 4e than 3rd edition.  The gameplay for a PS3 improved by leaps and bounds.

Anyone I know that insists the PS2 is better does not own a seventh generation system.  Playing PS2 adamantly over PS3 is simply nostalgia.  It is the same reason I rigged my Intellivision to play on my TV.


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> You are 100% correct here.
> 
> As I said upstream, even if the "snot nosed kid" spends all his money on games, my small fraction of expendable income beats "all" of his.  But only for now.
> Eventually, he will have the "small fraction of expendable income"  and I'll be dead.




Yes, but if he is "fired as a customer" as you were, when his "small fraction of expendable income" equals yours, then that might not make as much of a difference as you might think.

IOW, this is possibly a good strategy for short-term gain, but it is a poor strategy for long-term survival.  "Hook 'em when they're young" is only smart when you intend to keep them hooked.  

As renau1g pointed out, TSR-D&D clearly did this or there wouldn't be folks clamouring for access to TSR-D&D materials today.  Will there be as many folks clamouring for access to 4e materials in 30 years?  Will the then-current edition of D&D have any recognizable continuity with 4e?  With 1e?

Only time will tell.


RC

-


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> On top of which, Paizo certainly wanted to keep them going, and WotC seems to have gotten an agreement from Paizo to not publish a magazine for a set period in order to avoid the competition.  It seems that both Paizo and WotC believed that the numbers were large enough to be a concern.



Obviously I am just guessing here, with no useful knowledge to support this.....

But I don't think "not profitable enough" was the issue.


I think it simply came down to WotC's Gleemax --->  DDI strategy.  They had a plan and rolling the magazines into that plan was part of the larger strategy.


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes, but if he is "fired as a customer" as you were, when his "small fraction of expendable income" equals yours, then that might not make as much of a difference as you might think.



I didn't say firing customers was a good idea.  

You can market new customers without alienating the old.  

Please don't confuse: "I agree with *this part*" of the strategy, with "I support the whole effort".


----------



## Lanefan

Jack Daniel said:


> Therefore, and I mean this in all seriousness, it's probably the shrillest set of voices on message boards like this one which will be heard and acknowledged when the time comes to create and release 5th edition.  So if you want to influence the future of the game, don't clamor for PDFs, because that's pointless.  Don't ask for nostalgic releases of out of print editions; it's a pipe-dream.  Instead, be clear about why 4th edition doesn't satisfy.  Don't quit discussing the relative merits of the various editions of the game.  Don't be intimidated into silence at the first alarmist cry of "edition war!"  It's the only way we'll ever see a new edition of the game that draws upon all the best aspects of its predecessors.



Since I can't give you more ExP, all I can do is say "right on!"

'Round here, though, such discussions seem to be frowned on, which IMHO defeats the purpose.  Instead, maybe we could ask for a separate forum area dedicated to 5e speculation and design?

Lan-"despite this, my pipe continues to dream"-efan


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> I think it simply came down to WotC's Gleemax --->  DDI strategy.  They had a plan and rolling the magazines into that plan was part of the larger strategy.




Agree completely.  



BryonD said:


> I didn't say firing customers was a good idea.
> 
> You can market new customers without alienating the old.
> 
> Please don't confuse: "I agree with *this part*" of the strategy, with "I support the whole effort".




Agreed again.  I just wanted to point out that the strategy, while a good one, does require that you attempt to keep your existing customers (old and/or new), because that part seems to have slipped beneath the radar during this discussion.


RC


----------



## hutchback

Lanefan said:


> Something's wrong with this, in that there's many magazines out there that can only dream of those sales numbers and yet still manage to keep going...
> 
> Lanefan




It could be due to the fact that most periodicals are profitable because of ad revenues and not subscriptions. This is such a niche that it may have been difficult to acquire enough advertisers to produce the kind of ROI they were looking for. This would be particularly challenging because most companies that would like to advertise in a magazine aimed at this demographic would be publishers of competitive products.

If I had to guess (and that is all this is, a guess), I would speculate that the cost of publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazine where considered a marketing expense. The goal was to promote gameplay and sell new product. Any revenue they made either helped offset the cost or was just considered gravy.

With DDI they can make the same marketing push but cut their expense drastically.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Don't underestimate how much disposable income the young peoples have these days. It's much higher than it used to be, even adjusting for inflation.

When I was a kid I used to get 10p pocket money a week. Now the average in the UK is over £6.

According to this inflation guide there's only been between a three and four-fold increase in prices over that time period, 300-400%.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> When an game designer does a convention, does he get up on stage and design a game for you?  Build a new D&D class on the spot for your amusement?



No, but it'd rock if they did!

The build-a-class idea, in particular:

"Over the next few hours, I'm going to go through the design process involved in creating a new D+D character class; and while at the end of the day the class that comes out of this particular exercise might not be everyone's fondest desire, you will have seen the process at work and - given some application of time and effort - be able to better design your own classes to suit your own gaming style and tastes..."

Now would that be any good or what?! 

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking

hutchback said:


> It could be due to the fact that most periodicals are profitable because of ad revenues and not subscriptions. This is such a niche that it may have been difficult to acquire enough advertisers to produce the kind of ROI they were looking for. This would be particularly challenging because most companies that would like to advertise in a magazine aimed at this demographic would be publishers of competitive products.
> 
> If I had to guess (and that is all this is, a guess), I would speculate that the cost of publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazine where considered a marketing expense. The goal was to promote gameplay and sell new product. Any revenue they made either helped offset the cost or was just considered gravy.
> 
> With DDI they can make the same marketing push but cut their expense drastically.





Um....You are aware that Paizo was paying WotC to publish those magazines?  Far from being a source of expense, the magazines were a revenue stream.

When WotC decided to go DDI, it seems likely that offering the only official content as part of the DDI would be a smart move, and hence the online magazines.  Not only that, but WotC knew that the Paizo magazines were doing better than they had been when WotC had produced them, so they allowed Paizo to complete their current AP in exchange for an agreement from Paizo not to produce a magazine for a set period of time.  Hence the reason that the initial Pathfinder APs were emphatically not in magazine format, even though they used a subscription model.

Selling DDI subscriptions entails less risk, less outlay, and more profit than selling books.....or even minis.  And all of the decisions around the release of 4e point directly toward the DDI.....including those that split the community.  

Frankly, it might be better (read: more profitable) for WotC to offer a DDI that serves all editions than it is to sell more books of any one edition.  But this is only true for TSR-D&D so long as you _*need*_ the DDI because the books aren't out there, because the systems are simple enough that you don't need character builders, monster builders, or encounter builders to play those games.  This could even come in the form of seperate initiatives so as to avoid confusion (which is where this idea could lose revenue!).  Older editions might even have a higher price-point under such a scheme.

Or, at least, that is my understanding of it.  

RC

.


----------



## renau1g

Mournblade94 said:


> This analogy does not apply here.  A PS3 is EMPIRICALLY a better system that PS2.  It can do more, better graphics, better gameplay because of the hardware.  Windows 95 cannot do all the things Vista or MS7 can do.
> 
> 4e did not improve anything on an empirical level, and there are those, such as myself that think anything it improved, degraded other areas.  4e does not have better art than 3rd edition.  Find a person who would say the graphics on PS2 are better than PS3.  The gameplay is no better in 4e than 3rd edition.  The gameplay for a PS3 improved by leaps and bounds.
> 
> Anyone I know that insists the PS2 is better does not own a seventh generation system.  Playing PS2 adamantly over PS3 is simply nostalgia.  It is the same reason I rigged my Intellivision to play on my TV.




I can empirically demonstrate that it is far easier to plan adventures and create PC's for 4e than prior editions with DDI. I have access to every rule book published with the CB and with every monster created plus the ability to scale up or down levels with the click of a button, calculating hp, attacks, etc, in a fraction of a second. Therefore, I have more time available to game, or to pursue other parts of my life. To me that's better. Maybe everyone would rather spend hours and hours going through each MM and writing down stat blocks. Not me, I'd rather go outside and play some sports, go play video games, watch a movie, or play more D&D.  YMMV of course.


----------



## Wicht

hutchback said:


> If I had to guess (and that is all this is, a guess), I would speculate that the cost of publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazine where considered a marketing expense. The goal was to promote gameplay and sell new product. Any revenue they made either helped offset the cost or was just considered gravy..




Considering another company was paying them for the right to license the mags and wanted to keep publising them I'm not sure what marketing expenses WotC had in regartds to them. I think it was a strategic decision more than anything: they had a plan and it involved bringing the magazines back in house and converting them to electronics.


----------



## renau1g

Mournblade94 said:


> I don't think anyone is clamoring for this.  The thread was what can WOTC do to get old customers back.  People listed what WOTC COULD do.
> 
> I know what WOTC could do, but I don't care if they do it, because I don't want them around anymore.  They make a game called D&D, that is great.  I recognize the game I play as truer to Dungeons and Dragons than the current one touted by WOTC.  So what do I care if they do something or nothing to get me back.  I will however address hypotheticals in a thread.




Any reason why you're here then? I mean, why waste your time here if you a) don't care, and b) hope the company goes bankrupt?


----------



## caelum

First let me say that I find it a bit sad that this thread - which began as a (mostly) positive attempt to say what WotC could do to attract this "disenchanted" segment has degenerated into bickering.  If you love 4e and aren't disenchanted, why attack people who are, and who are trying to be constructive?  (Not that everyone is, I realize.)

Personally:  I have nearly as many 4e books as Paizo books, and I hold no particular grudge either way.  But I think WotC has made business mistakes, regardless of how well-designed their latest game is.  It would benefit both sides of the community to recognize these - as well as good business decisions, and the strengths and weaknesses of the new version - because that's the only way to end the bickering.  (A lost cause, I know.)



renau1g said:


> The fact that fans were kept for 30-ish years is definitely proof that they were "kept hooked". I'm not sure how many current 4e fans were alienated by the refusal to sell past edition source material.




As has been argued before, how well they've been hooked in the past is irrelevant to the present.  If WotC's current policies alienate their consumers, that's a problem.



renau1g said:


> Fans of prior editions can be upset I suppose, but it's like being mad at Microsoft for not supporting Windows 95. Sure you _can_ use it, but Microsoft is only supporting their current OS (and I believe a few generations back). Or say Sony for not supporting PS2 anymore, mine still works in my basement, but they're focusing on PS3.




I think that's a very poor analogy, because in fact Microsoft does support their old operating systems.  We run Vista in our house, and there's a continual stream of patches and security updates.  And, you will always be able to download those for old versions - there is no reason for Microsoft to remove them.  They don't add new features, which is fine - again, I don't expect new 1e or 3e adventures.  It would just be nice to be able to buy the existing ones.



renau1g said:


> Also, it's difficult to compare Paizo to WoTC, because they are not a similar size. Paizo is listed as 23 employees while WoTC is around 387 or so (according to Linked In), including freelancers. That means that Wizards is about 17x the size of Paizo. What Paizo might deem a success, Wizards may deem a failure.




The more relevant comparison is not total size but manpower devoted to the D&D/Pathfinder lines, which are much more comparable.  Nevertheless, I certainly would not argue that Pathfinder is more successful than 4e - just that Pathfinder has clearly attracted lots of former 3e players, and it is a no-brainer that in an ideal world WotC would rather have retained them.


----------



## caelum

renau1g said:


> I can empirically demonstrate that it is far easier to plan adventures and create PC's for 4e than prior editions with DDI.




I think we need to separate DDI and 4e.  I don't think DDI has alienated anyone; it is a great tool.  It is the decisions in the 4e system itself which many find problematic.  

On a tangent:  is it really easier to make a 4e character, even with DDI, than a BECMI character?  I'm not so sure.  And, if you have to pay $8/month for the privilege, that must be factored in as well.

(Actually, the wave of initial promises, soon broken, did alienate some.  As did the lack of Mac support.  But still...overall, new tool = good, regardless of your game preference.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

renau1g said:


> I can empirically demonstrate that it is far easier to plan adventures and create PC's for 4e than prior editions with DDI. I have access to every rule book published with the CB and with every monster created plus the ability to scale up or down levels with the click of a button, calculating hp, attacks, etc, in a fraction of a second. Therefore, I have more time available to game, or to pursue other parts of my life. To me that's better. Maybe everyone would rather spend hours and hours going through each MM and writing down stat blocks. Not me, I'd rather go outside and play some sports, go play video games, watch a movie, or play more D&D.  YMMV of course.




Hmmm.

I don't know about you, but prior to 3e, the biggest time sink for me was deciding which elements I wanted to use, and how they fit together.  And I don't mean in a rules way....I mean in a "what should this area be like, and what lives here?" way.

Certainly, stat blocks in Holmes Basic or 1e were pretty short (even though I used an extended stat block).

I grant _a priori_ that the DDI offers superior tools to 3e, because faster is a real factor in these cases.  But that doesn't mean that "faster" is the only component of "better".

In video game consoles, processing speed, graphics, and user interface are big factors to look at when determining which is better.  In some cases, I prefer a system with slower speed and worse graphics simply because I find the interface more intuitive.  It is the interface on the Wii that gives it its market share, after all.  So "better" might not be as objective there as some believe, either, but it is still less completely subjective than rpg design.  

IMHO.  YMMV.



RC


----------



## Imaro

Lanefan said:


> Something's wrong with this, in that there's many magazines out there that can only dream of those sales numbers and yet still manage to keep going...
> 
> Lanefan




I think Hussar is doing a tad bit of inferring with his own bias, as I don't remember either company claiming the magazines weren't profitable, in fact I specifically remember Paizo claiming they were in fact profitable under them. I also wonder why it would matter to WotC as long as they are getting their licensing fee from Paizo.  As I remember it, this was around the same time that WotC began pulling all of it's licenses back in-house.


----------



## rogueattorney

renau1g said:


> Or say Sony for not supporting PS2 anymore, mine still works in my basement, but they're focusing on PS3.




I can't speak to Sony.  I'm a Nintendo guy.  The Wii can play Game Cube games.  You can download hundreds of NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, and even C64 games to your Wii, starting for as little as $5.  There are also new games in the 8-bit style being made and available for download, Megaman 9 and 10 being recent notable examples.  Also, Nintendo is making "lost" Japanese-only classic games available for download, including lost Super Mario levels, Castlevania X, and the original Sin & Punishment.

Nintendo will often use a bit of synergy with their releases of old and new.  i.e., They released the classic original Sin & Punishment via download a few months before the retail release of its sequel.


----------



## renau1g

You don't have to pay $8/month, you can pay like $12 right now and have access to everything to date. That should be more than enough for most people right? Plus, $8/month is less than buying MP2, AP, etc. and you get all the rules, so the cost *savings* should be taken into account  

I don't believe I am attacking anyone, maybe I am, and if the mods believe I am, please PM me and I'll take care of it. I suppose any discussion of D&D is bickering as it is petty or trivial to most of us in the grand scheme of things, just a hobby. I don't really believe any of us are "bad-tempered" though with this discussion.

[sblock=definition]
ick·er  (bkr)
intr.v. bick·ered, bick·er·ing, bick·ers
1. To engage in a petty, bad-tempered quarrel; squabble. See Synonyms at argue. [/sblock]

I'll agree the OS was a poor analogy (but I did also mention that they do support previous generations.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

I suspect that, had the VTT worked out as planned (and had, therefore, WotC been able to offer players of older editions a substantial reason for joining the DDI) we would have seen DDI support for "classic" editions about a year after 4e rolled out.  And then, maybe, we would have had classic sprawling megadungeons hosted through the WotC site.  Good business for them, and lots of money involved if every DM had 20+ paying players.

Had the VTT worked as planned, I could even see WotC allowing a profit-sharing model for some DMs, so that they made a % of their players' fees, allowing them to DM full time.  Again, there is more than a small chance that WotC could have beaten WoW with such a strategy.



Sadly, there is no VTT.




RC


----------



## renau1g

Raven Crowking said:


> Sadly, there is no VTT.
> 
> RC




Yet... I still hold out hope


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> WotC seems to have gotten an agreement from Paizo to not publish a magazine for a set period in order to avoid the competition.






Raven Crowking said:


> Not only that, but WotC knew that the Paizo magazines were doing better than they had been when WotC had produced them, so they allowed Paizo to complete their current AP in exchange for an agreement from Paizo not to produce a magazine for a set period of time.




Do you have a link to back up claims of this non-compete agreement? Or are you just assuming it occurred?



Imaro said:


> I think Hussar is doing a tad bit of inferring with his own bias, as I don't remember either company claiming the magazines weren't profitable, in fact I specifically remember Paizo claiming they were in fact profitable under them. I also wonder why it would matter to WotC as long as they are getting their licensing fee from Paizo.  As I remember it, this was around the same time that WotC began pulling all of it's licenses back in-house.




I remember an article from Erik Mona at the time that put a silver lining on the situation. He lamented the work involved in keeping a magazine going in the face of declining ad revenue. He looked forward to just being adventure writers and not magazine publishers. Now they have people subscribing to their work at over three times the old subscription rate. I think people conflate wanting to continue publishing two magazines named Dragon & Dungeon and Paizo wanting to publish a magazine at all. And without proof of an agreement to not compete, I believe that the fact that they did not go back to a magazine format is truely telling.


----------



## Imaro

renau1g said:


> I can empirically demonstrate that it is far easier to plan adventures and create PC's for 4e than prior editions with DDI. I have access to every rule book published with the CB and with every monster created plus the ability to scale up or down levels with the click of a button, calculating hp, attacks, etc, in a fraction of a second. Therefore, I have more time available to game, or to pursue other parts of my life. To me that's better. Maybe everyone would rather spend hours and hours going through each MM and writing down stat blocks. Not me, I'd rather go outside and play some sports, go play video games, watch a movie, or play more D&D. YMMV of course.




The funny thing is that DDI is an accessory, which one must pay more for each month, not part of the game system... so your point is kind of moot... you're paying money to have more time... but the game system iytself has nothing to do with it.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

renau1g said:


> I can empirically demonstrate that it is far easier to plan adventures and create PC's for 4e than prior editions with DDI. I have access to every rule book published with the CB and with every monster created plus the ability to scale up or down levels with the click of a button, calculating hp, attacks, etc, in a fraction of a second. Therefore, I have more time available to game, or to pursue other parts of my life. To me that's better. Maybe everyone would rather spend hours and hours going through each MM and writing down stat blocks. Not me, I'd rather go outside and play some sports, go play video games, watch a movie, or play more D&D.  YMMV of course.




Funny, all I need is a sheet  of paper and a pencil.  Doesn't get much easier than that.


----------



## James Jacobs

WotC agreed to extend our license to print the magazines pretty much so we could finish out the Savage Tide adventure path, and that's pretty much all there was to that. There was no "don't make more magazines" clause to any contracts. The reason we went ahead with Pathfinder in a book format, and why we were so adamant about calling it a book, is that the business models for books and the business models for magazines is actually VERY different. Down to things like what kind of fees/taxes we pay, how we can ship products, when and if they can be reprinted, and perhaps most importantly, how and where those products are placed in a store.

Magazines get placed on the magazine rack, and space on that rack is VERY limited and HIGHLY competitive. And as a result, expensive to secure.

Books, on the other hand, have spines, and can thus be shelved spine-out OR front-facing, depending on the available space. More importantly, being classified as a book means that ALL of our products get shelved in the right spot; they're with the RPGs in the RPG section, not lost amid the entire spread of genres for magazines.

And in the end, although a book and a magazine might feel and look similar, the business of printing books and magazines is FAR more efficient than the business of printing and selling magazines. While I would have LOVED to have been able to keep working on the official D&D magazines... I have to be honest. Losing the magazine license and moving on to do Pathfinder has been pretty much, across the board, a sound business development for Paizo.

Launching a book line is not only FAR less expensive than launching a magazine... it's also INCREDIBLY riskier to launch a magazine than it is to launch a book line.


----------



## hutchback

Raven Crowking said:


> Um....You are aware that Paizo was paying WotC to publish those magazines?  Far from being a source of expense, the magazines were a revenue stream.
> .




No I was unaware of that. Having learned that, I suppose WotC may have felt that they could make more money through DDI than with the licensing agreement.

My last post was just providing some insight as to why anyone would discontinue a magazine with a decent sized readership. 

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Reynard

JRRNeiklot said:


> Funny, all I need is a sheet  of paper and a pencil.  Doesn't get much easier than that.




I think a great deal of the "4E is an objective improvement" sentiment arises from those whose primary experience with D&D was 3E -- either because they started play with 3E, or because they returned to D&D with it. And for that part, in many ways, I can see why 4E is considered an improvement (particularly in respect to the DM's job).  That is why upthread I pointed out that some people that are disenchanted with 4E are disenchanted with the "fluff", the non tangibles, the D&Dness of 4E. It is totally subjective, of course, but it is there and you'll see it argued as much (or more) than issues over mechanical bits.

(I am a bit of both, myself; there's 4E stuff I want to steal for my Labyrinth Lord game like the disease track, but overall the PC system totally turns me off and the rampant change for change's sake in the fluff is all bad as far as I am concerned.)

But, really, when it comes down to it, the thing that makes older editions "better" to me is that they are more fun. The focus of play is different than 3E or Pathfinder or 4E and you can do more in less time (this is a big one). The fundamental elements of play are very different and I truly think that because of this, 4E could live alongside some sort of B/X style game the same way that AD&D and BECMI coexisted.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

rogueattorney said:


> I can't speak to Sony.  I'm a Nintendo guy.  The Wii can play Game Cube games.  You can download hundreds of NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, and even C64 games to your Wii, starting for as little as $5.  There are also new games in the 8-bit style being made and available for download, Megaman 9 and 10 being recent notable examples.  Also, Nintendo is making "lost" Japanese-only classic games available for download, including lost Super Mario levels, Castlevania X, and the original Sin & Punishment.
> 
> Nintendo will often use a bit of synergy with their releases of old and new.  i.e., They released the classic original Sin & Punishment via download a few months before the retail release of its sequel.




I think up until very recently Sony was still making PS2 games. My first generation PS3 plays all of my PS2 games pretty flawlessly. Which is a good thing considering that I have over 15 un-played PS2 games in my game library. I havent tried my PSOne games though, hmmm...

My Xbox360 plays my old Xbox games pretty well. But as far as I know Microsoft doesnt make new Xbox games. 

And as you pointed out the Wii does play my old Gamecube games.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, it is hardly a boycott then. I cannot boycott Coca-Cola by refusing to buy their gasoline. Not buying that which you weren't going to buy anyway isn't a boycott.




It'd be a more accurate analogy to say that you don't boycott New Coke when you buy Pepsi instead.

You can see how that might be a boycott, though.

IMXP, the colloquial use of "boycott" (vs. the formal use) is essentially "I'm not buying Company X's products because Company X has displeased me in some way, and if they had not displeased me, I would be buying their product."

But even with all that, I don't see many posters tossing around the word "Boycott" at all, so saying that it's not a boycott is kind of like saying that you're going to go buy gasoline instead of Coke.


----------



## Mournblade94

renau1g said:


> I can empirically demonstrate that it is far easier to plan adventures and create PC's for 4e than prior editions with DDI. I have access to every rule book published with the CB and with every monster created plus the ability to scale up or down levels with the click of a button, calculating hp, attacks, etc, in a fraction of a second. Therefore, I have more time available to game, or to pursue other parts of my life. To me that's better. Maybe everyone would rather spend hours and hours going through each MM and writing down stat blocks. Not me, I'd rather go outside and play some sports, go play video games, watch a movie, or play more D&D.  YMMV of course.




Is that a function of the system or DDI?  It is not inherently built into the system.  What you can do is prove that DDI makes the system easier.  It is like me saying PS3 is better than PS2 merely because of its network capability.  YOu cannot however prove that the 4e system makes adventure building easier.  Sorry I won't switch systems because it has a toy attached.

I however have hero lab and find I plan and write quality adventures quick and easy.  Empirically there is nothing that makes 4e better than 3rd edition.  



renau1g said:


> Any reason why you're here then? I mean, why waste your time here if you a) don't care, and b) hope the company goes bankrupt?




Point a does not lead into point B.  Not caring about the company does not mean I wish it bankrupt.  I just don't care if it does bust at this point because I think something else would fill its place.

The post you were quoting however, said I will gladly speak of hypotheticals.  That is why I am here.


----------



## Mournblade94

After reading many of these posts though, what WOTC could do to get my money at least...

at $8/month... support 3.5 and pathfinder.  Not even in articles.  All the tools and generators, I would definitely subscribe to that as long as it worked, no matter what company was running it.   Well as long as they did not funnel money into terrorist organizations.


----------



## Hussar

Lanefan said:


> Something's wrong with this, in that there's many magazines out there that can only dream of those sales numbers and yet still manage to keep going...
> 
> Lanefan




Look at the advertising in those magazines and you'll see why.  

But, one wonders, now that we've heard from the horse's mouth, if RC will finally stop rumourmongering. *Tone down the vitriol, please. You can make your point without adding insults.  - PCat*


----------



## Elf Witch

One of the problems with using the word boycott is that boycott implies that you would buy products from the company if you were not boycotting it. Like when I boycott tuna companies that use certain style nets that capture dolphins. I would buy tuna from them if they changed their fishing practices.

I am not boycotting WOTC because they are doing something I don't like. I am not buying from them because they are not making any products that I wish to buy at this time. 

It has often been implied from some posters that as a DnD gamer people like me should support WOTC regardless of how we feel about the product. Which is really kind of silly if you think about it. Why spend money on something you don't like.

I don't wish harm to WOTC I don't want to see them go out of business. I have said before some of their PR when they first rolled out 4E was handled rather poorly IMO but it is all water under the bridge now.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Raven Crowking said:


> I suspect that, had the VTT worked out as planned (and had, therefore, WotC been able to offer players of older editions a substantial reason for joining the DDI) we would have seen DDI support for "classic" editions about a year after 4e rolled out.  And then, maybe, we would have had classic sprawling megadungeons hosted through the WotC site.  Good business for them, and lots of money involved if every DM had 20+ paying players.
> 
> Had the VTT worked as planned, I could even see WotC allowing a profit-sharing model for some DMs, so that they made a % of their players' fees, allowing them to DM full time.  Again, there is more than a small chance that WotC could have beaten WoW with such a strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, there is no VTT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RC



Been skimming this thread, but this leapt out and RC I think that you have nailed it with Gleemax as the content channel from non WoTC stuff.
I think that this is still thetarget, but now it will take longer and be somewhat harder to pull off.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Peter said:


> I feel bad saying this.
> 
> But what if 4th Edition _does _satisfy and has an enthusiastic and appreciative audience? (it does) What if it _already _draws upon the best aspects of it's predecessors and leaves the other stuff behind because _that other stuff isn't all that great_? (opinions here, but.. yes I think it does).
> 
> That's the real issue. And this isn't about long time players. I've been playing D&D continuously since 1978. I played D&D3 and 3.5 weekly for the entire run of the game. (I think I may have missed a couple of holidays in there).
> 
> What if 4th Edition is the greatest version of the game that has ever been published. I know I think it is.
> 
> The reality is: the clock is never going backwards. Never. Never _ever_.
> 
> There isn't going to be a 5th edition that looks anything like what the self-nominated non-customers want it to look like because they have defined themselves out of the equation. And nobody is going to bend over backwards to listen to the clamor of the avowed non-customer or the bitter ex-customer when there's an easy to deal with fan community readily available to cater to. If it changes at all, any new edition will look like 4th Edition, but with changes that actual 4th edition players have wanted or will be delighted by. Or it will incorporate more changes that they think will appeal to new players. But as far as "nods to older edition fans"? I doubt there will be any.
> 
> I do agree that there will be no older edition PDFs. There will be no re-releases of AD&D2e or 1e or the Cyclopedia. That's just crazy. Why would they do that?




Well, you should feel bad saying this because one day you may be left behind, forgotten and no longer cared about by the company that makes your favorite game.


----------



## renau1g

JRRNeiklot said:


> Funny, all I need is a sheet  of paper and a pencil.  Doesn't get much easier than that.




Like I said you can do it that way. When I played 2e and 3e and M&M and many other games that's all there is. My point is if you want to scale down that troll to say level 5 from 8 you _can_ do it by hand or in the fraction of a second have it computed for you. 

I _can_ do all the accounting entries for an organization with a pencil in a ledger, but is it easier to do on a computer? Heck yeah. So if I'm putting together and adventure and there's 25-40 enemies in it, I can save at least 5 mins per monster not having to write out the stats, so therefore at least 125 - 200 minutes of prep time each week. Like I said, I would rather spend that time doing other stuff. Heck for that time I could go play LFR every week and squeeze in an extra game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: Target Markets & Teen $$$



Wicht said:


> I don't buy into the "younger people have more money" idea.  More time yes. Money no. I spend more now, in my 30s on my hobby, than I ever did in my 20s (of course I blame Paizo).






Wicht said:


> Actually all I said was that if you target 35% of the market and I target 65%, all other things being equal, I'll make more money. The teen market is always held forth as being more desireable than the older market and I simply question that analysis. Teens may have buying power, but they are never the primary buying power in almost any market.






ST said:


> People have hit some fundamental "truths" of marketing in the last few pages.
> 
> Selling to teens and young adults is the right move in a capitalist system. You hook them early, get them devoted to spending on your product over their lifetime.
> 
> _<snip>_
> 
> But consumers' only relationship with a company is to be exploited, to spend money on product. No company cares about you, personally, or ever did. The feeling that they did was just the result of marketing to your demographic.






Doug McCrae said:


> Don't underestimate how much disposable income the young peoples have these days. It's much higher than it used to be, even adjusting for inflation.
> 
> When I was a kid I used to get 10p pocket money a week. Now the average in the UK is over £6.
> 
> According to this inflation guide there's only been between a three and four-fold increase in prices over that time period, 300-400%.




I got my MBA in Sports & Entertainment marketing back in 2005.

_Back then_ I was presented with statistical evidence that Generation Y already had more purchasing power than Generation X...and that's with GenX being 100% of employable age while GenY was just starting to enter the job market in statistically significant numbers.  This trend was forecast as being in its early stages and would hold for a couple of decades.

The reason?  GenY is essentially shaping up to be as big as the Baby Boom.  What they may lack in individual purchasing power they make up in sheer numbers.  In addition, studies have shown that children between the ages of 12-18 have a significant say in how entertainment $$$ are allocated in their families.

So from a marketing standpoint, GenX is no longer the target with premium value, its GenY.

With the hobby's true grognards dying off- RIP, Gary & Dave- GenX's purchasing power has been eclipsed by the purchasing power of teens and young adults.

([_fist-shaking old dude_]*Damn kids!*[/_fist-shaking old dude_])


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re:  "rules aren't copyrightable" (as seen in some XP I received for post #345, pg23 of this thread)

That's basically true...as long as you don't reproduce them _exactly_...which is what pdfs of the original works would be.

IOW, while you can't prevent someone from creating an AD&D clone, you CAN prevent someone from simply reprinting and releasing the game books in their full form.

So, a lingering copyright issue with the older editions of the game vis a vis Gygax & Arneson, etc., could exist if WotC intended to sell unaltered pdfs of the original game books and didn't have the full rights to do so (as I was hinting at in that post).  They COULD, however, rewrite the original books and include new art and release them without an issue on those grounds. (_Allen v Academic Games_)


----------



## renau1g

Depends on the sale agreement when Wizards bought the license from TSR. They might have that ability.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Right- I was just speculating, raising that as a potential, as-yet unrevealed reason why WotC might be balking at releasing pre-3Ed stuff in digital form.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re:  "rules aren't copyrightable" (as seen in some XP I received for post #345, pg23 of this thread)
> 
> That's basically true...as long as you don't reproduce them _exactly_...which is what pdfs of the original works would be.
> 
> IOW, while you can't prevent someone from creating an AD&D clone, you CAN prevent someone from simply reprinting and releasing the game books in their full form.
> 
> So, a lingering copyright issue with the older editions of the game vis a vis Gygax & Arneson, etc., could exist if WotC intended to sell unaltered pdfs of the original game books and didn't have the full rights to do so (as I was hinting at in that post).  They COULD, however, rewrite the original books and include new art and release them without an issue on those grounds. (_Allen v Academic Games_)




That was my XP to you Danny.  After all our disagreements on Copyrights you deserved the points. 
That and I was busy catching up on 3 pages of new posts.

But really I would love to see all the extra posts deleted off this thread and have only those that actually address the OP.

What could WotC do to win you back as a customer.  Everything else in this thread is off tangent and quite a disappoint as this thread started off so well.
Heck even I kept a level head in it.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Right- I was just speculating, raising that as a potential, as-yet unrevealed reason why WotC might be balking at releasing pre-3Ed stuff in digital form.




The only argument I have against that Danny is that they had already ran into it with the Dragon Mag CD they had out, which resulted in the Kenzer deal I believe. (Correct me if I'm wrong, have had a few tonight so brain isn't firing all cylinders right now.)

So they would already been well aware of that risk in prior edition stuff and the lawyers would have moved already to protect them on the works that they shouldn't be selling like that. The Kenzer issue happened well before the PDF sales as well correct?


----------



## Herschel

Beginning of the End said:


> First, the exchange you've engaged in here is absurd:
> 
> Q: What would WotC need to do to win you back?
> Innerdude: Make stuff I want to buy.
> Herschel: Well, WotC doesn't want you to buy their stuff.
> 
> ....
> 
> (1) WotC is stupid.
> (2) WotC is deliberately turning down free money in order to spit in the eye of their (now former) customers.
> 
> That's what causes disenchantment.




The absurdity is your flaming accusations. It's not that WotC doesn't want someone to buy their stuff, it's that they have a current product line that not eveyone will buy (just like every other product line they've ever had). Their goal is to have as many people buy it as they they can, but that "it" is the _current_ product. 

That means not dumping resources in to older product lines. Time is money, money is money, bandwidth is money. They're not stupid nor being intentionally punitive to previous customers. It's a business decision. That doesn't mean they don't try to have lapsed customers become current again, but they're not going to make poor business decisions to do so.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TheYeti1775 said:


> What could WotC do to win you back as a customer.




In my case, they didn't so much lose me as a customer as stop producing products I wanted or needed.  I was never protesting or outraged enough to swear off their products, just disappointed in 4Ed's marketing and the game itself.

Because I wasn't protesting or outraged, as soon as I found out that the new guy in the group wanted to play 4Ed, I went and bought a bunch of books.



TheYeti1775 said:


> The only argument I have against that Danny is that they had already ran into it with the Dragon Mag CD they had out, which resulted in the Kenzer deal I believe. (Correct me if I'm wrong, have had a few tonight so brain isn't firing all cylinders right now.)
> 
> So they would already been well aware of that risk in prior edition stuff and the lawyers would have moved already to protect them on the works that they shouldn't be selling like that. The Kenzer issue happened well before the PDF sales as well correct?




I don't keep track of whose pdfs were released when unless I'm being paid!

But stuff gets made all the time without all the copyright issues being resolved.  Remember the recent battle over _The Watchmen_ movie?  What usually happens is that some kind of percentage of the fees get redirected so that nobody has to go to court.

OTOH, if there is even an inkling of a problem, a very valuable IP may lay dormant while copyright issues get resolved.  I'm blocking on it at the moment, but I remember reading about a soundtrack that has all kinds of people- both living and the representatives of the estates of some deceased persons- and bands- active and defunct- fighting for their piece of the pie.  So it sits...and waits.  And waits.


----------



## Dice4Hire

renau1g said:


> I can empirically demonstrate that it is far easier to plan adventures and create PC's for 4e than prior editions with DDI. I have access to every rule book published with the CB and with every monster created plus the ability to scale up or down levels with the click of a button, calculating hp, attacks, etc, in a fraction of a second. Therefore, I have more time available to game, or to pursue other parts of my life. To me that's better. Maybe everyone would rather spend hours and hours going through each MM and writing down stat blocks. Not me, I'd rather go outside and play some sports, go play video games, watch a movie, or play more D&D.  YMMV of course.




What a long-winded way to say I like DDI.


----------



## MerricB

renau1g said:


> Depends on the sale agreement when Wizards bought the license from TSR. They might have that ability.




It is worth noting that the _Avalon Hill_ game copyrights from their early days can be extremely confusing. Many games had several copyright holders, making their reprinting extremely difficult. Although Hasbro/Wizards own AH, they don't hold the copyright to every game AH created! In some cases, copyright was held by the game's designers and artists.

The most problematic copyright issue in recent gaming that I'm aware of is the "Up Front" card game, which MMP have been trying to reprint for several years now, but the legal issues around it are intractable enough so that it can't go ahead.

I'm pretty sure that both Gygax and Arneson relinquished (well, sold) their rights to D&D to Wizards/Hasbro back at the start of 3E, but I can't find a reference at the moment. (Anyone?) The legal status of other products I can't find. Suffice to say, I don't think Hasbro/Wizards actually have a problem with selling PDFs because otherwise they'd have a lot of lawsuits for their previous X years of doing so.

Cheers!


----------



## ggroy

MerricB said:


> I'm pretty sure that both Gygax and Arneson relinquished (well, sold) their rights to D&D to Wizards/Hasbro back at the start of 3E, but I can't find a reference at the moment. (Anyone?)





Scroll down to the Dave Arneson section.

The Kyngdoms • View topic - The Ultimate Gary Gygax Interview


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Nice link, but still a bit unclear: Arneson is mentioned as having royalty rights of some kind according to his original contract, and there is no detail as to whether the WotC offer paid him a lump sum for his rights or just a sweetening of royalties...or even which IP was covered (all or some?).  We don't even know if there was a time limit to the rights that were transferred- if there was a time limit in his original contract with TSR with a reversion at some time in the future, and WotC didn't pay attention to that clause, they could be bound by that original time limit.


----------



## ggroy

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nice link, but still a bit unclear: Arneson is mentioned as having royalty rights of some kind according to his original contract, and there is no detail as to whether the WotC offer paid him a lump sum for his rights or just a sweetening of royalties...or even which IP was covered (all or some?).  We don't even know if there was a time limit to the rights that were transferred- if there was a time limit in his original contract with TSR with a reversion at some time in the future, and WotC didn't pay attention to that clause, they could be bound by that original time limit.




In the out of court Arneson/TSR settlement, we'll probably never know for sure.

In the Adkison deals with Arneson and Gygax, we'll probably never know for sure either unless Adkison is willing to speak about it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Exactly.


----------



## ggroy

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Exactly.




Considering two out of the three people are dead already.

I suppose one could attempt some communication by supernatural means via a Ouija board.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Or contact their legal representatives...who will use_ their_ Ouija boards.

(Despite being an entertainment attorney, none of my clients are dead, so I haven't invested in one of those yet.)


----------



## ggroy

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Or contact their legal representatives...who will use_ their_ Ouija boards.




Does client-attorney privilege still apply in the realm of supernatural communications?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Not on THIS plane!


----------



## Herremann the Wise

innerdude said:


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




I can't speak for anyone else but maybe my situation is pretty typical:

[Rant on]

- I started playing with the Red Basic box and got into AD&D from there.

- I used to buy most D&D books during 3E and 3.5E. I knew of every book and looked forward to previews of upcoming product. 

- I purchased the Core 4E books, adventurer's vault, PHB II but then gave up. I have a current DDI subscription that I might glance at in terms of the compendium but otherwise it's almost too much effort to bother stopping it as it's only a minor expense on my credit card (I have 2 children under the age of four in comparison).

- I play in a twice-a-month 4e game with a DM who's enthusiastic but most of the players like the campaign but not the 4e rules set. In truth, while it has some fantastic ideas, I find 4e at the polar opposite of what I would like D&D to be. Three people in our group refuse to play 4E; the new edition split our group up.

- I would be keen to look at 5e (I hope it comes sooner rather than later) but if it goes further in 4e's direction rather than oscillating back closer to previous editions then I most likely will just keep my DDI and not bother purchasing the core books. If it goes too far in 4e's then I will cancel my subscription.

- The D&D that WotC is producing is not the D&D I want to play. If they want me back they need to get rid of the black box mentality - I like to know the details, the nitty gritty, I want to put myself into the role of my character. Instead, I'm playing a game where even though I've played 10+ sessions in the current campaign alone (with many more for the previous campaigns), I still have no idea what weapons the other characters are using. One player in the game didn't know they where using a dagger half the time, assuming that they were using a staff! They've now apparently changed to something different but you would have no clue in game. All that matters is what die you have to pick up to roll damage and even that seems to be of little relevance due to the mass of hps that foes have. [Is this just our group or do you notice this too by the way?]

- 4e is too combat focused. The weird thing is I like combat but not how 4e presents it.

- I feel disenfranchised from the game of D&D and I'm dissapointed in that.

- I don't come on EN World as much anymore (although I will maintain my subscription for life because of the many wonderful people that used to be around, even though only a fraction of them still are). 

- I spend more with Paizo now than WotC. WotC will have to do a lot to equal what Paizo is producing. If they could even get close, I would purchase from both equally and fluently.

- Talking about D&D is kind of depressing when you don't like the current edition. Reading people say how much they like the current edition (repeatedly, ad nauseam, without surcease in full defensive battle gear) just turns me into a sad panda. D&D is not great anymore dudes - it has been mathematically smashed into mediocrity. As such, I'll leave this here and wait for the sky to fall.

[/Rant off]

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## MerricB

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nice link, but still a bit unclear: Arneson is mentioned as having royalty rights of some kind according to his original contract, and there is no detail as to whether the WotC offer paid him a lump sum for his rights or just a sweetening of royalties...or even which IP was covered (all or some?).  We don't even know if there was a time limit to the rights that were transferred- if there was a time limit in his original contract with TSR with a reversion at some time in the future, and WotC didn't pay attention to that clause, they could be bound by that original time limit.




Also in that link:



> *When Ryan Dancey announced that the TSR name and logo would have been suppressed, what was your sentiment?*
> 
> That news saddened me in a way. Although I had come to dislike the name, TSR, I thought that it was an established brand and dropping it seemed an error. I still hold that opinion, as I do the one that WotC should have re-released original AD&D. I urged that and not from any self-interested standpoint either, *as I had divested my residual rights in the game, so its renewed publication would have brought me no financial gain.*




Emphasis mine.

Cheers!


----------



## The Little Raven

Herremann the Wise said:


> Instead, I'm playing a game where even though I've played 10+ sessions in the current campaign alone (with many more for the previous campaigns), I still have no idea what weapons the other characters are using. One player in the game didn't know they where using a dagger half the time, assuming that they were using a staff! They've now apparently changed to something different but you would have no clue in game.






Okay, let me get this straight...

...after 10 sessions, you haven't paid enough attention to the other characters to know what weapons they wield? Or is it that they don't express what weapons they are wielding in a way you can understand?

...and this other player doesn't know when he's using a dagger or a staff? Did he make his character himself? Did he pay attention to the choices he made?

And am I correct in assuming that you're assigning the blame to the game system?



> All that matters is what die you have to pick up to roll damage and even that seems to be of little relevance due to the mass of hps that foes have.




Proficiency categories, proficiency bonuses, ranges, weapon groups, or special properties all work together to make different weapons play differently.


----------



## Orius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Most of the costs on the old stuff should be sunk costs- I'm pretty sure pdfs/downloads of that IP should be fairly profitable per unit.




I meant making physical reproductions of old products, not electronic ones.  I know publishing costs are often greater than some fans seem to assume (like the perennial copmplaints about book costs no matter how many times Sean K. Reynolds or someone else explains it for the umpteenth time), and that might apply to reprints of older material.  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> In all fairness to WotC, there may be issues we don't know about- say, indeterminate values of royalty fees or wages for certain products- connected to the sale of old IP in digital form.




That's a good point.  

The real problem is that what we got from WotC was corporate speak, the usual bull which is likely little more than half-true and does nothing to satisfy consumers and everything to generate suspicion.  Piracy may indeed have been a problem, but a lot of people assume that WotC simply didn't want the old stuff to compete with the newer stuff or wanted everyone to forget about it.  If they were more honest about any copyright or royalty issues surrounding older material, there might be less nerdrage.  Instead we have people wearing aluminum on their heads and torches and pitchforks in their hands.  If they said, "We can't sell module BS1 because we've got the estate of Joe Blow demanding royalties", more people would have been mollified.  There would be some who would still be angry, but it wouldn't have been as bad as the angry response that did occur.



Reynard said:


> i think WotC undervalued the sacred cows and D&D-isms and have realized those things, even the things that don't make any sense, are adored by many.




I would agree.  I think WotC assumed that the people who didn't like the things that were changed were a larger majority than they actually were. No matter how silly or unrealistic some aspects of the game might be, some things at this point have been around long enough to be thought of as D&D. Possibly not; maybe the people who haven't switched are just a very vocal minority.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

The Little Raven said:


> Okay, let me get this straight...
> 
> ...after 10 sessions, you haven't paid enough attention to the other characters to know what weapons they wield? Or is it that they don't express what weapons they are wielding in a way you can understand?



I normally wouldn't respond but heh...

I can tell you exactly what his powers do - not that I would know the names of any of them. Pull a guy here, slide a guy there, add a bonus to next attacker of opponent, deal some amount of damage and look to the DM to see whether we're anywhere near getting some stupid goblin bloodied after hitting it enough times. This is my point with the black box mentality. All that matters is the effect NOT the action(s) that caused the effect and whether they make any damn sense. The situation I mentioned was completely laughable though because the guy honestly thought he was using a staff until the DM told him at the start of a game that he didn't actually have one but he did have a dagger. And in the end that's my point, it really doesn't matter; it is the power that is important. And to answer your implied questions:
- the guy got sick of describing what he was doing after trying to come up with a new way of describing the same specific action for the upteenth time. I think all of us have given up on describing our powers and that is one of the things that makes me a sad panda with 4e.
- no I am not dumb. I can understand the power they are using perfectly. What weapon is causing the damage or effect is irrelevent in gameplay.



The Little Raven said:


> ...and this other player doesn't know when he's using a dagger or a staff? Did he make his character himself? Did he pay attention to the choices he made?



He thought he had a staff when instead he had a dagger. A whole heap of misplay here. However, because his powers were chosen and that's all we really saw or cared about, it made didley squat's worth of difference.



The Little Raven said:


> And am I correct in assuming that you're assigning the blame to the game system?



Square between the eyes dude!!!



			
				The Little Raven said:
			
		

> Proficiency categories, proficiency bonuses, ranges, weapon groups, or special properties all work together to make different weapons play differently.



You think? They act as a filter as to which powers you can choose and the DDI character builder works out all the plus/minus. In the end it's _x_ times damage with maximized stat bonus with possibly an effect thrown in - and don't expect to kill an opponent with it unless they're a minion; in which case you wasted your daily. Unfortunately because of this, I might as well describe an attack as grapeshot out of my character's bum for all the difference it makes; at least then somebody might pay attention to the delivery of damage (although I'm sure our rules lawyer will debate my proficiency bonus with such an attack).

Good to see you haven't let your shield get rusty sir. 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## TheAuldGrump

MerricB said:


> Let's say that Wizards include one previous edition adventure in each month of Dungeon Magazine. Month one, OD&D, Month two, AD&D, Month three, AD&D2, Month four 3.5e, then repeat.
> 
> Is that worth your money? $10 each month for just those adventures?
> 
> I would suggest that most people _wouldn't_ consider it worth it. And the "goodwill" you create by publishing those adventures is nice, but unfortunately you lose the goodwill of the 4E customers who are losing the 4E content you sacrifice to put in the older edition material.
> 
> Splitting the market is such a major thing to RPG publishers and players because RPGs are so time-intensive. I have over 200 boardgames, but each weekend I'm likely to play 5-10 different games. In a year, I'd be lucky to play three different RPGs. I do not believe that RPG players in general and D&D players in particular tend to hop from RPG to RPG.
> 
> The making available of previous edition PDFs is another matter entirely.
> 
> Cheers!



I will however point out that because of Pathfinder 3.X is getting support - and putting in a monthly 3.5 adventure puts direct competition on a potential rival.

That said - I strongly suspect that the 'splitting the market' argument is correct, and may also be at the root of the 'No PDFs' rule. If people can get material for the older editions it gives them less incentive to get the [insert adjective of choice] material for their newer game.

The fact that I have not bought 4.0, and will not buy 4.0 makes the argument moot in my case - by selling older PDFs they would not be affecting the odds of my buying their newer game. The needle is buried at 0. But there are others who did not have quite the allergic reaction to the new edition that I had.

The Auld Grump, so Crafty Games, Paizo, and a bunch of miniatures companies are getting my gaming dollars, not WotC.


----------



## pemerton

cperkins said:


> It wasn't a claim... I was offering my perception of WotC's actions in both the marketing and creation of 4th edition.
> 
> To my eyes there were enough significant changes made to the game, whether they be in style, implied background, rule mechanics, etc, that I could only conclude that they were breaking from what D&D was in order to rebuild the game for a new audience.
> 
> Whether I was correct in my perception or not I know that the broad changes to the game turned me off and drove me away.



I'm not contesting the last sentence, but the middle paragraph. I agree that the changes made to the game were significant. But I don't think you can reasonably infer, simply from your own experience, that they were aimed at a new audience.

I was a D&D player in the 1980s. I more-or-less stopped playing D&D with 2nd ed - for all sorts of reasons I didn't like the play experience with 2nd ed, and still don't. 3E didn't bring me back - I stuck with Rolemaster as my main game of choice. 4e did bring me back. So at least in my case, the rebuilding of the game brought back an old audience.

All I'm saying is - only WotC knows whether you or me is the more typical 4e player.


----------



## pemerton

A lot of posts in this thread suggest an attitude towards the commercial products of a for-profit corporation that is a little alien to me.



caelum said:


> of course pre-3e pdfs weren't a big moneymaker.  But that's not the point:  WotC yanked them from the shelf and alienated even more people.  It takes almost no effort for them to be there - since all of that legwork had been done years ago - and, really, does anybody honestly believe that 1e adventures compete with 4e?  Fans of those editions have an absolute right to be angry at WotC over yanking the products they like, as I'm sure many 4e fans would be angry if they quit supporting that game.





Orius said:


> The real problem is that what we got from WotC was corporate speak, the usual bull which is likely little more than half-true and does nothing to satisfy consumers and everything to generate suspicion.



I don't understand the idea of "an absolute right to be angry at WotC over yanking" the PDFs of older books. Nor of people having "suspicions" about their motives. Their motives are obvious - belief that the best way for the company to make money is to yank those PDFs. That's the belief that motivates for-profit corporations. The belief may be mistaken, although no actual evidence for that - like the costs of offering the stuff for sale vs the revenue it generates vs the effect that the sale of such stuff has on sale of other WotC products - has been offered (a dozen people on a message board saying "I'd buy that stuff if it was there" certainly isn't evidence that a market exists).

Some people on this thread seem to want the benefits of folk culture - it's freely available to anyone who wants to participate in it - and the benefits of privately owned and manufactured culture - it has high production values, is (at its best) of high quality, is widely available and widely shared. But all the evidence of history suggests that you can't have both. If RPGs are folk culture, than make your own. With the OGL you can even do it without breaking infringing anyone's intellectual property rights. Hell, with the OGL you can even piggyback on WotC's old commercially produced products, as the retro-clones and Pathfinder do.

But if you want to participate in the currently commercially produced cultural product that is D&D, then inevitably you'll have to do it on WotC's terms. That's what it means for cultural products to have been commercialised.



ExploderWizard said:


> Well, you should feel bad saying this because one day you may be left behind, forgotten and no longer cared about by the company that makes your favorite game.





Shazman said:


> I don't think anyone is faulting WotC for trying to get younger players involved in D&D.  The fact that they are doing it in a way that completely alienates long time fans of the game, many of which have spent a lot of money on the hobby over the years, is what many are upset about.



I used to be a fan of work that TSR did. Then they started making stuff I wasn't interested in. So I stopped buying it. Now WotC makes stuff that I am interested in, so I do buy it. I don't buy as much ICE stuff as I used to (not that they make much stuff any more!) because I don't play ICE games anymore.

Similarly, I once used to buy a lot of Marvel comics. As the quality (in my view) dropped in the mid-90s I hung on for a while out of a sense of fondness for the characters, and then eventually stopped buying them. One day, if I discover that Marvel is publishing comics I want to read again, I might start buying them again. It's not a big deal.

I don't expect a commercial publisher to "care about" me. I expect them to publish stuff. Some of it, I might buy. Lots of it, I won't. Buying stuff from a commercial publisher doesn't give me any control over what they publish, or any entitlement that they publish more stuff that I like. It's not _my_ culture. It's been privatised. I'm just part of the consuming public.



ST said:


> These products people are clamouring to have Wizards sell as PDFs are often available used online; but several people have put Wizards selling them again as something that would validate this relationship they have with the company. But consumers' only relationship with a company is to be exploited, to spend money on product. No company cares about you, personally, or ever did. The feeling that they did was just the result of marketing to your demographic.



This is probably the single most insightful post on this thread. It reminds me of all the outrage over the "Why you can't have nice things" blog post and thread a couple of weeks ago. The poster of that blog said that gamers, despite having a self-image of being too sharp to fall for marketing spin, are actually very easy to market to. When I read that, I wasn't sure what he had in mind. This thread is giving me a better sense of what he _might_ have had in mind. Apparently TSR and WotC have succeeded in making a whole lot of people believe that a series of cultural products that are privately produced and whose content is privately owned and controlled are in fact common property - and people are clamouring to be allowed to pay money to WotC to purchase those products! That's marketing success if I ever saw it.


----------



## The Little Raven

Herremann the Wise said:


> I can tell you exactly what his powers do - not that I would know the names of any of them. Pull a guy here, slide a guy there, add a bonus to next attacker of opponent, deal some amount of damage and look to the DM to see whether we're anywhere near getting some stupid goblin bloodied after hitting it enough times. This is my point with the black box mentality. All that matters is the effect NOT the action(s) that caused the effect and whether they make any damn sense.




I am failing to see how the players' failure to remember fundamental things about their characters is anything but their own fault (unless they have some kind of memory problem or something). Having crazy spells that stopped time or reversed gravity never made me forget that my 2e fighter/mage wielded a mithral longsword.

DM: "Jake, what weapon are you using?"
Jake: "I don't remember. One of my powers knocks an enemy prone, so I can only remember that. It's all this game's fault. Nevermind the fact that I could remember minute trivia about your previous edition campaign worlds, now because of 4th edition giving me powers that have effects beyond just damage, I can't remember basic details about my character."

That's just ridiculous.



> The situation I mentioned was completely laughable though because the guy honestly thought he was using a staff until the DM told him at the start of a game that he didn't actually have one but he did have a dagger.




I'd question the player's dedication to the character or the game being played if they can't remember something so basic.



> And in the end that's my point, it really doesn't matter; it is the power that is important.




Yeah, it doesn't matter whether the weapon deals 1d4 or 2d6 damage. Or gets additional damage on a crit. Or can be wielded in the offhand. Or has a minimum level of damage that it can do. Or whether it gains an additional bonus based on its weapon group. Or whether it can even be used with the power in question.

Yeah, obviously weapon choice means nothing.



> - the guy got sick of describing what he was doing after trying to come up with a new way of describing the same specific action for the upteenth time. I think all of us have given up on describing our powers and that is one of the things that makes me a sad panda with 4e.




That wasn't my implied question, but I fail to see how him getting sick of describing a specific action ad nauseum would make or justify him forgetting whether he was wielding a dagger or a staff.



> - no I am not dumb. I can understand the power they are using perfectly. What weapon is causing the damage or effect is irrelevent in gameplay.




I'm not saying you're dumb.

I'm saying you're not paying attention, and then blaming the game system for your failure.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Herschel said:


> That means not dumping resources in to older product lines. Time is money, money is money, bandwidth is money.




You assert the WotC was spending time, money, and bandwidth to keep the OOP PDFs available through DTRPG.

At least one of these (bandwidth) is clearly false. WotC wasn't the one providing the bandwidth.

The money was all flowing the other way. WotC's costs (in terms of digitizing the content and legal fees for crafting/approving the licenses) had already been paid.

Time was probably not entirely nonexistent. There was almost certainly an employee who's job description included monitoring the PDF program. But if that guy was spending more than 15 minutes a month on monitoring the OOP material, WotC was doing something wrong.

We can sit here all day and hypothesize about some hidden business reason why WotC suddenly discovered that they don't actually own the copyright on all of their OOP material. (Although the fact that some OOP material was never made available specifically _because_ WotC had run those types of legal checks makes that conspiracy theory rather tenuous.) But in the absence of that, there's no other rational explanation for what WotC did. And my original point stands.

(And the absurdity of you saying, "Well they don't want you!" in response to people answering the OP's question stands as well. Maybe they don't. Perhaps even probably. But it's irrelevant in the context of this thread.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

MerricB said:


> Also in that link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had divested my residual rights in the game, so its renewed publication would have brought me no financial gain.
Click to expand...



So we know Gygax is out.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> I don't understand the idea of "an absolute right to be angry at WotC over yanking" the PDFs of older books. Nor of people having "suspicions" about their motives. Their motives are obvious - belief that the best way for the company to make money is to yank those PDFs. That's the belief that motivates for-profit corporations. The belief may be mistaken, although no actual evidence for that - like the costs of offering the stuff for sale vs the revenue it generates vs the effect that the sale of such stuff has on sale of other WotC products - has been offered (a dozen people on a message board saying "I'd buy that stuff if it was there" certainly isn't evidence that a market exists).




I don't see how you can't understand people having suspicions about WotC's motives. Unless you can find them explaining why they pulled their PDFs, their citation of piracy is all we have. And even you are indicating there's some other reason than that - contrary to WotC's public announcements. Nobody's expecting WotC to put out a balance sheet explaining why they thought the PDFs might not have been profitable enough to pursue, but a little more straight talk? Maybe. 



pemerton said:


> Apparently TSR and WotC have succeeded in making a whole lot of people believe that a series of cultural products that are privately produced and whose content is privately owned and controlled are in fact common property - and people are clamouring to be allowed to pay money to WotC to purchase those products! That's marketing success if I ever saw it.




It's not a question of common property. People are clamoring for products they know WotC has, sure, and talk a lot about the products they prefer. But that's the hobby market for you. Gamers are no different from plenty of other hobbies from rebuilding cars to model trains to stamping. Hobbyists often identify with their products and brands. You don't just rebuild engines, you rebuild Chrysler engines ("Mopar or no car!"). You don't collect soda memorabilia, you collect Coca-cola memorabilia. And when the company you depend on for your supporting products cuts you off or offers a significant redesign, you grouse about it. That's the double-edged sword of marketing a powerful brand. It may attract people, it will lodge in their brains, they will seek out your products, and it will lead to a furor if fans of the brand don't like the way it drifts or products are withheld.


----------



## yinadditve

Agreeing with Pawsplay and Sammael


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> People are clamoring for products they know WotC has, sure, and talk a lot about the products they prefer. But that's the hobby market for you. Gamers are no different from plenty of other hobbies from rebuilding cars to model trains to stamping. Hobbyists often identify with their products and brands. You don't just rebuild engines, you rebuild Chrysler engines ("Mopar or no car!"). You don't collect soda memorabilia, you collect Coca-cola memorabilia. And when the company you depend on for your supporting products cuts you off or offers a significant redesign, you grouse about it. That's the double-edged sword of marketing a powerful brand. It may attract people, it will lodge in their brains, they will seek out your products, and it will lead to a furor if fans of the brand don't like the way it drifts or products are withheld.




Bingo!

When 4Ed rolled out, I was among the people who talked about the specter of it being the "New Coke" of the RPG industry.  I was not insulting 4Ed itself, but questioning whether 4Ed was the product D&D's installed base was looking for.

Coke did their research: in taste tests, New Coke kicked Pepsi's butt...AND Coke's original recipe as well.  The problem was that Coke didn't ask all of the right questions.  For most Coke drinkers, New Coke was welcome to the family as another drink, but not as a replacement for the original.  Not only that, most Pepsi drinkers wanted to drink Pepsi...even if they picked New Coke in the tests.  Coke's market split, there were few Pepsi defectors, and eventually, New Coke died out.

4Ed has not fallen into that trap.  While the D&D market did split, 4Ed has been successful in bringing in gamers from other systems AND growing the hobby by bringing in new players.

But there is still a market for old D&D products.  I own multiples of most of the key D&D books of the previous editions, but I have no idea as to how much longer they can last.  Those books took a _beating._  Despite my aforementioned dislike of pdfs for entertainment uses, I'm not going to lie and say that I might not buy some as backups.

The same story goes for minis.  I got into it with a shopkeeper about minis for the 4Ed game.  He claims that he can't sell them.  I countered that it wsa because the market is glutted with elves, dwarves, humans and dragons from a variety of companies, but nobody- incuding WotC- is making real Dragonborn, Wilden, Tieflings, Shifters, Changelings, Goliaths, Shardminds, Devas, or merely size M Minotaurs, and you can't sell what isn't made.

Drop a bigger percentage of those into your "Official 4Ed" minis line and you'll see people buy them.  I know this because I see people looking for them all the time, online and in game stores.


----------



## pemerton

Bill91, I hope you don't mind that I take your paragraphs in reverse order (edit: and get your username wrong! - sorry about that).



billd91 said:


> It's not a question of common property. People are clamoring for products they know WotC has, sure, and talk a lot about the products they prefer. But that's the hobby market for you. Gamers are no different from plenty of other hobbies from rebuilding cars to model trains to stamping. Hobbyists often identify with their products and brands.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> when the company you depend on for your supporting products cuts you off or offers a significant redesign, you grouse about it. That's the double-edged sword of marketing a powerful brand. It may attract people, it will lodge in their brains, they will seek out your products, and it will lead to a furor if fans of the brand don't like the way it drifts or products are withheld.



That's true, but it's still alien to me. Not the grousing - I can understand that. I was apparently the one person in Australia who was addicted to Flash Forward when it showed here, and groused when the TV channel moved it later and later in timeslot. It's the _furor_ that I don't really get. What would the TV channel have to do to "win me back"? - show good shows in a good timeslot. What would ICE have to do to "win me back"? - sell RPG stuff that I enjoy at a fair price. What would WotC have to do to "win me back"? - the same. But if they don't, they're not being unfair or unreasonable or manipulative or anything else that one sees asserted or implied about them. They're just doing business. That's what commercialisation and privatisation mean - the owner/producer is in charge, not the consumer.

I guess I'm saying that I get the irritation - but I don't really get the outrage.



billd91 said:


> I don't see how you can't understand people having suspicions about WotC's motives. Unless you can find them explaining why they pulled their PDFs, their citation of piracy is all we have. And even you are indicating there's some other reason than that - contrary to WotC's public announcements. Nobody's expecting WotC to put out a balance sheet explaining why they thought the PDFs might not have been profitable enough to pursue, but a little more straight talk? Maybe.



Now this I _really_ don't get. WotC stated a reason, namely, piracy. My understanding is that the piracy concerns are mostly about 4e PDFs, and that the other PDFs are (like someone said upthread) a casualty of that. But in any event, I don't need WotC to give me a reason, and I don't need to have suspicions, because _I already know their reason_: their belief about what is the best way for them to make money over whatever they take to be the relevant timeframe for measuring such things.

Assuming that the real concern is for protecting 4e PDFs from piracy, from the fact that they let the older PDFs go also I think we can infer (i) that sales from those PDFs were sufficiently low, and/or (ii)that market research tells them that leaving them on sale will split or confuse the market, such that it's not worth WotC's time keeping them on the market, and/or (iii, and with a tip of the hat to Dannyalcatraz) that there are legal complexities that they can't, or can't be bothered to, resolve. Again, I don't see the room for _suspicions_ here - it's straightforward inference.

In my (somewhat abstract) capacity as an admirer of human culture and all it's achievements, I think it's a shame that all that stuff is sitting there unavailable when it seems that it could be made available pretty easily. But that's just another consequence of privatising cultural production. If you don't like it, it's no good trying to persuade WotC that they've made a flawed business decision - maybe they have, but no one here is better placed than WotC to make that judgement. You need to somehow undo that privatisation of your culture. Does the Library of Congress carry copies of old TSR and WotC publications?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Now this I really don't get. WotC stated a reason, namely, piracy. My understanding is that the piracy concerns are mostly about 4e PDFs, and that the other PDFs are (like someone said upthread) a casualty of that. But in any event, I don't need WotC to give me a reason, and I don't need to have suspicions, because I already know their reason: their belief about what is the best way for them to make money over whatever they take to be the relevant timeframe for measuring such things.




The counterpoint has been made that while it is a reason, it is somewhat nonsensical.  Simply put, once your stuff has been digitally reproduced in the market, you can't "take your ball and go home" and expect things to change.

*Pulling legitimate versions of your work from the market after it has been pirated means that only pirates make money from your work.*  As far as I know, WotC is the only operational company that has taken this approach to piracy- all of the other producers of music, TV, movies and even games keep their stuff on the market.  At least with legal versions, ethical consumers have the option of obtaining your work and giving you money, as opposed to choosing between engaging in piracy or doing without.  You may not make as much money as you did before, but you're making an amount greater than zero, and it is probably non-trivial.



> Assuming that the real concern is for protecting 4e PDFs from piracy, from the fact that they let the older PDFs go also I think we can infer (i) that sales from those PDFs were sufficiently low, and/or (ii)that market research tells them that leaving them on sale will split or confuse the market, such that it's not worth WotC's time keeping them on the market, and/or (iii, and with a tip of the hat to Dannyalcatraz) that there are legal complexities that they can't, or can't be bothered to, resolve. Again, I don't see the room for suspicions here - it's straightforward inference.




While I can't say I'm _suspicious_ of WotC's stated motives, I do find them hard to understand.  I suppose "puzzled" would be a better term.

Besides aforementioned holes in the "piracy" assertion:


even low sales of a pdf would probably be profitable for a company with access to the kind of bandwith WotC can purchase
the market is already split; keeping your original work on the market would more likely minimize the profits of competitors currently operating without the market's biggest player than actually cannibalize your current products any more than they already are.
if 3.5 pdfs DID start outselling 4Ed products, that would give WotC not only $$$, but valuable market data.

The last two are key- WotC may just find that, instead of cannibalizing 4Ed, they may actually be able to support 2 RPGs, much like major soft-drink companies have a wide array of choices.

Yes, they tried this early on with Everway, and Everway folded.  But WotC was a small company then with more limited resources stretched to support D&D, M:tG, Pokemon and others...and Everway was not already a proven winner in the marketplace like 3.5Ed.


> Does the Library of Congress carry copies of old TSR and WotC publications?




I don't know for sure, but with a storage capacity of 20TB for digital stuff alone, and acting as the repository of the Copyright Office (including comic books, movies, video games, music recordings, and so forth), I think its safe to say that the Library of Congress has copies of some of those works in some form.  They may not be accessible to you and me, but they're in there.


----------



## MerricB

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Drop a bigger percentage of those into your "Official 4Ed" minis line and you'll see people buy them.  I know this because I see people looking for them all the time, online and in game stores.




Unfortunately, it's very likely that the _quantity_ people want of those sorts of minis isn't enough to make a profit. Well, not with the low price people expect from DDM. It's a lot more likely that someone will want to buy a single goliath figure... but not ten. And, unfortunately, the ten make it worthwhile while the one doesn't make enough of a profit. 

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Bingo!
> 
> When 4Ed rolled out, I was among the people who talked about the specter of it being the "New Coke" of the RPG industry.  I was not insulting 4Ed itself, but questioning whether 4Ed was the product D&D's installed base was looking for.




Probably the most terrifying thing about running the D&D brand is that the "installed base" is so broad. You've got a great variety of people who like fantasy role-playing, and they all approach it, and want, slightly different things.

Any change you make to the game is going to lose people. Not making changes is _also_ going to lose people. The scale that Wizards works on just makes things harder. Paizo can be very happy with a small market. Wizards can't be happy with that... (Does that mean that we'd be better off with Paizo making D&D? Well, some of us would be, but all? I doubt it. 3.5e had outlived its useful life for me when I stopped playing it and took up 4e).

I don't understand what the reason is for the loss of PDFs, but I do think that it probably has to do with factional politics within Wizards. There may also be sales figures and research we don't know about.

Cheers!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Unfortunately, it's very likely that the quantity people want of those sorts of minis isn't enough to make a profit. Well, not with the low price people expect from DDM. It's a lot more likely that someone will want to buy a single goliath figure... but not ten. And, unfortunately, the ten make it worthwhile while the one doesn't make enough of a profit.




That may be true with the currently popular "randomized minis" craze, but when you sell minis in translucent blister packs, not only can you justify selling the corner-cases (at least in the short-term), your sales figures will let you know what to produce more or less of.

In the short-term, you can produce a sculpt of something like a Dragonborn Rogue and do it in a short production run...and if needed, price it so that even that short run is profitable.  Rackham does this with some of its "rare" minis for Confrontation.  If your big sellers are priced at, say...$5, you can sell an oddball in a short run for $10.  Or you could package it in a small box with other oddballs- say...a Shardmind Invoker, a Minotaur Paladin and a Goliath Runepriest- and sell that for $30.  Rackham does this as well.

And if the solo or group box sells well, you extend the production run.  If it doesn't sell, you stop making it.  If it limps along, you produce a smattering of them every year.

There is a reason why Ral Partha lasted as long as it did...and why some of its classic sculpts are still around.


----------



## pemerton

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While I can't say I'm _suspicious_ of WotC's stated motives, I do find them hard to understand.  I suppose "puzzled" would be a better term.



Now that does make sense to me. I can understand being puzzled, particularly given that (from your other posts) you seem to have some professional experience with this sort of issue.

For me, to the extent that there is any puzzlement, it's of the mystery kind - ie what is the factor that makes WotC believe that maintaining the PDFs is a losing proposition? My best guess is the splitting/confusing the market thing. I think your legal concerns might also be a factor, but I'd rate that as less likely than the "purity of brand" reasoning.

@MerricB - what factional politics do you have in mind?


----------



## nedjer

pemerton said:


> Now that does make sense to me. I can understand being puzzled, particularly given that (from your other posts) you seem to have some professional experience with this sort of issue.
> 
> For me, to the extent that there is any puzzlement, it's of the mystery kind - ie what is the factor that makes WotC believe that maintaining the PDFs is a losing proposition? My best guess is the splitting/confusing the market thing. I think your legal concerns might also be a factor, but I'd rate that as less likely than the "purity of brand" reasoning.
> 
> @MerricB - what factional politics do you have in mind?




Completely guessing but I'd have to wonder if it isn't to do with easy printing. Sell a hard copy to a GM and the players have to get a hard copy PH at the least. Sell a PDF to a GM and she/ he can print the key sections for players and all access to the game without entry costs. This probably backfires, as after a couple of sessions a new player is probably likely to go for a PH anyway.

Wouldn't hold your breath on a return to PDFs or the arrival of editable html, as monetisation based on hardback revenues stands in the way of other forms of monetisation.


----------



## MerricB

pemerton said:


> @MerricB - what factional politics do you have in mind?




Not everyone is of the same mind about everything in larger organisations. Ryan Dancey had to work to sell the OGL in the first place, but even once it was out there, there would have been people thinking it was a mistake. (Indeed, Gary Gygax thought it was, though he wasn't at Wizards). That we now have the more restrictive GSL shows a change in thinking at Wizards. It _might_ be the same people having a change of mind, but as Wizards have lost a lot of the staff that made the original decision...

I'm sure it's the same thing with PDFs. When you get down to it, Wizards has a business selling printed copies of books. They also do a lot to support brick'n'mortar retailers (see the D&D Encounters program). PDFs detract from the role brick'n'mortar retailers have, and thus can be seen to be a problem. In fact, keeping the FLGS going is of paramount concern to Wizards as they've observed how important they are for forming the networks of players that are so important to their games.

(Try playing D&D or Magic on your own...)

It should be noted that just before the financial problems at Catalyst Game Labs (publishers of BattleTech and Shadowrun) blew up, they were talking about a system to allow FLGS to sell pdfs of their product. Unfortunately, the plan might now be dead.

Cheers!


----------



## francisca

Yeah, this is pretty freaking easy: yanking the PDFs was a business decision.  Whether it was to properly defend the IP, piracy cutting into dead-tree sales, fear of older edition sales undermining the new edition, or all of the above, it was a business decision, pure and simple.  The official line is that it is was piracy.  Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.  The bottom line is that it was all about WotC's, uh., bottom line.

You guys can concoct all the theories you want and it doesn't matter.  Even if they did "come clean" and explain why, it would serve no purpose, _*Mod Edit:*  Grandma thinks you've gone a touch too far.  If you need to use that kind of imagery, methinks you need to chill out._ 

Now personally, I don't think it was a very good decision, as I'd certainly be spending some money rounding out the PDF collection of the old TSR titles, which is more than the zero dollars I've spent since they were pulled the PDFs.  And no, that isn't some sort of protest, I'm just not their target demographic for the current edition, and unlike some, I don't think they killed my dawg or anything - my old stuff is _right there, on the shelf_ for me to use and I'm still having a blast with it. 

But whatever, the income generated by the PDF sales wasn't enough to justify the continuation of the program, and thats all there is to it.  Maybe we'll luck out and they'll be put back on sale in the future, but this impotent wailing and gnashing of the teeth, while entertaining in a "look at spoiled brat" kinda way, is pathetic.


----------



## ExploderWizard

francisca said:


> But whatever, the income generated by the PDF sales wasn't enough to justify the continuation of the program, and thats all there is to it. Maybe we'll luck out and they'll be put back on sale in the future, but this impotent wailing and gnashing of the teeth, while entertaining in a "look at spoiled brat" kinda way, is pathetic.




Just about anything one could want of older products is already out there somewhere. I see no problem at all just going and getting it. I bought a lot of pdfs on Drivethru and was happy to fairly pay for product that I wanted. There is some other stuff that I would still like to get. As far as current stuff, it's available and I can get what I want at my FLGS. 

The older stuff. Probably just gonna go snag it since it has an effective value of 0 to the company that owns it. 

Time to stop complaining and start downloading.


----------



## IronWolf

MerricB said:


> I'm sure it's the same thing with PDFs. When you get down to it, Wizards has a business selling printed copies of books. They also do a lot to support brick'n'mortar retailers (see the D&D Encounters program). PDFs detract from the role brick'n'mortar retailers have, and thus can be seen to be a problem. In fact, keeping the FLGS going is of paramount concern to Wizards as they've observed how important they are for forming the networks of players that are so important to their games.
> 
> (Try playing D&D or Magic on your own...)




I am not so sure that this is as true today though.  Certainly many years ago it was more true, but the times are changing on how content is delivered on many different fronts.

There are now huge networks of players on various forum sites - the game producer's, fan sites, etc.  A lot of these players are starting to use more electronic aids at their table which makes electronic content more attractive.

For people looking to play they can easily use any one of a number of forums to find other gamers or look for a meetup group in their area.  If they would prefer they can also play the game over a VTT and voice chat application.

Certainly the FLGS is still important to a subset of gamers, but there are now other options out there that should be considered.

And doesn't DDI present some of the same issues as PDFs would?


----------



## francisca

ExploderWizard said:


> Just about anything one could want of older products is already out there somewhere. I see no problem at all just going and getting it. I bought a lot of pdfs on Drivethru and was happy to fairly pay for product that I wanted. There is some other stuff that I would still like to get. As far as current stuff, it's available and I can get what I want at my FLGS.
> 
> The older stuff. Probably just gonna go snag it since it has an effective value of 0 to the company that owns it.
> 
> Time to stop complaining and start downloading.




For me, everything I *really* want is on my shelf in deadtree format (plus a lot of crap I don't, thank goodness for ebay).  There are some I don't have in PDF, but would like to have, and I'd gladly pay for a legit copy.  I'd rather pay for a legit copy, actually.  but there is no "need" as I'm largely a homebrewer anyway (which is why "in-print" has never been a determining factor when evaluating rpgs.).



IronWolf said:


> Certainly the FLGS is still important to a subset of gamers, but there are now other options out there that should be considered.




For me, personally, the FLGS is most important for boardgames, and they are doing well in my area selling them.  All of them do a pretty decent business in tabletop RPGs as well, but it is a tiny, tiny portion of their income, compared to CCGs, miniature games (like Flames of War and WarHammer), and hobbyist-oriented boardgames (stuff like Power Grid, Agricola, Puerto Rico, etc..).  YMMV, of course.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> But if they don't, they're not being unfair or unreasonable or manipulative or anything else that one sees asserted or implied about them.




I don't see a lot of *that* in this thread, either.

There seems to be a lot of jumping at shadows. Umbran is seeing calls for boycotts, you're seeing "WotC is teh evil." Francisca is seeing wacky theories.

Most of what I see in this thread isn't any of that.

Most of what I see in this thread is pretty reasonable people who want to give WotC money for things they enjoy playing and reading, but some of WotC's practices (namely, not selling books from older editions) lead to them not wanting to spend money on WotC products. One practice in particular -- not selling PDF's of older edition materials -- seems, as an outsider, to be something they did for really poor reasons (assuming their stated intent was honest), and something they could easily change. 

It's like, I'm not seeing very many signs of these mythical green unicorns, but I keep talking to people who swear they're sick of 'em.

Okay. But this isn't a gathering of mythical green unicorns. This is, at most, a herd of antelope that want to be sold things that it seems would be fairly reasonable to sell them. 

So, what would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

*Not freak out about copyright infringement* and *embrace the money from people who don't want to play current D&D, but like older D&D*. 

Maybe that's still not worth it as a business decision, but the thread does presume a hypothetical that WotC wants to win back the disenchanted. If that's not true, they can gleefully ignore the thread.


----------



## Falstaff

JRRNeiklot said:


> Funny, all I need is a sheet  of paper and a pencil.  Doesn't get much easier than that.




Absolutely.


----------



## IronWolf

francisca said:


> For me, personally, the FLGS is most important for boardgames, and they are doing well in my area selling them.  All of them do a pretty decent business in tabletop RPGs as well, but it is a tiny, tiny portion of their income, compared to CCGs, miniature games (like Flames of War and WarHammer), and hobbyist-oriented boardgames (stuff like Power Grid, Agricola, Puerto Rico, etc..).  YMMV, of course.




Ah, quite likely true.  I was speaking from my more narrow view of RPG players.  I could certainly see there being other types of gamers that might find more value in the FLGS even as the Internet age advances.


----------



## francisca

IronWolf said:


> Ah, quite likely true.  I was speaking from my more narrow view of RPG players.  I could certainly see there being other types of gamers that might find more value in the FLGS even as the Internet age advances.




You bet.  I think the outcome is likely to be tabletop RPGs will continue to be marginalized in brick and mortar stores, completely disappearing from the shelves in some stores, which makes WotC's attitude about  PDFs all the more frustrating.  I'd personally much rather by a book from the FLGS or directly from the publisher at gencon or another con, myself, but then again, I haven't been in the market for a new RPG for, I dunno, 6 years.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Francisca is seeing wacky theories.



I've not doubt some of the theories hold water, and the full reason the PDFs were pulled is most likely some of column A, some of column B, etc...  What I'm grumping about is the persecution complex some are exhibiting, when really, the root of the matter is a business decision.  I understand people are passionate about their games, but the decision to pull the PDFs, put forth the essentials line, etc.. were cold and impersonal decisions made for business reasons.  In short, "it isn't about you".  ("you" being anyone who is all panty twisted and taking it as a personal affront.)


----------



## renau1g

Herremann the Wise said:


> I normally wouldn't respond but heh...
> 
> I can tell you exactly what his powers do - not that I would know the names of any of them. Pull a guy here, slide a guy there, add a bonus to next attacker of opponent, deal some amount of damage and look to the DM to see whether we're anywhere near getting some stupid goblin bloodied after hitting it enough times. This is my point with the black box mentality. All that matters is the effect NOT the action(s) that caused the effect and whether they make any damn sense. The situation I mentioned was completely laughable though because the guy honestly thought he was using a staff until the DM told him at the start of a game that he didn't actually have one but he did have a dagger. And in the end that's my point, it really doesn't matter; it is the power that is important. And to answer your implied questions:
> - the guy got sick of describing what he was doing after trying to come up with a new way of describing the same specific action for the upteenth time. I think all of us have given up on describing our powers and that is one of the things that makes me a sad panda with 4e.
> - no I am not dumb. I can understand the power they are using perfectly. What weapon is causing the damage or effect is irrelevent in gameplay.
> 
> He thought he had a staff when instead he had a dagger. A whole heap of misplay here. However, because his powers were chosen and that's all we really saw or cared about, it made didley squat's worth of difference.




So how did you and your players describe the 17th level fighter's iterative attacks in prior editions? I find that at least there are different powers for a fighter now. In past editions it was "I hit it with my sword" or "I hit it with my axe".  Not sure what you're getting at with the attack vs. effect. In any edition I suppose the attack doesn't matter, but the effect. If the fighter power attacks, regular attacks, charges, etc in prior editions, it doesn't matter, only his 1d8+whatever. Just like this edition. It didn't matter that the mage cast magic missile or scorching ray or ray of frost just the damage it did.


----------



## DaveMage

renau1g said:


> It didn't matter that the mage cast magic missile or scorching ray or ray of frost just the damage it did.




You lost your argument right here...


----------



## Raven Crowking

This thread has been pretty educational for me, and has caused me to revise my thinking in several areas.  And, with very few exceptions, it has remained remarkably civil.  Thank you all!

WotC, if you are listening, make a 4e version of Dwellers of the Forbidden City, with a full-sized poster map of the City, and lots of interior maps, preferably ones that don't show marks where minis should be placed.

Actually, just produce the maps; I will write my own adventure around them.

Thank you very, very much.


RC


----------



## Holy Bovine

BlackMoria said:


> What could WOTC do ...
> 
> Let's see, I got kicked to the curb because, beside playing D&D since '74, I didn't fit the target demographic anymore and they want the snot nose kid and his buddies from down the block at their game table now and not me.
> 
> To add insult to injury, they killed the FR with that damnable spellplague and the mega timeline jump, which to me, it is like shooting my dog.
> 
> Message received and understood.  I'll keep off the lawn.




Shooting your dog?  Seriously?  I don't think you have a good grasp of reality right now.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ExploderWizard said:


> Well, you should feel bad saying this because one day you may be left behind, forgotten and no longer cared about by the company that makes your favorite game.




Why should he? I was "left behind, forgotten and no longer cared about" when TSR released 2E. I kept playing 1E and could care less what TSR was doing.



DaveMage said:


> You lost your argument right here...




Why? Those type of spells are still in 4E. If the chosen power doesn't matter to HtW now, why would it have in previous editions? The truth is *is does matter in 4E*, just like all previous editions.


----------



## mudbunny

For what it's worth, I have passed on to WotC a link to this thread, with a note that except for a very few posts, it is well-worth reading.


----------



## Mallus

billd91 said:


> I don't see how you can't understand people having suspicions about WotC's motives.



Perhaps because 'business motives' usually boil down to 'make more money'. There's nothing to be suspicious about. 

Unless the business in question is the Parallax Corporation, in which case, suspicion is warranted. They're tricky...


----------



## ExploderWizard

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Why should he? I was "left behind, forgotten and no longer cared about" when TSR released 2E. I kept playing 1E and could care less what TSR was doing.




No real reason right now. Unfavorable change will hit everyone sooner or later as long as change keeps happening.


----------



## renau1g

DaveMage said:


> You lost your argument right here...






Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Why? Those type of spells are still in 4E. If the chosen power doesn't matter to HtW now, why would it have in previous editions? The truth is *is does matter in 4E*, just like all previous editions.




Yeah, that's my point Dave. Thanks Vyvyan. 

P.S. I'm not trying to "win" anything. There's nothing to win. I was asking an honest question of another gamer. There's actually not even an argument, it's a question to someone about a comment they made.


----------



## billd91

Mallus said:


> Perhaps because 'business motives' usually boil down to 'make more money'. There's nothing to be suspicious about.




Actually, that *is* one of the suspicions. The cited reason was piracy. Like I said, a little more straight talking would be appreciated. While I think earlier edition fans would still be disappointed, that's not the same as being disgusted by a flimsy reason like piracy.


----------



## billd91

Holy Bovine said:


> Shooting your dog?  Seriously?  I don't think you have a good grasp of reality right now.




It's not up to you to diagnose the emotional connections people make. Someone could certainly have a longer-term emotional involvement with a favorite artistic work like Forgotten Realms than they do with a younger and not-very-well-liked pet. Personally, I can think of a number of non-living things I like more than one of our cats. Yet my wife seems emotionally attached to him, so I there he is.


----------



## MrMyth

The Little Raven said:


> I am failing to see how the players' failure to remember fundamental things about their characters is anything but their own fault (unless they have some kind of memory problem or something). Having crazy spells that stopped time or reversed gravity never made me forget that my 2e fighter/mage wielded a mithral longsword.




Ehhh. I like 4E, I disagree with a lot of the points made against it, but I do know somewhat what he is talking about - a focus on effect rather than source. I have a player who keeps asking rules questions about "that random feat I have, that gives all my defense boosting powers a bonus." The feat is a Dragonmark - something that should be a core part of the character, but instead is literally just another option spotted in the character builder and chosen for numerical value. That's just how some players roll.

The thing is, the exact same thing was true when I played with the same group in 3rd Edition. I haven't seen anything change - save perhaps that the ease of use of the Character Builder does make it easier to flit through options and snag stuff based on bonuses rather than flavor. Essentially, it makes optimizing easier for the non-optimizers. 

In any case, I don't think 4E is at fault for this sort of experience. It comes down to the DM and the players, and if someone is bugged by it, they should bring it up to their group. I've got a game that sometimes gets like this - but I know that is how most of the players _like it_, and so that's fine. And at other times, they _do _delve into RP. They just usually have it focused on background elements of the character, rather than what weapons they are using or feats they have taken. 

It's all what you do with it. DaveMage commented that renau1g 'lost his argument' by saying that a wizard, in 4E, could cast any number of spells and not worry about anything other than the damage. The point being made was that the player _could_ do that, just like a fighter in earlier editions _could_ just say, "I swing, 11, miss. I swing, 17, hit for 8 damage. I swing, 13, miss." Or the wizard could say, "Magic Missile, 8 damage. Ray of Frost, 17, hit for 2 damage. Flaming Sphere, DC 18 Reflex, 7 damage." The fact that they use slightly different mechanics (automatic hit, ranged touch attack, reflex save) didn't remove the player's ability to render them mundane if damage was all he cared about. 

And at the same time, in either edition, the mage could play up the differences in the powers, either descriptively or mechanically. The fighter can insert more action and interest into their attacks. Take the effects, and describe them cinematically and heroically - not "slide him 4 squares" but instead, "send him reeling backwards across the blood-stained ground!"

It comes down to the player. Can 4E result in a game that is just some numbers thrown around a table? Sure - just like any edition of D&D. I don't find it worthwhile to try and imply someone is _wrong _that they have experienced that. But I also don't think anyone can put the blame on the system alone.

As it is, I don't think anyone can be blamed for wanting WotC to encourage more use of imagination and description when it comes to powers and attacks. At the same time, I don't think WotC can be entirely faulted if a group doesn't do so - in the end, they can't _force _anyone to play other than how that person wants to play. They might be able to influence it, but in the end, if you've got a group that has taken on a mentality where they don't even care what weapons they are wielding, than the problem is rooted in the player rather than the game.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 4Ed has not fallen into that trap.  While the D&D market did split, 4Ed has been successful in bringing in gamers from other systems AND growing the hobby by bringing in new players.




I'd have to disagree. 3rd Edition made God himself into a D&D player. And if WotC had continued publishing it, it would have converted the entire population of invisible, phase-shifted martians into players, too. We would have been receiving first contact with alien species later this year if it wasn't for 4th Edition.

... statements which are all as unverifiable as what you just posted. We can certainly say, from anecdotal evidence, that there are some new players playing 4th Edition. But is that any more relevant than the Pepsi drinkers who started drinking New Coke?

We don't know. And we have no way of knowing it.

And although we have more evidence of the market splitting than we do of new play acquisition, it's still highly anecdotal just how severe that split may be.

We _know_ that 3rd Edition reconsolidated the D&D player base, brought lapsed players back into the fold, and introduced new players because WotC shared (some of) its marketing research with us back then. AFAIK, WotC has done nothing like that with 4th Edition.



MerricB said:


> (Does that mean that we'd be better off with  Paizo making D&D? Well, some of us would be, but all? I doubt it.  3.5e had outlived its useful life for me when I stopped playing it and  took up 4e).




It's probably useful at this juncture to point out that a lot of us who remain 3E fans welcomed 4E with open arms. There are clearly problems with 3E and fixing some of them was going to require a new edition. (Much like it took 3E to fix a lot of the problems people had with 2E.)

But we didn't get a new, improved edition of the core gameplay that stretched back to 1974. We got a fundamentally different fantasy roleplaying game designed to do fundamentally different things (albeit it with the same trademark on the cover).

And that's why Pathfinder is capable of succeeding in ways that pre-3E retro-clones aren't.

(I'm not saying that Pathfinder was, IMO, a sufficient fix for the 3E problems. A properly produced WotC 4th Edition could have and should have gone farther. But since Paizo doesn't have the D&D trademark, I think they made the right decision in a more conservative clean-up.)


----------



## Umbran

Kamikaze Midget said:


> *Not freak out about copyright infringement*




That is very easy to say, but you have to remember something - traditionally, the only money these folks get is from distributing copyrighted content.  

In the music business, the artists currently typically get very little from the basic distribution of their content (album sales).  The artists aren't really losing much from pirated songs - and folks like Trent Reznor can then find other ways to connect to fans and sell them things they want other than just the original art (which, for all intent sand purposes, is really a loss leader as far as the artist is concerned).  

But the fandom of RPGs is small, and we are more attached to the content than the personalities behind the content - so opportunities to connect with the fans and sell them something other than the content are thus few, and difficult to find or create.

Thus, protecting distribution of that content is paramount to them.   It is so important to them that they can be less-than-rational at times.  Forgive them - it is a new era, and they're only human.  They take time to adjust and find new ways to work - the DDI, for example.  They'll find other hooks, given time, and maybe then they'll get less paranoid.


----------



## MrMyth

billd91 said:


> It's not up to you to diagnose the emotional connections people make. Someone could certainly have a longer-term emotional involvement with a favorite artistic work like Forgotten Realms than they do with a younger and not-very-well-liked pet. Personally, I can think of a number of non-living things I like more than one of our cats. Yet my wife seems emotionally attached to him, so I there he is.




I think the point is that this is, in ways, the definition of fan entitlement. He feels as though WotC actively destroyed something that was _his_ - but it isn't, and never was. What he might own is the various campaign books and novels and adventures of earlier versions of the realm, _all of which he still has_. And can use, and run games in, and enjoy to his heart's content. 

WotC won't be releasing more products that directly support them (though I imagine some products, such as Ed Greenwood's articles in Dragon still could.) But a company not offering him future purchases is, I'm sorry, not equivalent to them killing his pet. And the attitude that says that it _is _- well, honestly, that's not somethign WotC can be held accountable for.


----------



## ggroy

MrMyth said:


> I think the point is that this is, in ways, the definition of fan entitlement. He feels as though WotC actively destroyed something that was _his_ - but it isn't, and never was. What he might own is the various campaign books and novels and adventures of earlier versions of the realm, _all of which he still has_. And can use, and run games in, and enjoy to his heart's content.
> 
> WotC won't be releasing more products that directly support them (though I imagine some products, such as Ed Greenwood's articles in Dragon still could.) But a company not offering him future purchases is, I'm sorry, not equivalent to them killing his pet. And the attitude that says that it _is _- well, honestly, that's not somethign WotC can be held accountable for.




Sounds like "fan-dumb".  

Fan Dumb - Television Tropes & Idioms


----------



## BryonD

MrMyth said:


> The thing is, the exact same thing was true when I played with the same group in 3rd Edition. I haven't seen anything change



 No doubt.  But it doesn't change anything.  Saying that 4E does an inferior job of supporting the kind of play experience that I enjoy from 3E does not in any way claim that 3E did not support the kind of game play that 4E players enjoy.  4E does a much better job of supporting the 4E play approach than 3E does.  

The presumption that no one else was getting anything out of 3E that you were not getting out of 3E is flawed.  Long before 4E was announced, I was well aware that people played 3E in a lot of different ways.  

Honestly, I think 3E does a better job of supporting the 4E approach than vice-versa.  But thats just my take on it.



> And at the same time, in either edition, the mage could play up the differences in the powers, either descriptively or mechanically. The fighter can insert more action and interest into their attacks. Take the effects, and describe them cinematically and heroically - not "slide him 4 squares" but instead, "send him reeling backwards across the blood-stained ground!"
> 
> It comes down to the player. Can 4E result in a game that is just some numbers thrown around a table? Sure - just like any edition of D&D. I don't find it worthwhile to try and imply someone is _wrong _that they have experienced that. But I also don't think anyone can put the blame on the system alone.



Here is where I think you are not catching the point.

The player is the same no mater what system you use.  This conversation, is not at all about the player.  It is all about the mechanics between the covers of the book.

A game that is about making the character be as realistic as possible first is different than a game that is about mechanical equity first.

Being about mechanical equity in no way whatsoever limits the ability of a player to roleplay.  I said that in ym very first post in this thread.  The ability to roleplay a monk is unchanged whether you play 1E, GURPS, 4E, or FATAL.  So by that reasoning, all of the games are exactly equal in merit.  

It is also just as easy to roleplay superman in a 100 point GURPS Supers game as it is to roleplay superman in a 600 point GURPS Supers game.  But those two games are simply not equal in merit when it comes to actually doing a good job of mechanically simulating the experience of being superman.

It really makes no difference if you see a change between 3E and 4E or not.  

If you don't that just means you were not benefiting form the same elements of 3E that I was.  Which is fine.  I'm not saying your game was inferior, just that it was markedly different.  I don't know you specific game, but I did experience others and it is easy for me to imagine. 

But, at the end of the day, if no number of people telling you there is a difference will convince you, then you come off appearing to just have your fingers in your ears.  If that is all there is to it, then fine, that is your call.


----------



## Umbran

BryonD said:


> Being about mechanical equity in no way whatsoever limits the ability of a player to roleplay.  I said that in ym very first post in this thread.  The ability to roleplay a monk is unchanged whether you play 1E, GURPS, 4E, or FATAL.  So by that reasoning, all of the games are exactly equal in merit.
> 
> It is also just as easy to roleplay superman in a 100 point GURPS Supers game as it is to roleplay superman in a 600 point GURPS Supers game.




This is only true if you feel that "role" is equivalent to "personality".  I think most folks feel the mechanics do, to a certain degree, need to support the role.  You can't be Spider Man if your only power is Water Breathing, and you can't be the Artful Dodger if you can't pick pockets to save your life.  

Which is not to say that the rest of what you say is without merit, but you weaken your case by overstating it.


----------



## francisca

Beginning of the End said:


> And that's why Pathfinder is capable of succeeding in ways that pre-3E retro-clones aren't.



They're really two different animals, and comparing them straight up is kinda weird, IMO.

Pathfinder succeeds because it meets a pretty big niche: those who enjoyed 3e and want to continue playing a version of it, which is still in print.  Fixing some shortcomings of 3e and the player network are a part of its success as well.

The retro-clones, in their original conception, didn't fix a thing or keep something in print.  OSRIC 1.0 was put out to facilitate publication of for free or profit material usable with 1e AD&D with as little prep and table time modifications as possible, I think before the AD&D PDFs were even available in a legal fashion.  The retroclones that followed sought to meet the  demand of a "complete game" with oldschool sensibilities.  Once the old AD&D, OD&D, and BECMI PDFs were pulled down, the retroclones were the closest thing to "in print" we're going to get for the old editions.  

I think the original OSRIC was brilliant, and is the best use of the retroclone idea.

Personally, "in print" doesn't matter to me.  I have multiple deadtree copies of all the RPG core books I'll ever need, and although I am glad I can peruse the OSRIC offerings from XRP, etc..., I don't really need them, being mostly a homebrewer.


----------



## MrMyth

BryonD said:


> It really makes no difference if you see a change between 3E and 4E or not.
> 
> If you don't that just means you were not benefiting form the same elements of 3E that I was. Which is fine. I'm not saying your game was inferior, just that it was markedly different. I don't know you specific game, but I did experience others and it is easy for me to imagine.
> 
> But, at the end of the day, if no number of people telling you there is a difference will convince you, then you come off appearing to just have your fingers in your ears. If that is all there is to it, then fine, that is your call.




Look, there obviously are differences between the editions. Some of which might be outright better, some of which might be outright worse, and most of which are an improvement for some and a downside for others. 

The problem is, you keep talking about the 'philosophy of the edition', and the '4E approach' and refusing to actually give any examples about what you are talking about. I had an entire post responding to your points on this, which you didn't respond to - instead, you've chosen to respond to a seperate discussion entirely. One that was, yes, actually about how some players were playing the game around a specific table. 

You've said that 4E has the problem (for you) of putting mechanical equity first. You've implied that my disagreement with you is rooted in my 3rd Edition games 'not taking advantage' of the unique elements of 3rd Edition. (A pretty big, and likely inaccurate, assumption.) You've said that the focus on mechanical equity doesn't mean you can't roleplay a Monk in 4E, but that there is nonetheless a difference.

What is it? What are the actual problems you have with the 4E monk? What are the elements that cost you the benefit of being 'as realistic as possible', that hinder the type of game you want to play?

I'm not saying there aren't differences between 3rd Edition and 4E. There obviously are. I'm not saying people can't prefer one or the other. What I'm saying is that it is useless, to WotC, for you to simply gesture at 4E and say that the philosophy and approach is wrong without showing why, and how, it actually bothers you. 

We've seen concrete issues people have pointed to in this thread, such as Come and Get It. (Though the issue there is one of the narrative convention 4E uses, rather than having anything to do with balance.) 

You've said that pursuit of mechanical balance _inherently _comes at the cost of realism, character, and story, and while this doesn't prevent you from roleplaying, it just prevents 4E from providing as much support for doing so. 

I'm not saying this isn't possible - but I am asking for some concrete examples of how. Because I firmly believe that balance can come _without_ sacrificing any of those things. And in this case, I find the 4E monk to be a perfect example of that. I may have issues with some elements of it (I'm still not fully sold on the Psionic connection), but I find it to have acquired balance while retaining all of its flavor. 

If we can find the areas where 4E has managed to obtain balance without the sacrifice of character, and you can demonstrate areas where it has _failed_ to do so, than we can actually discover areas WotC can change to improve the game. 

But simply declaring that balance can't be pursued without losing character and story - sorry, that doesn't help them, and requires some evidence to actually convince me is the truth.


----------



## Umbran

Ladies and gents,

Language use has gotten a bit heated in here.  I feel a need to remind you all that you don't need to beat down and negate everything on the internet that you don't agree with.  Likewise, ridicule is pretty well shown to be a pretty lousy tool around here.

So, folks, really, cool down.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

BryonD said:


> But, at the end of the day, if no number of people telling you there is a difference will convince you, then you come off appearing to just have your fingers in your ears.  If that is all there is to it, then fine, that is your call.




Just because there is a difference in systems does not mean there is a difference in every instance. Trying to shut down another's opinion by claiming they are sticking their fingers in their ears isn't very productive.


----------



## Herschel

Herremann the Wise said:


> - The D&D that WotC is producing is not the D&D I want to play. If they want me back they need to get rid of the black box mentality - I like to know the details, the nitty gritty, I want to put myself into the role of my character. Instead, I'm playing a game where even though I've played 10+ sessions in the current campaign alone (with many more for the previous campaigns), I still have no idea what weapons the other characters are using. One player in the game didn't know they where using a dagger half the time, assuming that they were using a staff! They've now apparently changed to something different but you would have no clue in game. All that matters is what die you have to pick up to roll damage and even that seems to be of little relevance due to the mass of hps that foes have. [Is this just our group or do you notice this too by the way?]
> 
> - 4e is too combat focused. The weird thing is I like combat but not how 4e presents it.
> 
> - D&D is not great anymore dudes - it has been mathematically smashed into mediocrity. As such, I'll leave this here and wait for the sky to fall.
> 
> [/Rant off]
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




What?!?!? NONE of this is a system problem, it's a personal problem.

Not knowing what weapon you're using?: personal

Too combat focused?: personal 

Not getting in to your character? : personal 

Tired of people defending 4E (their edition) ad nauseum?: Umm, "defending" is a response to ad nauseum attacks by people putting down their edition of choice. 

Math "smashed to mediocrity" as in all characters are playable and pretty well balanced so one person is the "star" and making the others essentially their lackies?: I say yay!

Play what you like, but conversely I get tired of the 3E "Victim Complex". WotC moved on for business reasons. Some people who didn't want to change got left behind. It happens. They weren't trying to "screw" anybody, they don't owe anybody anything for their previous products. They will do what they can to entice customers of previous editions (Red Box nostalgia, Essentials builds, game days, promotions, etc.) but they aren't going to entice everyone.

They didn't with 3E either.

Or with 2E.

Or with 1E/"Advanced".


----------



## Umbran

After multiple warnings in the thread, someone still thinks contiued edition warring is somehow a good idea?

Let me disabuse all of that notion now.  Cut it out.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> In the music business, the artists currently typically get very little from the basic distribution of their content (album sales).  The artists aren't really losing much from pirated songs - and folks like Trent Reznor can then find other ways to connect to fans and sell them things they want other than just the original art (which, for all intent sand purposes, is really a loss leader as far as the artist is concerned).




_Slight_ issue here:

How much income actually lost from pirated music _depends on the artist_- they DO get a higher per-unit income from merchandising- but lost sales due to pirated music can affect whether they get to go on a tour or not and break through to the level where merchandising is your new &  meaningful income- nobody counts pirated downloads towards industry markers like "Gold" or "Platinum" selling releases.  Piracy has definitely ended the runs of a couple of bands of my acquaintance.

And it _definitely_ takes a chunk out of the pockets of those who provided the services you used to get that music to the public.  If Album X doesn't sell well enough to recoup expenses, Recording Studio P may not survive to see the next music craze.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And it _definitely_ takes a chunk out of the pockets of those who provided the services you used to get that music to the public.  If Album X doesn't sell well enough to recoup expenses, Recording Studio P may not survive to see the next music craze.




As I understand it, recording studios get paid up front, not after the fact.  

Some relevant links on the recording industry:

Courney Love Does the Math - a little old, but I'm told the scheme hasn't substantially changed.

RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales | Techdirt

The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There) | Techdirt


----------



## TheYeti1775

Such high hopes for this thread. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







How about we just sum up what things folks who are willing to spend money on would like to see?

1. MAC / Mulit-platform Support (DDI) - This is for your current edition.  There are users out there that only use Apple Products.  Imagine all those Iphone/MAC users being able to directly run their Character Builders and what not.

2. PDF Sales (this has appeal to users of all editions) - while it takes me less than 5 minutes to find tons of illegal copies of all editions, many wouldn't mind paying for a legal copy.  Profitablity, well if it isn't just say so.  No one here would be mad for a company coming out and saying it isn't profitable.
Perhaps a middle ground for it would be instead of PDF, to offer a Print On Demand only method.  It would prevent the electronic copy from 'piracy' and still deliver a product you already have in house to a customer base.

3. DDI support of older editions (spefically the Builders) - This brings many (like myself) into the fold again.  I've tried out the Character Builder for 4E, I liked it a lot.  It helped me a heck of a lot when learning the rules for the one and only 4E game I've been in.  Several in this thread have agreed with me that we would sign on for the DDI to gain this for older editions.  Start with the Core 3.5E books and you might be pleasantly suprised at the results.  And with the new members within the DDI you expand your base of viewers of your 'new' products that come out.  Perhaps to justify the expense, the prior edition set of Builders is an additional one time cost.  I think many of us would go for that. $50 for a product I'll use over and over again is fairly acceptable in my opinion.  Heck the cost if it was for each edition would be minor to me as the use I would get out of it I could justify.

4. DDI support of older editions (articles/features/new stuff) - This is a little harder to justify as it is 'new stuff' for the old stuff.  But again its olive branch time here, that of WotC recognizing it's roots and that of the 'grognards' coming back into the customer base again.  There is a happy medium that could be found within this.  Perhaps subscriber only submitted articles/features/new stuff?  All of which is submitted to a fan only peer group committee.  I'm quite sure there are a number of fans/subcribers out there that would volunteer to help sift through submissions to weed out the chaff.  The cost to WotC in this would be the server space/bandwidth to host what the group submits to them.  I think it would also all a metric to be seen by WotC management for the interest levels of various articles, and new talent.  Stipulate it becomes WotC property (but with a credit given) when posted to solve your copyright issues on a montetary scale. (I'm sure Danny could lawyer that up a bit better for me.)

5. Old Module re-release - Using Tomb of Horrors for an example.  Updated to the current edition but includes the old copy within it.  What better way to introduce new players to the classic; old players without the old copy; and a way to show how to convert from old to new (for those that don't play current edition so they try it out) all in one product.  Do it on a limited scale, see how it goes.  If it flops say so, and it would be accepted.  If it succeeds, enjoy the $$ of the grognards joining your ranks of customers.

6. Old Setting Releases - I think your doing good with the Old Setting releases like Darksun coming up.  This could bring many back into the fold as well as their 'legacy' campaigns could be updated to the current edition.  Sticking with the 3 book rule per setting is a smart move and prevent's WotC overexposure like TSR did when we were saturated with Settings.
The only thing is with this, don't blow up the world just to blow up the world.  Looking at Forgotten Realms in this case.  The one 4E game I played was an FR world.  Nothing I knew of in the FR really survived right, it no longer felt like the Realms campaigns of past.



Perhaps one of you still has contact with guys like Scott Rouse that used to work with WotC and could get them to chime in with their thoughts.  While it wouldn't be an official WotC stance, perhaps they could let us know why one thing or another wouldn't be feasible.  Or even better one of you with real WotC contacts, cut and paste all the ideas of the thread and send them in.  Worst that could happen is they don't respond, best case they give a little thought to it and give us their thoughts on it.


----------



## Neonchameleon

BryonD said:


> Honestly, I think 3E does a better job of supporting the 4E approach than vice-versa. But thats just my take on it.




What would you say "the 3E approach" is? Genuine question - I simply don't get it. I played 3e and enjoyed it. But wouldn't go back (losing the kinaesthetic element alone would mean a lot - as would worrying about turning up with Angel Summoner in a party of BMX Bandits (or more rarely vise-versa)).



> The player is the same no mater what system you use. This conversation, is not at all about the player. It is all about the mechanics between the covers of the book.
> 
> A game that is about making the character be as realistic as possible first is different than a game that is about mechanical equity first.




And I am honestly surprised that _either_ of these descriptions can be used to describe 3e. (GURPS, possibly. But you have fighters with dozens of hit points, mages who cast great big spells, and ten million chickens in Greyhawk). 3e is IMO larger than life fantasy with a strong nod to simulationism as long as you don't press it too far. 4e simply runs on Holywood Physics (and I see why people don't like that).



> It is also just as easy to roleplay superman in a 100 point GURPS Supers game as it is to roleplay superman in a 600 point GURPS Supers game. But those two games are simply not equal in merit when it comes to actually doing a good job of mechanically simulating the experience of being superman.




100 point GURPS Superman: "I Am Superman. Faster than a speeding skateboard. Can leap..." *splat*

You can't IMO RP Superman in a 100 point GURPS Supers game at all. (You can RP an insane man who thinks he's Superman. But you can't get close to Superman himself - his abilities are essential to making him what he is. He can not worry about bullets _because he is bullet proof_.)



> If you don't that just means you were not benefiting form the same elements of 3E that I was.




Again, which elements? Genuine curiosity.

And when it comes to elements, I have a _much_ easier time in 4e of playing a big burly fighter who barges people with his shield and forces them backwards because the mechanical support is there to play this way. Other than Wind Blast, I have problems with 3e wizards using forceful spells - because the force produced doesn't actually mechanically move anything. 4e Wizards produce explosions that throw people into walls or off cliffs.

In 3e a weapon attack just does damage most of the time. In 4e, an attack is often accompanied by movement as part of the attack. I find the movement included _much_ more inspiring for both visualisation and roleplay. (And a far better simulation even than standing there and trading blows.)

On the other hand, as a design decision, some of my favourite 3e characters were cut. (Artificers for one - and no, the 4e artificer doesn't come close). I can see why, much as I miss them. There's a space I enjoy that 4e doesn't try to reach.

****************************************************

Getting back onto topic, I wonder why WoTC doesn't allow Print on Demand support for the edition _before_ last.  Anyone still playing 3.0 is not going to switch now, let alone those still playing 2e or 1e.  And PoD would provide advantages both ways - people who really wanted the older books could still buy them (i.e. more money for WoTC), but the price would be higher and mainstream shops wouldn't be carrying them.  Bring 3.5 back after Essentials (or have a five year lag or something).  Yes, it's mercenary.  But who'd be interested?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Beginning of the End said:


> I'd have to disagree. 3rd Edition made God himself into a D&D player. And if WotC had continued publishing it, it would have converted the entire population of invisible, phase-shifted martians into players, too. We would have been receiving first contact with alien species later this year if it wasn't for 4th Edition.
> 
> ... statements which are all as unverifiable as what you just posted. We can certainly say, from anecdotal evidence, that there are some new players playing 4th Edition. But is that any more relevant than the Pepsi drinkers who started drinking New Coke?
> 
> We don't know. And we have no way of knowing it.
> 
> And although we have more evidence of the market splitting than we do of new play acquisition, it's still highly anecdotal just how severe that split may be.
> 
> We _know_ that 3rd Edition reconsolidated the D&D player base, brought lapsed players back into the fold, and introduced new players because WotC shared (some of) its marketing research with us back then. AFAIK, WotC has done nothing like that with 4th Edition.



Actually, we know that the number of non-adopters of 4Ed is a non-trival number from the sales of 3.X products from companies like Paizo.

We know from sales figures that other RPGs in the market have not experienced dips in their sales that can be attributed to anything else but the general economic slowdown (which is to say, everybody in the market is basically retaining their market share).

We also know from sales figures that certain 4Ed releases are at least as strong in the market as 3.5 was.  Those sales have to come from somewhere.

Some will be converts- we saw on these very boards early adopters of 4Ed talking about how they actually sold some of their older game stuff (including, but not limited to 3.5 stuff) to buy the new edition.  Some will be people with the disposable income to support multiple systems (that would be people like me).  But the bulk of the sales have to come from another source, and that would be new blood.


----------



## Herschel

The issue is what certain people want vs. what is profitable. 

When they are equal, the product generally gets made. When they're not, then it's not. It's not personal, it's business. At the end of the day we all just have to deal with it and move on. 

Personal demand, no matter how fervent, is not market demand. There are many things I would like (like a lot more Genasi minis and a mini of Prit  ), but I'm pretty sure most will never happen.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> As I understand it, recording studios get paid up front, not after the fact.




Right, they do.

But bands can't take the money they don't make from sales that are eaten by piracy to reinvest in the next album.

Recording studios are a volume business (no joke intended)- they basically get paid the same rate whether they're recording an album by Rock & Roll Hall of Famer Joe or Just Got Signed Yesterday Joe.  IOW, they make a big chunk of their money from all the little bands that book their time.

If the only people who can afford studio rates are the big guys, studio rates will climb and studios will gradually start to decline in number.  This is because they won't have enough clientele- not only won't the new guys be able to afford the higher rates, the big guys will increase their trend of investing in their own private home studios.

This all translates into jobs lost and opportunities lost...and new music stuck in obscurity.

Yes, recording yourself is cheaper than ever before- I own some stuff myself- but all the home recording gear in the world isn't going to get you the skills of a professional studio crew....or the services of a producer like Rick Rubin (who gets a royalty)...or a quality agent (who gets a royalty)...or a manager (who gets a royalty)...or a tour manager (who gets a royalty)...

And if you're not selling your music as a new band, you also can't afford the services of accountants and lawyers (PICK _ME_! PICK _ME!_) who help you manage your money and contracts so you can make music.

Don't get me wrong- giving away a song or 2 for publicity and marketing purposes can break a band- but when an entire album's worth of songs is being pirated, the band will be broke.


----------



## renau1g

TheYeti1775 said:


> 5. Old Module re-release - Using Tomb of Horrors for an example.  Updated to the current edition but includes the old copy within it.  What better way to introduce new players to the classic; old players without the old copy; and a way to show how to convert from old to new (for those that don't play current edition so they try it out) all in one product.  Do it on a limited scale, see how it goes.  If it flops say so, and it would be accepted.  If it succeeds, enjoy the $$ of the grognards joining your ranks of customers.




This would be cool. I love what they did with the 4e version I got for free...


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Right, they do.
> 
> But bands can't take the money they don't make from sales that are eaten by piracy to reinvest in the next album.




The links I posted (among other sources) lead me to believe that the band is typically making something like $23 off of every $1000 in album sales - that is a measly 2.3%!  While you can argue that means that every single dollar of stolen sales means all that much more, my thought is instead that their production and distribution economic model is so broken that if you removed the piracy, they'd probably still not see that money.

Bands have been in the same basic position for a long time now - since before piracy was made so easy by the internet.  They haven't been making a whole lot on album sales since the creation of the major record labels.

My point is that somehow, bands continue to survive, by selling things beyond the music itself.  The producers of D&D generally have _less chance_ to sell things other than the actual content of the game, and so have greater fears about infringement, such that their reaction may not be wise, but is perhaps somewhat understandable.


----------



## WizarDru

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And if you're not selling your music as a new band, you also can't afford the services of accountants and lawyers (PICK _ME_! PICK _ME!_) who help you manage your money and contracts so you can make music.




As Umbran points out, folks like Courtney Love and others have revealed the financial details of working with big recording companies and how bands must 'recoup' the company's investment.  Bands can be selling gold records and still not be putting food on the table.  The system is horribly broken.  But this also highlights a major difference between the RPG market and music.  The Grateful Dead let fans tape their music all the time...encouraged them, in fact.  Because they made their money from _touring_.  OK GO monetizes their music in lots of ways, such as selling flash drives of the concert you _literally just heard_ in the lobby after the show.  Many other musicians make much more money by going with small, independent labels and a dedicated fanbase.  When's the last time you bought an album by Thomas Dolby-Robertson, Colin James Hay or Al Stewart?  I've seen each one of them on stage in the last two years and bought their albums directly from their websites or from CD-Baby.  They were cheaper than the big labels and even if their sales are only 5-10,000 copies, they've made a lot more money than the big labels would give them (if they'd even produce them at all, which is unlikely).

Piracy is a problem, but the music industry's issues with it and the RPG industry's issues with it are not the same, nor are the economics.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> The links I posted (among other sources) lead me to believe that the band is typically making something like $23 off of every $1000 in album sales - that is a measly 2.3%!  While you can argue that means that every single dollar of stolen sales means all that much more, my thought is instead that their production and distribution economic model is so broken that if you removed the piracy, they'd probably still not see that money.
> 
> _<snip>_
> 
> My point is that somehow, bands continue to survive, by selling things beyond the music itself.



If you go into the music biz expecting your band to make millions, you're in for a surprise.  An average 5 piece band whose album goes Gold has a take-home of about $18k per member.

That is below poverty level.  There is a reason why you used to hear so much about groupies in the LA metal scene putting bands up in their living rooms.

But its the record sales that gets the record company to put its financial muscle behind tours, high-end merchandise and the like.  And what gets an artist a better deal down the road.  At his peak, MJ's royalty rate was close to $0.40 out of every $1.00 sold.



> The producers of D&D generally have _less chance_ to sell things other than the actual content of the game, and so have greater fears about infringement, such that their reaction may not be wise, but is perhaps somewhat understandable.




I can understand the _impulse_ to withdraw, but it just runs counter to the realities of the IP market.

Artists like Ani Di Franco are entirely self-released.  She owns 100% of her albums & merch.  She still gets pirated...and still keeps her stuff out there.

D&D isn't just a game anymore- its a brand.  As others have pointed out, the P&P RPG is probably the least profitable segment of its product line- they make more money from things like themed T-shirts, the video/computer game licenses and whatever TV and movie deals they work out (dreck though they may be).  But without the underlying RPG, all that other stuff dries up.

The legal pdfs for such a big product as D&D should outperform illegal ones in the market (thats been the story with most major brands), which my instinct tells me should at least mean it would be a breakeven product.  But even if they don't, WotC could look at them as a part of their promo/marketing budget, a loss-leader to get people to consider their merch, computer games and so forth.

But merely withdrawing from the market simply gives all the potential revenue to the pirates.

Now, I know Hasbro is a big game company, and they're used to dealing with IP issues.  You'd think they'd understand the digital piracy issue.  But 99% of their games & IP involve physical elements not easily downloaded and pirated- they may be completely lost at sea on this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Piracy is a problem, but the music industry's issues with it and the RPG industry's issues with it are not the same, nor are the economics.




True.  Its more like the rest of the publishing industry- I just happen to be a music guy.

But the points remain: AFAIK, no publisher has simply withdrawn their work from circulation out of piracy concerns.  They _prosecute_ pirates, they don't surrender the market to them.


----------



## Mournblade94

pemerton said:


> Similarly, I once used to buy a lot of Marvel comics. As the quality (in my view) dropped in the mid-90s I hung on for a while out of a sense of fondness for the characters, and then eventually stopped buying them. One day, if I discover that Marvel is publishing comics I want to read again, I might start buying them again. It's not a big deal.




If I may hijack for a moment.  Pemerton I did the same thing in mid 1990's.  I started reading Marvel comics again after I heard how great a story CIVIL WAR was.  In my opinion, marvel has achieved a level of sophisticated storytelling.  Maybe if you were to go back, you might find them enjoyable again.  I for one did.  I now continually buy MARVEL comics every month.


----------



## carmachu

Umbran said:


> Don't confuse current practices with potential market.
> 
> Yes, in 1999, the research showed that older gamers tended to spend more than younger gamers. Those were spending habits largely associated with folks who were already players of 2e.
> 
> A study I saw recently suggests that teens spend about 8% of their budgets on video games, and that teens represent about 35% of the video game market.
> 
> Note that video games are a $7.3 _billion_ dollar business. If 35% of that is teens, that's $2.5 billion on games (and their budgets totaled up are something like $30 billion).
> 
> So, as a company you have a choice - market to a few old warhorses, or try to get a hunk of that $30 billion (or that $2.5 billion). Relying on spending patterns from 10 years a go is perhaps not the best way to grow a business.




Yes, but youru ingoring something. If 35% of that market is teens, the other 65% is....adults. Which is $4.8 billion dollars....so perhaps excluding warhorses, if its even remotely similar in RPG's isnt the smartest move.


----------



## Mournblade94

renau1g said:


> So how did you and your players describe the 17th level fighter's iterative attacks in prior editions? I find that at least there are different powers for a fighter now. In past editions it was "I hit it with my sword" or "I hit it with my axe".  Not sure what you're getting at with the attack vs. effect. In any edition I suppose the attack doesn't matter, but the effect. If the fighter power attacks, regular attacks, charges, etc in prior editions, it doesn't matter, only his 1d8+whatever. Just like this edition. It didn't matter that the mage cast magic missile or scorching ray or ray of frost just the damage it did.




You illustrated the point that the poster you were quoting made.

No the TYPE of effect is just as important or you are playing a board game.  YES, all editions can be distilled to offensive numbers vs. defensive numbers.  If i want that I will happily play my wargames.  I WANT effect and type of effect to be important in my gaming, and that is a major criticism of many people unhappy with the direction of 4e.

ALL editions could be distilled down into rote numbers.  However, it seems where many experienced gamers who play 4e add the flavor, 4e encourages "only numbers matter" thinking.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can understand the _impulse_ to withdraw, but it just runs counter to the realities of the IP market.




I am not sure there are a single set of realities that applies to all IP equally.  If nothing else, we have copyright and patent because not all IP is the same.  It follows that different types of content will be used differently, and the public will or may think of them differently, such that they will have slightly differing practical realities.



> But even if they don't, WotC could look at them as a part of their promo/marketing budget, a loss-leader to get people to consider their merch, computer games and so forth.




My point is that they don't have a lot of other product, so that thinking of the game content as a loss-leader may not be a wise thing for them.  



> But merely withdrawing from the market simply gives all the potential revenue to the pirates.




Potential revenues?  What potential revenues?  I can understand the idea that someone may desire to pay the real owner of a property rather than take a illegal copy for free.  But to pay one provider for an illegal copy when you can have an illegal copy for free in five minutes seems... a bit alien to me


----------



## Kaiyanwang

Neonchameleon said:


> And when it comes to elements, I have a _much_ easier time in 4e of playing a big burly fighter who barges people with his shield and forces them backwards because the mechanical support is there to play this way. Other than Wind Blast, I have problems with 3e wizards using forceful spells - because the force produced doesn't actually mechanically move anything. 4e Wizards produce explosions that throw people into walls or off cliffs.
> 
> In 3e a weapon attack just does damage most of the time. In 4e, an attack is often accompanied by movement as part of the attack. I find the movement included _much_ more inspiring for both visualisation and roleplay. (And a far better simulation even than standing there and trading blows.)




Point being, that 3.5 or its implements _can_ support the things you said. Explosive Spell metamagic feat was not core, but spread around people hit by a fireball. Bullrush push people. Shield feats in pathfinder make S&B awesome AND make you fighter push and smash people. 

Simply put, 3.5/Pathfinder design seem to put , maybe slightly, more emphasis on the way this happens in the gameworld. I Push people with my shield because I perform an action similar to spartans in phalanx, say.

Of course you can roleplay powers in 4th, but sometimes happpens that powers seems first conceived mechanically, then "fluffed". This, for someone, is a problem. And let me say that this could be a problem bigger for newcomers, because, IMO, "regain" immersion with a good RP of a power is more a thing of a seasoned player. I'm not sure this strictly gamist approach is so good to make or keep new players interested.

Another thing: 4th edition simply refutes to support mechanics slightly out of push, damage or some utility. This is great or lame, basing on your gamestyle. Let me make an example.

In 3.5 and Pathfinder, Efreet can gran Wish to mortals. I see that many people see this as a great risk of gamebreaking. In fact, they see it as a potential abuse of the spell planar binding. What happened in 4th edition? At least in MMI (don't know others) Efreet are apparently far more cool in combat, with all their flames and whirling, flying scimitars. But designers removed the wish feature, because things like that are unthinkable in 4th edition.

Of course, the monster is very balanced, but, instatnly, any root with legends an arabian nights, any possible RP implication about desperate heroes, crazy summoners and twisted wishes is gone.

Moreover, in 3.5/PF,  if you advance the efreet with fighter, sorcerer, eldricht knight levels, you come up with a far more cool monster (IMO, this is debatable because of monster creation guidelines).

If you want another example, just take a look to 4th edition Phane, and D&D 3.5 Phane. This one is not a case of mechanics divorced from game reality, or of "nerf" due to balance: is a case of a monsters that really seems to play with time in 3.5, and now.. well..

Of course, 4th edition phane is far more easy to use in play - but, for some people (like me) is completely unappealing. Again, I'm not even sure 4th edition could support one modeled more on the 3.5 version, because it would need some awful, broken, clumsy, AWESOMENESS.


----------



## Mournblade94

mudbunny said:


> For what it's worth, I have passed on to WotC a link to this thread, with a note that except for a very few posts, it is well-worth reading.




Well taking the chance they will look...

Consider licensing pathfinder or 3.5 into the DDI.  Just for the tools even.  I know ALOT of people that would pay $8 a month for that.


----------



## mudbunny

carmachu said:


> Yes, but youru ingoring something. If 35% of that market is teens, the other 65% is....adults. Which is $4.8 billion dollars....so perhaps excluding warhorses, if its even remotely similar in RPG's isnt the smartest move.




Don't forget, that 65% counts *all* adults, from 20 and up. Proportionally, teens control a fairly large proportion of expendable income, in addition, they have a lot of free time in which to use that expendable income.

Generally, when we reach adulthood, our preferences are more set and getting us to try something outside of that is more difficult. Often, it is not only a matter of convincing one person, you need to convince the entire group.


----------



## Herschel

Except it's not just teens and adults. "Teens" covers what, 4-5 years of a person's life? "Adults" cover 40-80, and not all are a single demographic group. Generally you see numbers ike 14-17, 18-24, 25-45, etc. If the 'old warhorses' are actually the over 45 group, then that's something to consider.


----------



## avin

BryonD said:


> (except I like GURPS...)




You are wise, good sir.

In fact, this is exactly why I use D&D (4E at moment) for less immersive games, ans GURPS for games I want to push character immersion (skills for the win!).


----------



## renau1g

Mournblade94 said:


> However, 4e encourages "only numbers matter" thinking.




How?


----------



## Mournblade94

Beginning of the End said:


> I'd have to disagree. 3rd Edition made God himself into a D&D player. And if WotC had continued publishing it, it would have converted the entire population of invisible, phase-shifted martians into players, too. We would have been receiving first contact with alien species later this year if it wasn't for 4th Edition.




Hillarious.



Beginning of the End said:


> It's probably useful at this juncture to point out that a lot of us who remain 3E fans welcomed 4E with open arms. There are clearly problems with 3E and fixing some of them was going to require a new edition. (Much like it took 3E to fix a lot of the problems people had with 2E.)
> 
> But we didn't get a new, improved edition of the core gameplay that stretched back to 1974. We got a fundamentally different fantasy roleplaying game designed to do fundamentally different things (albeit it with the same trademark on the cover).




SO many times YES!!!!

I am STILL getting friends that point out how great I thought 4e was going to be, and how I was gearing up to change.  

I was SUPER ENTHUSIASTIC about it, and even defended those terrible preview books that were released.

After being excited and playing it for a month, I felt like a kid that was anticipating opening a present hoping for OPTIMUS PRIME, and it was really just a GOBOT.


----------



## renau1g

Kaiyanwang said:


> Moreover, in 3.5/PF,  if you advance the efreet with fighter, sorcerer, eldricht knight levels, you come up with a far more cool monster (IMO, this is debatable because of monster creation guidelines).




Throw on a template to the efreet from the DMG and you're good to go. You can add the sorcerer, fighter, or other templates as needed.


----------



## Herschel

Conversely I HATED what I read in previews (healing surges, daily powers and giants "advance" to titans? Blech!) and even the first PHB is rather dry yet I found myself actually playing it and really enjoying it. Nothing from the RP side has really changed and the system is awesome in play. It still doesn't mean everyone will like it though. Heck, I hear there's some people out there who even LIKE country music.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

renau1g said:


> Throw on a template to the efreet from the DMG and you're good to go. You can add the sorcerer, fighter, or other templates as needed.




You can add quick and dirty templates to monsters in Pathfinder as well (Pathfinder Bestiary Pg 294).

Yeah, I'm that DM that LOOOOOVES adding class levels to his monsters. I used to do it by hand but now I use HeroLab which makes it easier and quicker to do. 

Still when I'm on the train on the way home and I get an idea for an encounter I can use my iphone and use the Pathfinder Reference Document app and Cut and paste into the Notes App. Then pretty much email it to myself in case I want to further alter it.


----------



## Mournblade94

Herschel said:


> Math "smashed to mediocrity" as in all characters are playable and pretty well balanced so one person is the "star" and making the others essentially their lackies?: I say yay!




Incidenally I do not see a difference in 4e and 3rd edition there.  I played a lot of 3rd edition, never did I have 1 player feeling the star unless I as GM made it that way.  (Actually one time I did, because I focused everything on my girlfriends character; there was an intervention and it changed




Herschel said:


> Play what you like, but conversely I get tired of the 3E "Victim Complex". WotC moved on for business reasons. Some people who didn't want to change got left behind. It happens. They weren't trying to "screw" anybody, they don't owe anybody anything for their previous products.




Which does not absolve WOTC of criticism in any way shape or form. 




Herschel said:


> They will do what they can to entice customers of previous editions (Red Box nostalgia, Essentials builds, game days, promotions, etc.) but they aren't going to entice everyone.




Pretty much on.  Most former customers view the red box as a quaint try.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

carmachu said:


> Yes, but youru ingoring something. If 35% of that market is teens, the other 65% is....adults. Which is $4.8 billion dollars....so perhaps excluding warhorses, if its even remotely similar in RPG's isnt the smartest move.



But again, the assumption is that the older 65% portion will abandon the market as one if they are not the marketing focus.  The odds are low that will happen.  On the flip side, marketing to maintain the older demographic is less likely to bring as many new people as marketing to the younger demographic (us older people usually being more set in our ways).  As a result you need to lose more people from the older demographic than you would gain from marketing to a younger one before it becomes the wrong move.


----------



## MrMyth

Kaiyanwang said:


> Point being, that 3.5 or its implements _can_ support the things you said. Explosive Spell metamagic feat was not core, but spread around people hit by a fireball. Bullrush push people. Shield feats in pathfinder make S&B awesome AND make you fighter push and smash people.
> 
> Simply put, 3.5/Pathfinder design seem to put , maybe slightly, more emphasis on the way this happens in the gameworld. I Push people with my shield because I perform an action similar to spartans in phalanx, say.
> 
> Of course you can roleplay powers in 4th, but sometimes happpens that powers seems first conceived mechanically, then "fluffed". This, for someone, is a problem. And let me say that this could be a problem bigger for newcomers, because, IMO, "regain" immersion with a good RP of a power is more a thing of a seasoned player. I'm not sure this strictly gamist approach is so good to make or keep new players interested.




I'm not sure that is an accurate view of things, though. It is, in fact, directly counter to how the designers have spoken of class and power design - concept and fluff come first, mechanics second. 

Seriously, pretty much every power in 4E that pushes does so to represent either a solid hit that sends someone backword, or a spell with explosive force, or has some other solid rational behind it. I don't see anywhere that it was just tossed into things without reason. 

The more relevant issue is that rather than someone describing how they hit someone with their shield and send them flying, they'll just say that they are using "Solar Dragon Shield Slam" and roll some dice. But again - that is, at heart, a problem with player mentality more than the system. It is certainly something I wish WotC did more to discourage - or at least, presented more guidance for players and DMs on getting around it - but I don't think it is because shoving someone with your shield is more or less reasonable in either game. 



Kaiyanwang said:


> Another thing: 4th edition simply refutes to support mechanics slightly out of push, damage or some utility. This is great or lame, basing on your gamestyle. Let me make an example.
> 
> In 3.5 and Pathfinder, Efreet can gran Wish to mortals. I see that many people see this as a great risk of gamebreaking. In fact, they see it as a potential abuse of the spell planar binding. What happened in 4th edition? At least in MMI (don't know others) Efreet are apparently far more cool in combat, with all their flames and whirling, flying scimitars. But designers removed the wish feature, because things like that are unthinkable in 4th edition.




I think your use of the term *'slightly' *might be inaccurate - 4E supports a lot of different mechanics (often in rituals or utility powers), but something like Wish is in a completely different ballpark. We're talking about a magic that fundamentally rewrites the reality of the game - that's dangerous territory, and always has been. Equating WotC removing the most divisive spell in the game, with them removing all flavor from their monsters or mechanics, is a bit unreasonable to me. 



Kaiyanwang said:


> Of course, the monster is very balanced, but, instatnly, any root with legends an arabian nights, any possible RP implication about desperate heroes, crazy summoners and twisted wishes is gone.




In any case, 4E Efreeti - if you can bind them and demand a favor of them - still grant Wishes. They just don't do so by casting spells, they do so by having access to wealth and influence beyond a mortal's possible imagining! 

Which is to say, part of the 4E approach is to take truly game-changing elements and relocate them to the domain of the DM. Stuff that is tied to plot and DM judgement calls now falls firmly into it, rather than having mechanical restrictions. 

Which I admit - I'm not entirely a fan of. I'd like something a bit between the two, or simply more guidance on what certain enemies may be capable of outside of combat. And... sometimes WotC delivers. Not with every monster, but enough that I don't think 'avoiding flavorful concepts and mechanics' is _'unthinkable_'. 



Kaiyanwang said:


> Moreover, in 3.5/PF, if you advance the efreet with fighter, sorcerer, eldricht knight levels, you come up with a far more cool monster (IMO, this is debatable because of monster creation guidelines).




I don't entirely think it fair to compare an advanced and customized creature to one right out of the book. You can customize creatures in 4E too. (And I find it a better process, in fact - I have never found monster advancement in 3.5 to actually work with the CR guidelines, though Pathfinder may have fixed that.) 



Kaiyanwang said:


> If you want another example, just take a look to 4th edition Phane, and D&D 3.5 Phane. This one is not a case of mechanics divorced from game reality, or of "nerf" due to balance: is a case of a monsters that really seems to play with time in 3.5, and now.. well..
> 
> Of course, 4th edition phane is far more easy to use in play - but, for some people (like me) is completely unappealing. Again, I'm not even sure 4th edition could support one modeled more on the 3.5 version, because it would need some awful, broken, clumsy, AWESOMENESS.




I've actually done just that.  

I admit - I looked at the 4E Phane and found it dull and uninspired. That's the case for several of the abominations in the MM1 - I found the MM1 did a fantastic job with heroic and paragon level threats, in fact, and gave excellent mechanics and flavor to hordes of goblins and orcs... but fell down on the job with some of the epic foes. Certain monsters they did ok with (dragons), but yeah - the Phane is a shadow of its former glory. I don't think that's inherent to 4E, though - MM2 and MM3 have done a fantastic job with monsters on the same level. 

In any case, when my PCs found themselves sent back in time to the Dawn War, and confronted by a Phane intent on absorbing their temporal inconsistency to rewrite history for itself, I went ahead and gave it an overhaul. 

Upgraded it to a solo and gave it various abilities to reflect the former glory of the Phane. The ability to leech time from PCs - as it slowed and aged them, it got faster in every way, and could burn some of that stolen speed for extra move actions. It could unleash a time vortex that hurled everyone in and out of time - cutting short durations, for example. And it could even unleash it's classic time stasis, at least temporarily freezing PCs in time. And finally, the ability to summon evil duplicates of PCs from alternate timelines - which one PC (an Archlich Master of Undeath) used to take control of his own alternate self to further his own schemes. 

And all of that worked just fine, while still being balanced, without having any one effect that simply took PCs out of the fight or aged them irrecoverably. Not that such things are inherently bad - but they are the type of play that 4E avoids. The thing to understand is that avoiding doing so doesn't mean avoiding the flavor of such powers. 

A 3.5 Phane wasn't cool because of the specific mechanics of how its powers work, but because of what they represent. The ability to move in and out of the time-stream, the ability to age PCs or steal their speed, or freeze them in time - you can absolutely capture all that 'Awesomeness' without needing it to be 'awful, broken, clumsy'. Maybe not some abilities - I didn't want to even try to figure out how to model a power that rewinds time back to the start of combat. But is that specific mechanic fundamental to a Phane? Not really. Is it even worth preserving, given the headaches it cause? Not to me. 

Maybe that's a gamechanger for some people. For myself, as long as the monsters are flavorful in concept and capability, and exciting to see in action, that's a win.


----------



## Shazman

Mournblade94 said:


> Well taking the chance they will look...
> 
> Consider licensing pathfinder or 3.5 into the DDI.  Just for the tools even.  I know ALOT of people that would pay $8 a month for that.




I know that I would.  I would be very tempted to get a year's subscription of the ddi if they did this.  Though, I think there is a better chance of pigs flying than this happening.


----------



## Mournblade94

renau1g said:


> How?




For me it is from observations on game days.  I have not plugged anything into a scientific method but,

I used to run 4e for my gamestore up until the PHII release which I did not wish to buy.  The people often playing (some kids, some my age) would look at numbers first (including movement, or push numbers) before they would think of effect.  WHY?  I think alot of it is layout.  The powers dedicate much more space to emphasis on NUMBERS than fluff.  I think,  the layout brings the attention to the numbers not the fluff.  This also feeds into why I think 4e distilled into a miniatures tactics game.

If layout changed in PHBII and beyond I am not aware as I have only casually flipped through later 4e books.


----------



## renau1g

Well, they have definitely improved the fluff of the releases since the first two PHB's, but how is it different than Power attack from 3.5e, or in 2e, 3/2 attacks/round?

For and example of continuing to improve the fluff see this from their spring 2011 Catalog:

"Welcome to Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium, a wondrous collection of magic items—each one with a story to tell. This tome provides Dungeon Masters with a ready assortment of treasures to tempt greedy players, along with historical nuggets and alluring adventure hooks that set these items apart from your run-of the-mill flaming sword or bag of holding....

...Key Selling Points
• Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium strikes an excellent balance between rules content and story content, making it a fun read as well as a practical reference book for Dungeon Masters looking to sprinkle their dungeons with tantalizing treasures.
• This book provides an alluring collection of new magic items that players will desire for their characters, along with rich background information and adventure hooks that Dungeon Masters can use to add depth or story to the campaign. "

http://www.randomhouse.biz/international/PDFs/wotcspr11.pdf


----------



## mudbunny

Mournblade94 said:


> Well taking the chance they will look...
> 
> Consider licensing pathfinder or 3.5 into the DDI.  Just for the tools even.  I know ALOT of people that would pay $8 a month for that.




I have strongly suggested that they read all of the thread. I suspect that they will read most (if not all).


----------



## Scribble

Kaiyanwang said:


> In 3.5 and Pathfinder, Efreet can gran Wish to mortals. I see that many people see this as a great risk of gamebreaking. In fact, they see it as a potential abuse of the spell planar binding. What happened in 4th edition? At least in MMI (don't know others) Efreet are apparently far more cool in combat, with all their flames and whirling, flying scimitars. But designers removed the wish feature, because things like that are unthinkable in 4th edition.
> 
> Of course, the monster is very balanced, but, instatnly, any root with legends an arabian nights, any possible RP implication about desperate heroes, crazy summoners and twisted wishes is gone.




See for a DM like me, I vastly prefer the new way of doing things, simply because I don't want to be, well- misled.

If I look at a monster in the game, and the designers have told me they've done everything in their power to balance the game- I'd like to take that at face value.

Sure, I'm not going to expect it to be true 100% of the time, but I get a bit annoyed when something very balance harming is overlooked simply because it's "more in line with legends." I feel like I've almost been tricked into throwing my campaign out of whack.

I'd rather the game give me a set of stats that are balanced to the game, and then if there's something cool in the legends that can't be made to balance include the idea ONLY in the flavor. IE Some efreet in history are known to grant mortals wishes... blah blah.

Then as a DM I can decide if I want to throw something possibly unbalancing into my campaign. I don't need rules to make it work, because it's most likely going to be a one off thing the monster just does.

I don't need help from the rules unbalancing my game... I'm pretty good at that one myself. I just need help making sure things already ARE. 

In short when it comes to adding unbalanced stuff to my game- Give ME the choice, don't trick me into making it because you thought a legend was cool.

Other people have different DMing styles then I do tough, so to each his own!



> Moreover, in 3.5/PF,  if you advance the efreet with fighter, sorcerer, eldricht knight levels, you come up with a far more cool monster (IMO, this is debatable because of monster creation guidelines).




I prefer swapping out and adding abilities in 4e. I find it's faster/easier to get to where I need the monster to be. 

Again- to each his own.




Mournblade94 said:


> For me it is from observations on game days.  I have not plugged anything into a scientific method but,
> 
> I used to run 4e for my gamestore up until the PHII release which I did not wish to buy.  The people often playing (some kids, some my age) would look at numbers first (including movement, or push numbers) before they would think of effect.  WHY?  I think alot of it is layout.  The powers dedicate much more space to emphasis on NUMBERS than fluff.  I think,  the layout brings the attention to the numbers not the fluff.  This also feeds into why I think 4e distilled into a miniatures tactics game.
> 
> If layout changed in PHBII and beyond I am not aware as I have only casually flipped through later 4e books.




I've seen this since I started gaming in basic. I mean D&D in general has kind of promoted this attitude from the start wouldn't you say? 

"Sure you can be a fighter with a higher wisdom then strength... but if you put that higher score in your prime requisite  you get an XP bonus!!!"

I'd say it's not for nothing that Charisma has a history of being called the "dump stat."


----------



## Stormonu

renau1g said:


> Well, they have definitely improved the fluff of the releases since the first two PHB's, but how is it different than Power attack from 3.5e, or in 2e, 3/2 attacks/round?
> 
> For and example of continuing to improve the fluff see this from their spring 2011 Catalog:
> 
> "Welcome to Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium, a wondrous collection of magic items—each one with a story to tell. This tome provides Dungeon Masters with a ready assortment of treasures to tempt greedy players, along with historical nuggets and alluring adventure hooks that set these items apart from your run-of the-mill flaming sword or bag of holding....
> 
> ...Key Selling Points
> • Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium strikes an excellent balance between rules content and story content, making it a fun read as well as a practical reference book for Dungeon Masters looking to sprinkle their dungeons with tantalizing treasures.
> • This book provides an alluring collection of new magic items that players will desire for their characters, along with rich background information and adventure hooks that Dungeon Masters can use to add depth or story to the campaign. "
> 
> http://www.randomhouse.biz/international/PDFs/wotcspr11.pdf




I've got a mixed reaction to that, it almost sounds like Weapons of Legacy.  Idea is good, the question is in the implementation.  Also, it sounds like its all magic items - no mundane equipment. (And quite honestly, "magic item emporiums" has always had a negative connotation associated with it among old-schoolers, who tend to associate it with Monty Haulism.  Don't know how well that book is going to go over with older players).

I'd love to see something like Aurora's Whole Realm Catalog back for 2E.  Not just a big pile of equipment like 3E's Arms & Equipment guide, but a sort of "in character" catalogue of equipment that is as fun for the descriptions as for the actual items therein.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> I'd say it's not for nothing that Charisma has a history of being called the "dump stat."




Well, there was a time when you simply rolled ability scores. Sometimes CHA ended up being high and you got to enjoy the benefits of loyal henchmen and followers. 

In 4E your class determines your dump stat because the stats don't have much defined intrinsic value. Attack with CHA, use CON to modify AC. The stats themselves no longer have a meaning. The class will make sure that you only need a couple of them and make sure that whatever they are will cover most of your needs. Not very strong? Play something that modifies physical attacks with WIS or CON. 

Now that every stat can be an important combat stat, dump statting has become more equal opportunity. 

No more pickin on CHA, you hear?


----------



## Stormonu

Holdup....Whoa.  Looking at that catalog, there's a couple items in there that, as a current non-4E player, actually had me interested - and surprised.

They're doing a gazetteer on 4E Nentir Vale?  I thought I had read back at the start of 4E they were trying to avoid something like that to keep it from becoming too "canonized", but I am somewhat happy they are finally going to do a write-up of a 4E "campaign world".

It does seem WotC has been shifting gears (ever so slowly), and the train is slowly moving back in a direction that _might_ pick me back up.  If so, that makes me happy.  I've been wanting my gaming wants to converge with what they're producing for some time now. I want to buy D&D stuff, they just haven't been making stuff that interests me for some time (beyond dungeon tiles).


----------



## MrMyth

ExploderWizard said:


> Well, there was a time when you simply rolled ability scores. Sometimes CHA ended up being high and you got to enjoy the benefits of loyal henchmen and followers.
> 
> In 4E your class determines your dump stat because the stats don't have much defined intrinsic value. Attack with CHA, use CON to modify AC. The stats themselves no longer have a meaning. The class will make sure that you only need a couple of them and make sure that whatever they are will cover most of your needs. Not very strong? Play something that modifies physical attacks with WIS or CON.
> 
> Now that every stat can be an important combat stat, dump statting has become more equal opportunity.
> 
> No more pickin on CHA, you hear?




Yeah, this is something I find simultaneously awesome and frustrating. 

I think it is absolutey fantastic that I can build a Con 8 fighter, play up how sickly the guy is, and feel a tangible effect from it without feeling like the character has been crippled. I like that I can choose to dump Dex without feeling like it will mean I always get hit, and that my Bard who is all Charisma can still fight decently in combat. 

At the same time, it does make certain things feel less special. I was always proud in 3rd Edition of having built a Wizard who was really strong and walked around in heavy armor. And... I still can, in 4E - it is probably even easier to do so.

But why bother, when I get more AC from my Int and Leather Armor, and can pick up Melee Weapon Training and hit things with my Int? In a way, it forces me to play up the actual flavor of those different stats, rather than rely on certain mechanics to make it obvious how I am built. I can respect that, sure. And I do thing it was a good call to try and push for more independance from stat reliance...

... but it does feel, at times, like they went too far. A good start, but there is certainly room for a compromise, and that is probably what I would be happiest with.


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> Well, there was a time when you simply rolled ability scores. Sometimes CHA ended up being high and you got to enjoy the benefits of loyal henchmen and followers.




Yeah- let me amend my statement to AD&D and on? 



> In 4E your class determines your dump stat because the stats don't have much defined intrinsic value. Attack with CHA, use CON to modify AC. The stats themselves no longer have a meaning.




I'd argue this allows them to have more meaning actually. 

Now they apply to more of your character as a whole.

Instead of simply knowing how intelligent you are, you can now use that intelligence to know the best way to hurt a foe.

High wisdom? Now your experience lets you know how an opponent will react so you can get the drop on him.


Now I can make a guy who knows how to really hurt people without being a meat-head. 

Thats how I see it at least, so it works well for me. 



Stormonu said:


> It does seem WotC has been shifting gears (ever so slowly), and the train is slowly moving back in a direction that _might_ pick me back up.  If so, that makes me happy.  I've been wanting my gaming wants to converge with what they're producing for some time now. I want to buy D&D stuff, they just haven't been making stuff that interests me for some time (beyond dungeon tiles).




Well possible welcome aboard!  I'll grab one of those free pillow/blanket things 
for you before they all get snagged up.


----------



## Kaiyanwang

renau1g said:


> Throw on a template to the efreet from the DMG and you're good to go. You can add the sorcerer, fighter, or other templates as needed.




Fine.. but where is my wish? My point was not customization.. my point was what can do a particular edition compared to the other. 

Moreover, as a kid starting to play D&D, I got an interest in Genie legends because of the game. Even assuming possible a Wish ritual, currently a kid playing 4th could not even conceive it  just reading the Efreeti entry. Monster design should not only show, but even inspire.



MrMyth said:


> (snip)
> 
> The more relevant issue is that rather than someone describing how they hit someone with their shield and send them flying, they'll just say that they are using "Solar Dragon Shield Slam" and roll some dice. But again - that is, at heart, a problem with player mentality more than the system. It is certainly something I wish WotC did more to discourage - or at least, presented more guidance for players and DMs on getting around it - but I don't think it is because shoving someone with your shield is more or less reasonable in either game.




Fair point... but I think my main point remains valid too: 3.5/PF has not mechanical obstacles for such things AND, in my opinion, is conceived with more inspiring (see Efreet above and below) even if more prone to be broken, mechanics.



> I think your use of the term *'slightly' *might be inaccurate - 4E supports a lot of different mechanics (often in rituals or utility powers), but something like Wish is in a completely different ballpark. We're talking about a magic that fundamentally rewrites the reality of the game - that's dangerous territory, and always has been. Equating WotC removing the most divisive spell in the game, with them removing all flavor from their monsters or mechanics, is a bit unreasonable to me.



Of course some spell needed a rework, as casting mechanics. Paizo did several things (even if could have be done more, but I played AD&D  before 3.5 so my judgement could be.. grognard-y ). But FOR MY TASTES 4th edition designers went too far. Cannot speak for utilities but.. rituals were in 3.5 too, they wer called Incantations and are in the SRD. Moreover, 10 minutes casting time for a silence is like say to me "rituals are, you know, not intended to be ACTUALLY used").

I didn't "compared" the removal of spells and mechanics. I simply pointed out an example of putting balance as a priority, and the effects of it on the game. 



> In any case, 4E Efreeti - if you can bind them and demand a favor of them - still grant Wishes. They just don't do so by casting spells, they do so by having access to wealth and influence beyond a mortal's possible imagining!



I'm not sure how can this support a story of PC cleverness, wish twistings, power-hungry conjurers, and so on. 



> Which is to say, part of the 4E approach is to take truly game-changing elements and relocate them to the domain of the DM. Stuff that is tied to plot and DM judgement calls now falls firmly into it, rather than having mechanical restrictions.



A lot of people say this and -respectfully - always seemed strange to me. If wish and genies are powerful and dangerous, my call as a DM is needed. If they are limited to swing swords and spit flames, they is.. somewhat.. less need of me as a DM.. at least these are my feelings. Maybe I like to have troubles or my players are just too much good fellows 



> Which I admit - I'm not entirely a fan of. I'd like something a bit between the two, or simply more guidance on what certain enemies may be capable of outside of combat. And... sometimes WotC delivers. Not with every monster, but enough that I don't think 'avoiding flavorful concepts and mechanics' is _'unthinkable_'.



Well, a matter of tastes.. if you enjoy your games, it's just right 



> I don't entirely think it fair to compare an advanced and customized creature to one right out of the book. You can customize creatures in 4E too. (And I find it a better process, in fact - I have never found monster advancement in 3.5 to actually work with the CR guidelines, though Pathfinder may have fixed that.)



3.5 CR breaks down after a while. PF, not enough experience at high levels, so I will see. But the guidelines in the Bestiary are REALLY good. If something in not in the advancement template or HD, the table will do the troubleshooting.

About the phane.. well, my feelings are opposite (as an example, I find needed for the story that players remain aged - makes the enemy more memorable.. and if they are really epic.. well, just find a quest for a fountain of rejuvenation!


*@Scribble:* point being, that, reading your post, seems that balance is a big priority... myslef, restrict the wishes of the Efreeti only to the fluff is really maim a monster.. take away something that makes it special. Destroy a whole story that could spring from a wish, a wish abuse, a clever rogue that found a bottle in a lost temple... is take away some magic, some inspiration from the game. From my game, from my tale.

And I don't think that this wish thing makes the Efreet more powerful in combat (in the case PC want to beat punches with him like with a fire giant). Unless it come out in a strange situation with humanoid allies of the genie. I wonder how could come useful a wizard alter self, a rogue disguise or a fighter intimidate in this instance.. see what I'm doing?


----------



## Windjammer

Basic point first: WotC fired all the great talent behind 4E - Heinsoo, Noonan, Schaefer, Bonner - so I think they'd need to hire some new talent with serious capacity before it's even WORTH discussing what WotC could do to improve D&D. My current impression is they'll quickly polish off D&D Essentials as "evergreens" and then go on a hiatus of not polishing the game, so they can dedicate their efforts to develop other product instead. 



MrMyth said:


> I think your use of the term *'slightly' *might be inaccurate - 4E supports a lot of different mechanics (often in rituals or utility powers), but something like Wish is in a completely different ballpark. We're talking about a magic that fundamentally rewrites the reality of the game - that's dangerous territory, and always has been.







MrMyth said:


> In any case, 4E Efreeti - if you can bind them and demand a favor of them - still grant Wishes. They just don't do so by casting spells, they do so by having access to wealth and influence beyond a mortal's possible imagining!
> 
> Which is to say, part of the 4E approach is to take truly game-changing elements and relocate them to the domain of the DM. Stuff that is tied to plot and DM judgement calls now falls firmly into it, rather than having mechanical restrictions.




I find this juxtaposition of points incomprehensible. It's like on the one hand WotC doesn't trust its customer base to cope with the intricacies of Wish when given mechanical expression (which, needless to say, any DM worth his salt can houserule away or houserule-morph into something else), on the other, 4E is great because it makes this really, really centre stage for pure DM adjudication i.e. giving the power back to the customer to handle the "dangerous" stuff all by themselves.


----------



## MrMyth

Windjammer said:


> Basic point first: WotC fired all the great talent behind 4E - Heinsoo, Noonan, Schaefer, Bonner - so I think they'd need to hire some new talent with serious capacity before it's even WORTH discussing what WotC could do to improve D&D. My current impression is they'll quickly polish off D&D Essentials as "evergreens" and then go on a hiatus of not polishing the game, so they can dedicate their efforts to develop other product instead.




I... really don't see that likely. And I'm a fan of quite a bit of the talent currently there. But tastes vary, I suppose. 



Windjammer said:


> I find this juxtaposition of points incomprehensible. It's like on the one hand WotC doesn't trust its customer base to cope with the intricacies of Wish when given mechanical expression (which, needless to say, any DM worth his salt can houserule away or houserule-morph into something else), on the other, 4E is great because it makes this really, really centre stage for pure DM adjudication i.e. giving the power back to the customer to handle the "dangerous" stuff all by themselves.




I think the idea is that anything that is plot-based, or a DM's call, should be _entirely_ in their field to handle as suits their campaign. Which... I understand the logic behind it. I think it needs more guidance - I'd love to see a section in the DMG3 (or eventual equivalent) that presents 'ideas' that DMs can thus use, whether the classic Wish scenario or anything else along those lines. 

Without those, while I get the idea of "make it all a DM's territory", it runs the risk that a DM, without ever seeing the idea of a Wish, just won't ever use it. Which is a shame. At the same time, you avoid having to deal with players expecting to get access to a Wish whether the DM wants it or not. There is definitely pros and cons to both approaches - I don't think it is a matter of trust, though, so much as where they want the narrative power of such things to be.


----------



## Jack99

Stormonu said:


> Holdup....Whoa.  Looking at that catalog, there's a couple items in there that, as a current non-4E player, actually had me interested - and surprised.
> 
> They're doing a gazetteer on 4E Nentir Vale?  I thought I had read back at the start of 4E they were trying to avoid something like that to keep it from becoming too "canonized", but I am somewhat happy they are finally going to do a write-up of a 4E "campaign world".
> 
> It does seem WotC has been shifting gears (ever so slowly), and the train is slowly moving back in a direction that _might_ pick me back up.  If so, that makes me happy.  I've been wanting my gaming wants to converge with what they're producing for some time now. I want to buy D&D stuff, they just haven't been making stuff that interests me for some time (beyond dungeon tiles).



The PoL setting is very popular amongst 4e fans, and thus WotC are just making what a lot of us have been asking for since late 2008.


----------



## MerricB

IronWolf said:


> And doesn't DDI present some of the same issues as PDFs would?




Indeed they do... and note how Wizards are now producing books which have a lot of material that _isn't_ in the Compendium. Yes, the mechanics are - but the additional "fluff" isn't, and that's a significant part of their recent releases.

Cheers!


----------



## El Mahdi

Apologies for getting behind on this thread.  It's moving faster than I've had time to read it, so I'm skimming and catching up.  So...



Umbran said:


> ...The older folks are only spending more after years of already being gamers - if you don't already have them, they are a poor choice to target them for sales. If you want to grow your long-term player pool, you need to get them while they are teens. Failing to target teens is a good way to doom your long-term business.




I agree with (almost) all of this.  The problem is that when you extend this reasoning, WotC's actions seem illogical.  


Basically:  What's the point of targeting teens with the goal of growing a long-term customer* pool, if you treat your long term customers in a manner which says: _"only the new customers matter"_?

It seems to me that working at _keeping_ customers is just as important...



*changed from the quote as what we're really talking about isn't a player pool, but a customer pool...players don't necessarily make you money, customers do...


----------



## El Mahdi

Jack99 said:


> The PoL setting is very popular amongst 4e fans, and thus WotC are just making what a lot of us have been asking for since late 2008.




I'm not a 4E fan, and it even looks interesting to me. I even want to buy a copy myself...that is, if WotC starts selling pdf's* again.

Now, how about the rest of the stuff a lot of us have been asking for since late 2008?


----------



## I'm A Banana

Umbran said:
			
		

> That is very easy to say, but you have to remember something - traditionally, the only money these folks get is from distributing copyrighted content.




Well, the vast bulk of D&D has never really been copyrighted content. Rules and Generic Fantasy Archetypes that had long ago entered public domain. There's been bits here and there (weird monsters, things with the serial numbers filed off, specific worlds and characters from the novel lines), but the game of D&D has long frolicked in the public pool. 



> Thus, protecting distribution of that content is paramount to them. It is so important to them that they can be less-than-rational at times. Forgive them - it is a new era, and they're only human. They take time to adjust and find new ways to work - the DDI, for example. They'll find other hooks, given time, and maybe then they'll get less paranoid.




My mom used to tell me, "If you want someone to forgive you, you have to show them you've changed, first."

Personally, I'll go that route.  

I do believe WotC is lead by pretty clever folks, and that they certainly can change. Until they do, though, I need to keep harping on it, lest they (or others observing the convo) forget that it is actually a problem.


----------



## Umbran

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, the vast bulk of D&D has never really been copyrighted content. Rules and Generic Fantasy Archetypes that had long ago entered public domain. There's been bits here and there (weird monsters, things with the serial numbers filed off, specific worlds and characters from the novel lines), but the game of D&D has long frolicked in the public pool.




If that's so strong a statement, why should we expect them to publish pdfs of that minimal amount of content?  If it isn't under copyright, nothing's stopping others from publishing it...

And lookee here: OSRIC.  I guess you're right!  So, again, why should they be selling us their pdfs?


----------



## Kobold Boots

ExploderWizard said:


> Well, there was a time when you simply rolled ability scores. Sometimes CHA ended up being high and you got to enjoy the benefits of loyal henchmen and followers.
> 
> In 4E your class determines your dump stat because the stats don't have much defined intrinsic value. Attack with CHA, use CON to modify AC. The stats themselves no longer have a meaning. The class will make sure that you only need a couple of them and make sure that whatever they are will cover most of your needs. Not very strong? Play something that modifies physical attacks with WIS or CON.
> 
> Now that every stat can be an important combat stat, dump statting has become more equal opportunity.
> 
> No more pickin on CHA, you hear?




The funny thing about CHA being a dump stat is..

That you can tell who your globally thinking GMs are just by hearing that said at the table.  Charisma isn't a dump stat if the GM is actively using all available encounter options and remembering to keep charisma in mind when describing NPC warmth and willingness to interact.  

Same with any other stat, but now that it's combat capable the game is at least trending towards balance within a specific silo.


----------



## Umbran

El Mahdi said:


> Basically:  What's the point of targeting teens with the goal of growing a long-term customer* pool, if you treat your long term customers in a manner which says: _"only the new customers matter"_?




Well, first off, "new" is a relative term.  If you're new compared to folks who have been your customers for a decade, you can still expect several years of good service, which is probably enough for now.

The new folks are more used to the CCGs and videogame models, where games change pretty constantly.  They may not be expecting the decade or more of support that some of the older players do.  

And, to be cynical, the new players don't know much about how players of older editions feel they were treated, and they probably don't much care, either.  For one thing, not every customer of old feels put upon (I don't, for example).  The ones who do feel put upon, I fear, paint themselves in such a poor light as to make the newer players... glad that they aren't around.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Umbran said:
			
		

> If that's so strong a statement, why should we expect them to publish pdfs of that minimal amount of content? If it isn't under copyright, nothing's stopping others from publishing it...
> 
> And lookee here: OSRIC. I guess you're right! So, again, why should they be selling us their pdfs?




...Why do we want to buy DVD's of Disney's Snow White instead of making our own?

Besides, there's a lot of brand loyalty, and that trademark (and that cultural momentum) isn't so easily copied.

OSRIC is golden, but I bet a lot of OSRIC players would still pay WotC $5 for a PDF of the original 1e Monster Manual. 

Hell, *I would*, and I don't play any retroclones.


----------



## Squizzle

Umbran said:


> Well, first off, "new" is a relative term.  If you're new compared to folks who have been your customers for a decade, you can still expect several years of good service, which is probably enough for now.
> 
> The new folks are more used to the CCGs and videogame models, where games change pretty constantly.  They may not be expecting the decade or more of support that some of the older players do.
> 
> And, to be cynical, the new players don't know much about how players of older editions feel they were treated, and they probably don't much care, either.  For one thing, not every customer of old feels put upon (I don't, for example).  The ones who do feel put upon, I fear, paint themselves in such a poor light as to make the newer players... glad that they aren't around.



Pandering to an ever-reducing long tail of existing customers is market suicide if it means foregoing the acquistition of new buyers. If 30% of your existing base leaves, but you get 100% more buyers, and half of them stick around for a number of years, that's a success (especially since a lot of the departing buyers are, I'd bet a fair chunk of money, likely to return later with a hobby product like D&D).

Pandering to an established base is also creative suicide, insofar as it means abiding by 30-year-old concepts that have been well-explored. At some point, your primary inspiration becomes the franchise itself, and it starts eating its own tail.


----------



## Umbran

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ...Why do we want to buy DVD's of Disney's Snow White instead of making our own?




Sorry, I wasn't clear.

I was saying earlier that while WotC's reaction may not have been the smartest, it was understandable, as they were traditionally in the business of selling copyrighted materials, and it isn't so strange that someone fears losing their lifeblood.

KM came back at me that much of their material was not covered by copyright, because they were public domain in the first place, or rules that cannot be covered by copyright.  Supposedly, they *weren't* making their money off of selling copyrighted stuff, so they should have no fear of losing their hold, as they never had it.

But then, we should have such close copies from things like OSRIC that really, we would be satisfied by them, and wouldn't need WotC versions.  Making a close copy would have been easy (it wasn't, but if KM is correct it should have been).

Your reaction, however, tells me that KM is just wrong.  There's a whole lot to WotC's _particular_ expression (which is copyrightable) that others simply cannot satisfy.  It really is the copyrightable part that matters.

And, if that's true, then the fear is understandable, and my point stands.


----------



## ggroy

Umbran said:


> If that's so strong a statement, why should we expect them to publish pdfs of that minimal amount of content? * If it isn't under copyright, nothing's stopping others from publishing it...*
> 
> And lookee here: OSRIC.  I guess you're right!  So, again, why should they be selling us their pdfs?




There's numerous "fantasy heartbreaker" rpgs over the years which used many tropes common to D&D.  Non-heartbreaker varieties include rpgs like Runequest, Earthdawn, Dragon Warriors, MERP/Rolemaster, Warhammer, etc ...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> I am not sure there are a single set of realities that applies to all IP equally.  If nothing else, we have copyright and patent because not all IP is the same.  It follows that different types of content will be used differently, and the public will or may think of them differently, such that they will have slightly differing practical realities.



On a certain level, you're correct.

The different protection regimes for IP revolve around what is protected and for how long.  Patents have a limited lifetime because we want inventors to be able to recoup their investments and profit, but we also want others to have the benefit of the tech because they may find a new way to use it that the original holder may never have imagined.

Copyrights have a longer lifespan, at least in part because their secondary benefits- their use by others- are not going to benefit society in general in quite as concrete a fashion as patents.  Elton John's "Someone Saved My Life Tonight" is far less likely to actually save someone's life than a seatbelt or airbag, for instance.

Trademarks can be renewed essentially ad infinitum, as long as their owners keep registering them.  That's because their main function is to make the identification of manufacturers and service providers easier- invaluable for building brand loyalty...and determining liability.



> My point is that they don't have a lot of other product, so that thinking of the game content as a loss-leader may not be a wise thing for them.




They're the ones with the financial data.  They _have _to know what is selling and what isn't...and if the D&D umbrella has the RPG returning (_fake figures follow_) $1.01 for every $1 while the video games base on it are returning $10 for every $1, and every other D&D product is in between those poles, the RPG is you loss leader, plain & simple.



> Potential revenues?  What potential revenues?  I can understand the idea that someone may desire to pay the real owner of a property rather than take a illegal copy for free.  But to pay one provider for an illegal copy when you can have an illegal copy for free in five minutes seems... a bit alien to me




Not every pirate distributes for free.  One very insidious form of piracy dresses up their pilfered goods in all the hallmarks of a legit business and sells the property.  With physical goods, these would be the guys selling fake Rolexes, Dooney Burke handbags, and bootlegged CDs & DVDs.  In the purely digital realm, this is one of the big things that Russian and Chinese pirate sites have been doing...as well as a growing number of sites with ties to terrorist organizations (according to INTERPOL, the FBI, and other police agencies).  The site looks like- say...Amazon.com.uk or perhaps a local retailer- and they're having a 70% off blowout sale!  But all the money is going to the pirates.


----------



## fanboy2000

Kamikaze Midget said:


> OSRIC is golden, but I bet a lot of OSRIC players would still pay WotC $5 for a PDF of the original 1e Monster Manual.
> 
> Hell, *I would*, and I don't play any retroclones.



I've been thinking about this, why didn't they get them when they were available? Wizards had those PDFs up for sale for years. At dirt cheep prices. There's a finite selection of old material. Surely it was easy, within that time frame, to buy all the PDFs necessary for your favorite edition.

I didn't get all the PDFs I wanted either, for whatever that's worth. The reason is that PDFs of old editions were low down on my priority list. I have a feeling that a lot of people were going to buy such-and-such a PDF "someday" but that never translated into a sale. Eventually, Wizards realizes that, after having the old editions available for years, they've made as much money as their going to make on them and it really does cost more to keep them up than it does to take them down, despite the fact that they were a top PDF seller.

If Wizards makes the PDFs available again, they'd get a huge rush of orders, and then it would dwindle down again in a month. I know that, should they become available again, I have a list of products I'd like.

I bought most of my PDFs when I was running d20 Future because I could buy old Star*Drive stuff. When I stopped doing that, I didn't need to buy PDFs.


----------



## ExploderWizard

fanboy2000 said:


> I've been thinking about this, why didn't they get them when they were available? Wizards had those PDFs up for sale for years. At dirt cheep prices. There's a finite selection of old material. Surely it was easy, within that time frame, to buy all the PDFs necessary for your favorite edition.
> 
> I didn't get all the PDFs I wanted either, for whatever that's worth. The reason is that PDFs of old editions were low down on my priority list. I have a feeling that a lot of people were going to buy such-and-such a PDF "someday" but that never translated into a sale. Eventually, Wizards realizes that, after having the old editions available for years, they've made as much money as their going to make on them and it really does cost more to keep them up than it does to take them down, despite the fact that they were a top PDF seller.
> 
> If Wizards makes the PDFs available again, they'd get a huge rush of orders, and then it would dwindle down again in a month. I know that, should they become available again, I have a list of products I'd like.
> 
> I bought most of my PDFs when I was running d20 Future because I could buy old Star*Drive stuff. When I stopped doing that, I didn't need to buy PDFs.




This is a actually a good point.  Sometimes you don't know what you got till it's gone.


----------



## Imaro

One of the things I find interesting about this whole line about marketing to a younger generation is that D&D has traditionally relied on older players to pull newer players in and teach them the game.  I guess I'm wondering... if your older player base declines drastically, and you don't have the same amount to pull in new players... what's your new plan to actually make somebody totally new to D&D want to even pick up the red box?  I think this may be one of the reasons Essentials is trying to sprinkle a little "old school coating" on 4e, as opposed to being just a newbie entry product.  I think if WotC actually felt that they're current player base was large enough to grow the new one into a satisfactory customer base... we wouldn't see such concessions... we would see a hard line, just like with the PDF's, since the driving force is always the bottom line.    

Of course it's even worse when many of your old base of DM's are actively  recruiting for another company.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> On a certain level, you're correct.
> 
> The different protection regimes for IP revolve around what is protected and for how long.




I'm now thinking in terms of something a bit more subtle.

For most intents and purposes, the same copyright law covers music and RPGs.  That does not mean that the _business_ of music is the same as the _business_ of RPGs.  So, even if the law is the same, there are probably going to be distinctions between them as to what actions make sense.  That a musician can (and maybe should) put out their content as a loss-leader does not imply that an RPG company should.




> They're the ones with the financial data.  They _have _to know what is selling and what isn't...and if the D&D umbrella has the RPG returning (_fake figures follow_) $1.01 for every $1 while the video games base on it are returning $10 for every $1, and every other D&D product is in between those poles, the RPG is you loss leader, plain & simple.




Well, technically a loss-leader is sold at or below cost.  Otherwise, it isn't a loss...

But, that's an aside.  My point was not as clear as I thought:  You can't have a loss-leader if the leader isn't leading anything.  They _don't have_ a new movie (and have severely damaged movie earnings potential, even).  They _don't have_ a big videogame (Neverwinter Nights is *old*).  Until they have one of those big moneymakers, loss-leading is just loss!

If they don't have plans to develop one of those things, don't expect loss-leading strategies.


----------



## MerricB

Imaro said:


> Of course it's even worse when many of your old base of DM's are actively  recruiting for another company.




It is. Good comment.

The trouble is - and I'm sure that Wizards were extremely aware of this when making 4e - that although you have vocal supporters of 3.5e, you have a lot of non-vocal people who were dropping of and refusing to play it any more. 3E was a game I really enjoyed, but at the end the game was just _so much work_ to run.

Truly, running high-level 3E was a game for the dedicated DM and players. 

When you can't retain some people with a system that they've been playing because it just becomes too much work, then you have a problem.

Looked at from this point of view, 4E is a system that is intended to retain DMs longer, as well as introduce new players to the game.

Cheers!


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I was saying earlier that while WotC's reaction may not have been the smartest, it was understandable, as they were traditionally in the business of selling copyrighted materials, and it isn't so strange that someone fears losing their lifeblood.




I still don't get it. Are you trying to say that we shouldn't criticize WotC for doing something that appears to be silly? Because they were scared?

Look, if someone is going to try to avoid the volcanic eruption by sacrificing virgins to the Volcano God, I'm going to tell them they're being idiots about it. 

Or are you just trying to explain their actions? By saying "well, they were scared."

Because then I can tell you why it is tremendously unhelpful to do things motivated out of fear. These things usually become even more true in a corporate environment than they are in other areas of life.

They were scared? Okay, sure. Fear makes people do dumb things? Absolutely. Being afraid drives smart business decisions? Ya lost me.



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Surely it was easy, within that time frame, to buy all the PDFs necessary for your favorite edition.




Not for everyone. Loans come due, jobs get lost, babies get born, and folks get robbed every day. Sometimes it is easy to spend $5 on a PDF. Sometimes, it is not. 

It seems really narmed to think that everyone who would have wanted them could have got them within the period that they were all available, given that we don't live in a world where infinite money pours from the sky.


----------



## ggroy

Umbran said:


> That a musician can (and maybe should) put out their content as a loss-leader does not imply that an RPG company should.




Allegedly this has been the case for a long time in places like China.  "Rockstars" in China have to make all their income from playing concerts all the time, due to so much piracy of cds and dvds.  Essentially music cds are by default a loss-leader from the very start in such a system of rampant piracy.


----------



## Imaro

MerricB said:


> It is. Good comment.
> 
> The trouble is - and I'm sure that Wizards were extremely aware of this when making 4e - that although you have vocal supporters of 3.5e, you have a lot of non-vocal people who were dropping of and refusing to play it any more. 3E was a game I really enjoyed, but at the end the game was just _so much work_ to run.
> 
> Truly, running high-level 3E was a game for the dedicated DM and players.




Honestly Merric, I don't have much experience with high level 3e and I think this might be one of the things WotC messed up on. They assumed that everyone ran super long campaigns into high levels, on a regular basis... when I would argue that is probably a small subset of DM's. I find a much more satisfying game playing an E8 Pathfinder game... than I did with 4e and it's mathematical sweet spot across all levels.



MerricB said:


> When you can't retain some people with a system that they've been playing because it just becomes too much work, then you have a problem.




True, but this assumes that they all wanted a *different game* with totally different fluff(and I'm almost positive that this isn't 100% true)...as opposed to the same game and fluff with fixes... or perhaps tweaks along the lines of Star Wars SE. 



MerricB said:


> Looked at from this point of view, 4E is a system that is intended to retain DMs longer, as well as introduce new players to the game.
> 
> Cheers!




I would say 4e is a game designed to allow DM's who like to run longer continuous D&D games an easier time of doing so. There are some DM's who like to run shorter camapigns of more variation in system, campaign world, etc... 4e would not necessarily retain them any longer than 3e. As far as new players go... I've heard this since the game was released and I don't find a 1st level Pathfinder character any harder to create or run than a D&D 4e character... so what exactly does 4e do specifically to better introduce new players to the game. And if it succeded why are essentials being released 2 years later?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> I'm now thinking in terms of something a bit more subtle.
> 
> For most intents and purposes, the same copyright law covers music and RPGs.  That does not mean that the _business_ of music is the same as the _business_ of RPGs.  So, even if the law is the same, there are probably going to be distinctions between them as to what actions make sense.  That a musician can (and maybe should) put out their content as a loss-leader does not imply that an RPG company should.




Which is why I brought up other publishers.

Makers of sheet music, printers of comic books, novels, magazines, newspapers and so forth are all involved in both printing physical and supplying digital IP- not a one of them I know of has reacted to piracy by withdrawing their product from the market.

Except WotC.



> Well, technically a loss-leader is sold at or below cost.  Otherwise, it isn't a loss...




Yeah- that was part of an incomplete thought on my part brought on by a call from the kitchen regarding impending food disaster.

To paraphrase Dream Theater, "Hit 'Submit Reply' then Run Away"

My point was that the P&P RPG is probably the least profitable part of the D&D brand, as many have alleged, so piracy concerns about that aspect are the least of their worries.  P&P or pdf, though, the brand needs the game to survive, whether or not its profitable.

And pdfs are simply one of the best tools to get your product into hands across the world right now.



> But, that's an aside.  My point was not as clear as I thought:  You can't have a loss-leader if the leader isn't leading anything.  They don't have a new movie (and have severely damaged movie earnings potential, even).  They don't have a big videogame (Neverwinter Nights is *old*).  Until they have one of those big moneymakers, loss-leading is just loss!




True on all points.

But while there isn't a new computer game or movie (thank God!) out there right now doesn't mean D&D isn't leading into other projects: they've got books, they've got HeroScape, minis...and who knows what they're negotiating for?  Not to mention "stealth" products- I don't know of any that WotC has in particular, but Marvel comics had at least one show that was based on their characters...but with different names and appearances.  Even though I don't want another crappy D&D movie, I'm sure SyFy would buy one...and neither company would be above making a "stealth" one, either.

Besides, the fact remains that as soon as something physical is in the market these days, it can be pirated.  The argument for withdrawing pdfs- which have a lower per unit cost and higher profit margins than physical books- from the market because of piracy is just as valid if not moreso for physical books.

If someone has pirated 4ED PHB1 in digital form, and I'm WotC, I have to look at my physical and digital versions of the PHB1's profitability...and the physical one will come up on the short end of that analysis.  Assuming the market for physical books isn't bigger than the one for digital ones, the product line to drop would be the physical ones.  Subsequent releases, all digital from start to market will have lower production costs still.

Yet WotC continues to produce physical product.


----------



## Kobold Boots

ggroy said:


> Allegedly this has been the case for a long time in places like China.  "Rockstars" in China have to make all their income from playing concerts all the time, due to so much piracy of cds and dvds.  Essentially music cds are by default a loss-leader from the very start in such a system of rampant piracy.




While I won't say you're correct or incorrect about China, I can tell you from personal experience that the only way to make money as a musician in the states (at least since the mid 90s if not late 80s) has been to tour your nuts off.  The only acts making money off of album sales at that time were acts on their second record deals, those that owned their own publishing company or those that were some combination of the two and multi platinum.


----------



## ggroy

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yet WotC continues to produce physical product.




What is the likelihood that WotC is behind the curve, but is really itching to exit the book market and go all digital?


----------



## Kobold Boots

.. and um.. 

So what can WoTC do to win back the disenchanted?  (looks about at the conversation that traced into first-year IP law..) blink.. blink..

"I shoot magic missle at the darkness.."


----------



## ggroy

Kobold Boots said:


> I can tell you from personal experience that the only way to make money as a musician in the states (at least since the mid 90s if not late 80s) has been to tour your nuts off.  The only acts making money off of album sales at that time were acts on their second record deals, those that owned their own publishing company or those that were some combination of the two and multi platinum.




This jives with my personal experiences too, albeit from second hand accounts.

I use to be a musician many years ago, and had many friends who were in acts that got record deals and did tours.  Personally I was never able to make a living from it.


----------



## fanboy2000

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Not for everyone. Loans come due, jobs get lost, babies get born, and folks get robbed every day. Sometimes it is easy to spend $5 on a PDF. Sometimes, it is not.



So your saying that buying PDFs of older editions of D&D is a low priority on many people's lists?



> It seems really narmed to think that everyone who would have wanted them could have got them within the period that they were all available, given that we don't live in a world where infinite money pours from the sky.



Nah, you don't need an infinite amount of money, just enough to get the products you want.

My point is that even at dirt cheep prices, PDFs of older editions of D&D are a _very_ low priority to many many people.


----------



## MerricB

Imaro said:


> Honestly Merric, I don't have much experience with high level 3e and I think this might be one of the things WotC messed up on. They assumed that everyone ran super long campaigns into high levels, on a regular basis... when I would argue that is probably a small subset of DM's. I find a much more satisfying game playing an E8 Pathfinder game... than I did with 4e and it's mathematical sweet spot across all levels.




I've run two campaigns that reached 16th level in 3e and one that reached 21st level, so yes, I've probably more experience of the higher levels than you.  Even so, at lower levels there are still a lot of areas of preparation concern. New Monster? New NPC? Urgh.



> True, but this assumes that they all wanted a *different game* with totally different fluff(and I'm almost positive that this isn't 100% true)...as opposed to the same game and fluff with fixes... or perhaps tweaks along the lines of Star Wars SE.




No, it doesn't assume that. It's what they _did_, but the reason doesn't assume that. Note that SW SE has some serious mathematical flaws in it - Use the Force and healing - which cause great problems with ongoing campaigns. 



> don't find a 1st level Pathfinder character any harder to create or run than a D&D 4e character... so what exactly does 4e do specifically to better introduce new players to the game. And if it succeded why are essentials being released 2 years later?




I say intended to, not does; although I think it definitely succeeds on the DM count. I have a different opinion on some of the new mechanics, of which I've written about elsewhere. (Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge. Urgh!)

Cheers!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I can tell you from personal experience that the only way to make money as a musician in the states (at least since the mid 90s if not late 80s) has been to tour your nuts off




As with almost anything, the way to make serious money isn't about working harder, its about working smarter.

Your music- assuming you're not also the writer getting royalties through that channel as well- is just the tip of the iceberg.  Your music gets you the tour and other exposure.

The next step is touring & other exposure- getting on a movie soundtrack, being the featured artist in a TV show or doing a soundtrack to a video game, etc.   This gets you more money- your take-home will be higher, and it will reinforce sales of your music, even your back catalog.  More importantly, if you do it right, this makes your *band* into a *brand*.

And the_ Brand _is where the REAL money is- merch, merch merch.  Gene Simmons didn't become as wealthy as he is by selling KISS albums or going on tour, he got it by putting the brand's name on EVERYTHING.  That helped get him a TV deal.

David Bowie?  He sold stock in future releases, which, at one point, made him the second richest musician in the world (I believe Sir Paul edged him out).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

ggroy said:


> What is the likelihood that WotC is behind the curve, but is really itching to exit the book market and go all digital?




I don't think that will happen for some time.

Even as the least profitable segment of the brand, my guess is that the books are still profitable, and the market for them is still quite large.

Plus the jury is still out on when the average consumer will be comfortable with 100% digital content for entertainment.  Many- myself included- still prefer the physical stuff for a variety of reasons, seeing digital stuff as a  backup and a convenience...but not a viable substitute.

But GenY is growing up in the digital age, and are just fine with pure digital content...and as mentioned before, they're as big a group as the Baby Boomers.

It may not happen with 5Ed, but I wouldn't be surprised to find 6Ed to be released entirely in digital form.  So...12-20 years?


----------



## I'm A Banana

> So your saying that buying PDFs of older editions of D&D is a low priority on many people's lists?




I'm just saying that not everybody has the dough to spend on all the PDFs they want at once. 



> My point is that even at dirt cheep prices, PDFs of older editions of D&D are a very low priority to many many people.




Sure. But some is bigger than none, and the piracy reasoning doesn't hold much water. Which is really the point that's made here.


----------



## Imaro

MerricB said:


> I've run two campaigns that reached 16th level in 3e and one that reached 21st level, so yes, I've probably more experience of the higher levels than you.  Even so, at lower levels there are still a lot of areas of preparation concern. New Monster? New NPC? Urgh.




No argument here, but I think you missed my point... for many... the high level issues were a non-issue. As far as preperation goes, once one gets the rules down it's easy enough to fudge the rules to customize a monster or NPC when necessary... yet use a robust system when desired. I am a firm believer in learning the rules so that you can break them. It's probably easier than having to learn a whole set of new rules.



MerricB said:


> No, it doesn't assume that. It's what they _did_, but the reason doesn't assume that. Note that SW SE has some serious mathematical flaws in it - Use the Force and healing - which cause great problems with ongoing campaigns




So are you saying WotC went against the assumptions they had on whether people wanted a new system and new fluff... and did it anyway? Doesn't seem a smart way to run a business. Yes Use the Force and healing have issues... but every game has issues. However, I was useing SWSE as a general example not a specifc iteration that should have been 4e. And I have seen both of those issues houseruled into a workable state in various ways quite easily on the Star Wars boards.





MerricB said:


> I say intended to, not does; although I think it definitely succeeds on the DM count. I have a different opinion on some of the new mechanics, of which I've written about elsewhere. (Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge. Urgh!)
> 
> Cheers!




And again, I say for your theory on 4e retaining more DM's to be true you assume there is only one type of DM, the one who runs long continuous campaigns in the same world with the same characters, which I just don't buy as the only type.


----------



## ggroy

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And the_ Brand _is where the REAL money is- merch, merch merch.  Gene Simmons didn't become as wealthy as he is by selling KISS albums or going on tour, he got it by putting the brand's name on EVERYTHING.  That helped get him a TV deal.




If I was younger, I probably would have wanted that "KISS Alive I gold record award".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

If I weren't Catholic, I might have bought some of those KISS condoms.


----------



## ggroy

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't think that will happen for some time.
> 
> Even as the least profitable segment of the brand, my guess is that the books are still profitable, and the market for them is still quite large.
> 
> Plus the jury is still out on when the average consumer will be comfortable with 100% digital content for entertainment.  Many- myself included- still prefer the physical stuff for a variety of reasons, seeing digital stuff as a  backup and a convenience...but not a viable substitute.




I can see the core books, or at least a "rules compendium" and DM screen still being published in future editions.

On the other hand, the content of crunch heavy splatbooks may very well end up as all digital in future editions.

For the more DM oriented books like Manual of the Planes, Plane Above, Plane Below, Demonomicon, etc ... they could go either way, or maybe even the print-on-demand route.


----------



## MerricB

Imaro said:


> No argument here, but I think you missed my point... for many... the high level issues were a non-issue. As far as preperation goes, once one gets the rules down it's easy enough to fudge the rules to customize a monster or NPC when necessary... yet use a robust system when desired. I am a firm believer in learning the rules so that you can break them. It's probably easier than having to learn a whole set of new rules.




Unfortunately, "robust" doesn't describe for me the monster customisation rules in 3e. It worked very well for some (simple) monsters, then fell apart dreadfully when faced with other challenges, such as a grappling monster.

There were a lot of traps in 3e for the newer player: elements that looked fine but didn't work as advertised.

If a system requires you to fudge the rules as a matter of course, then I'm not such a big fan of the system.



> So are you saying WotC went against the assumptions they had on whether people wanted a new system and new fluff... and did it anyway?




Not really. The assumptions were correct, but they took it further than strictly necessary, and perhaps further than they should have gone. I think the new Forgotten Realms was a mistake, although I fully understand what they were trying to do. Meanwhile, the new cosmology is not really that different to what Planescape inflicted on us over a decade ago. Because I like the new cosmology greatly, I think it's fantastic and one of the best things Wizards have done. 



> And again, I say for your theory on 4e retaining more DM's to be true you assume there is only one type of DM, the one who runs long continuous campaigns in the same world with the same characters, which I just don't buy as the only type.




Problem is, I don't think that Wizards can do a game for *only* people who run levels 1-8, which is what you seem to be suggesting. 4E is intended to retain DMs longer (and have better handling of high-level play), but with one exception it does this by making the play experience good at all levels, so I can't see how it discriminates against groups: you should be able to play any type of D&D campaign you like and have the 4E rules back you up.

The one major exception is this: 1st level characters don't die at the drop of a hat any more. You don't have the clueless newbie so much any more. I know there are people who miss this, but I don't. I will say that even if the 1st level character is no longer so fragile, when you compare him to his higher level incarnations, he's certainly still a newbie. I've run one 4e campaign so far from 1st to 20th level (and we should continue next year into Epic levels), and there is definitely a difference in how characters feel between Heroic and Paragon tiers.

Cheers!


----------



## Shemeska

MerricB said:


> I think the new Forgotten Realms was a mistake, although I fully understand what they were trying to do. Meanwhile, the new cosmology is not really that different to what Planescape inflicted on us over a decade ago.




Bit of a different situation though, in that while the 4e FR buried two decades of detail and rewrote major portions of the setting to conform to 4e tropes, what Planescape did back in 2e was to develop something that really didn't have anywhere near that level of detail or development previously. Most of the former was destructive change, while most of the latter was additive IMO.


----------



## pemerton

MerricB said:


> Not everyone is of the same mind about everything in larger organisations. <snip rest of discussion of actual and hypothesised disagreements among WotC management>



OK, that makes sense. In any big organisation, people disagree and directions can change.


----------



## pemerton

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Most of what I see in this thread is pretty reasonable people who want to give WotC money for things they enjoy playing and reading, but some of WotC's practices (namely, not selling books from older editions) lead to them not wanting to spend money on WotC products. One practice in particular -- not selling PDF's of older edition materials -- seems, as an outsider, to be something they did for really poor reasons (assuming their stated intent was honest), and something they could easily change.



KM, most of what you're posting in this thread I've found pretty interesting - especially the back-and-forth with Umbran and others about piracy.

But the passage I've quoted struck me as a little odd.

You refer to "people who want to give WotC money for things they enjoy playing and reading, but some of WotC's practices (namely, not selling books from older editions) lead to them not wanting to spend money on WotC products." But isn't this just a slightly convoluted way of describing "people who are in the market for RPG stuff but aren't interested in buying WotC's RPG stuff"? And that's a pretty unremarkable state of affairs in any commercial market.

It's the dressing up of this unremarkable state of affairs in the language of "practices", "suspicions" and "disenchantment" that I don't get. It would be different if WotC's ink and paper were grossly polluting, and these were the practices that produced disenchantment. That would be a bit like the Shell boycott in the 1980s for investing in South Africa, or more recent Nike boycotts. But as far as I can see nothing like that is going on. All we have is a company offering stuff for sale that some people don't want to buy. Fair enough. Don't buy it. Why isn't that the end of the story?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I am a firm believer in learning the rules so that you can break them.





MerricB said:


> If a system requires you to fudge the rules as a matter of course, then I'm not such a big fan of the system.



I'm with MerricB on this one.

For better or worse, there's a movement in the contemporary RPG scene which takes the view that RPGs are _games_, and that playing the game _by the rules_ should deliver the promised experience. That's fundamentally at odds with some more traditional ways of designing RPGs, which are all about having the rules of the game model the ingame world, and then relying on the GM to judiciously suspend the rules in order to deliver the desired play experience (fudging death results against low-level PCs being the most notorious example of this).

Thus, I agree with BryonD when he says:



BryonD said:


> A game that is about making the character be as realistic as possible first is different than a game that is about mechanical equity first.




WotC have decided that the best way to secure the future of D&D is to move from the traditional to the contemporary paradigm of RPG design. Now maybe that's a mistake for all sorts of reasons - it puts heavy demands on the integrity of design and development, it produces a steady flow of errata/updates, and it produces a game which at least some fans of the traditional approach don't like. At least some of those fans see it as changing the game from an RPG to a _real_ (video, board, whatever) game.

But I think it's a big call to say _for sure _that it's a mistake. The contemporary approach is not without fans. And it's not without success - some non-traditional games are pretty highly regarded: Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, Burning Wheel, Sorcerer, HeroWars/Quest.

Maybe WotC will turn out to be wrong. Maybe it will turn out that most people interested in buying RPG books like the traditional approach, and that the much larger number of people who like games of some sort or other really aren't interested in the RPG variant of games. That's certainly conceivable, because immersion in the gameworld is a big part of an RPG, and there seems to be a non-arbitrary connection between immersion in a gameworld and having mechanics that model that world.

But maybe WotC will turn out to be right. Because there also seems to be a non-arbitrary connection between wanting to have fun playing a game, and designing the rules of the game so that they (more or less, within the limits of what a small number of people on what I assume are fairly modest salaries can do) do deliver the promised fun.

I've said before that I see 4e as a bet by WotC that Ron Edwards is right in his view that the way to significantly increase the popularity of RPGs is to design them as _games _from the ground up, dropping whatever elements of world-simulating mechanics are necessary to achieve this. Presumably WotC have some market research to support their bet, but some aspects of what's coming out about Essentials and other downstream developments make me (as a 4e fan) worry that the bet may not have gone as well as they hope.

To steal a line from Raven Crowking, time will tell . . . it always does!


----------



## Bluenose

Imaro said:


> True, but this assumes that they all wanted a *different game* with totally different fluff(and I'm almost positive that this isn't 100% true)...as opposed to the same game and fluff with fixes... or perhaps tweaks along the lines of Star Wars SE.




Those two concepts need splitting. 

A different game; well, 3rd edition was a different game to earlier versions of D&D. Apparently some people don't have a problem with it still being D&D. Yet there are, quite clearly, people who don't think it's the same game. And having experimented with it and found that if you play 3e the way you played BECM/1e/2e then the results of your actions would not be the same, then I've plenty of sympathy for that view.

Totally different fluff; well, which fluff makes a game D&D? Because if there's one thing that's absolutely certain it is that different GMs run their homebrew campaigns with different ideas behind their setting, and that even official published settings didn't all use the same fluff. I'm perfectly happy for you to tell the Dark Sun fans, to take one example, that their game isn't D&D because the fluff is different. I just don't think they'd agree, and neither would I. 

Actually, I hope most people wouldn't agree. Changing things is what GMs do, or at least did when I started playing.


----------



## Kobold Boots

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As with almost anything, the way to make serious money isn't about working harder, its about working smarter.
> 
> Your music- assuming you're not also the writer getting royalties through that channel as well- is just the tip of the iceberg. Your music gets you the tour and other exposure.
> 
> The next step is touring & other exposure- getting on a movie soundtrack, being the featured artist in a TV show or doing a soundtrack to a video game, etc. This gets you more money- your take-home will be higher, and it will reinforce sales of your music, even your back catalog. More importantly, if you do it right, this makes your *band* into a *brand*.
> 
> And the_ Brand _is where the REAL money is- merch, merch merch. Gene Simmons didn't become as wealthy as he is by selling KISS albums or going on tour, he got it by putting the brand's name on EVERYTHING. That helped get him a TV deal.
> 
> David Bowie? He sold stock in future releases, which, at one point, made him the second richest musician in the world (I believe Sir Paul edged him out).




Points noted and thank you for adding detail to the discussion.

In your opinion, what bands that have gone from unknowns to known quantities during the late 80s to 90s have actually done this well?  I acknowledge KISS and Bowie, both of whom took advantage of the rapid rise of commercial media in the 70s.  I'd even argue that Metallica may have ridden the crest of this, but they rose in the 80s.

Reason I'm asking is because the nature of brand marketing and media has changed over the years within the music industry.  Most of the success stories I'm aware of were generated at a time when the suits weren't fully aware of the power of merch marketing.  (The business cases that led the way to enlightenment for them were KISS in the music industry and STAR WARS - in the film segment where Lucas negotiated full control of the merchandising rights and shafted MGM).

Sorry to be off topic with the post but this is something that legitimately interests me to chat about.


----------



## ggroy

Kobold Boots said:


> In your opinion, what bands that have gone from unknowns to known quantities during the late 80s to 90s have actually done this well?  I acknowledge KISS and Bowie, both of whom took advantage of the rapid rise of commercial media in the 70s.  I'd even argue that Metallica may have ridden the crest of this, but they rose in the 80s.




Nickelback?


----------



## ExploderWizard

pemerton said:


> I'm with MerricB on this one.
> 
> For better or worse, there's a movement in the contemporary RPG scene which takes the view that RPGs are _games_, and that playing the game _by the rules_ should deliver the promised experience. That's fundamentally at odds with some more traditional ways of designing RPGs, which are all about having the rules of the game model the ingame world, and then relying on the GM to judiciously suspend the rules in order to deliver the desired play experience (fudging death results against low-level PCs being the most notorious example of this).




If the contemporary RPG scene truly held the view that rpg's are _games_ then there wouldn't be so much focus on storytelling going on.

Traditional rpg design does indeed have the rules of the game model the ingame world. Where you are making the huge assumption is in your assertion of some universal 'desired play experience'. In traditional rpg gameplay the rules are used and for those _playing a game,_ the desired play experience will come from using the rules, playing, and seeing what outcome happens to be the result.

Assuming a desired outcome and fudging mechanics, or _designing_ mechanics to achieve that specific outcome throws out the _game _part of rpg. 

What exactly is meant by 'the promised experience' anyway?


----------



## Imaro

MerricB said:


> Unfortunately, "robust" doesn't describe for me the monster customisation rules in 3e. It worked very well for some (simple) monsters, then fell apart dreadfully when faced with other challenges, such as a grappling monster.
> 
> There were a lot of traps in 3e for the newer player: elements that looked fine but didn't work as advertised.
> 
> If a system requires you to fudge the rules as a matter of course, then I'm not such a big fan of the system.




Fair enough if your *opinion* is that the 3e monster and NPC customization rules weren't robust... I feel the same way about 4e's customization rules... different strokes for different folks and all.

Yes there were good and bad choices in 3e, sometimes good and bad even depended on your purpose in playing the game as opposed to optimization (and sometimes it took actual experience to decipher which was which)... personally I find games with consequences for my choices more rewarding than a game where I can make almost any choice and the system protects me from myself (I find this causes me to become bored and less interested in a system)... again, different strokes and all.

The system didn't *require* you to fudge... I think you're being a little disingenuous here. It's like saying 4e requires you to run combat heavy adventures. 



MerricB said:


> Not really. The assumptions were correct, but they took it further than strictly necessary, and perhaps further than they should have gone. I think the new Forgotten Realms was a mistake, although I fully understand what they were trying to do. Meanwhile, the new cosmology is not really that different to what Planescape inflicted on us over a decade ago. Because I like the new cosmology greatly, I think it's fantastic and one of the best things Wizards have done. .




Again, this is all wrapped up in your personal opinion, and I can certainly respect that. But IMO, if I wanted a different cosmology and different background, and... well you get the point. There are a ton of fantasy rpg's out there with different fluff... I bought D&D for D&D's default fluff. On top of this the system is also changed and people wonder why some have a very big disconnect with this edition and they're concept of what D&D is.




MerricB said:


> Problem is, I don't think that Wizards can do a game for *only* people who run levels 1-8, which is what you seem to be suggesting. 4E is intended to retain DMs longer (and have better handling of high-level play), but with one exception it does this by making the play experience good at all levels, so I can't see how it discriminates against groups: you should be able to play any type of D&D campaign you like and have the 4E rules back you up




Merric, that's not at all what I'm suggesting, please go back and read my posts... I didn't at any point and time suggest WotC make a game for only people who run levels 1-8. What I suggested is that it's "improvement" here isn't an improvement for those who don't run super long continuous campaigns. Some of the drawbacks in drawing out the supposed sweet spot are longer low level combats, more front end complexity for characters and so on. That is my point, it wasn't an objective improvement for all DM's and may have even driven these types of DM's to other systems.



MerricB said:


> The one major exception is this: 1st level characters don't die at the drop of a hat any more. You don't have the clueless newbie so much any more. I know there are people who miss this, but I don't. I will say that even if the 1st level character is no longer so fragile, when you compare him to his higher level incarnations, he's certainly still a newbie. I've run one 4e campaign so far from 1st to 20th level (and we should continue next year into Epic levels), and there is definitely a difference in how characters feel between Heroic and Paragon tiers.
> 
> Cheers!




In Pathfinder characters don't die at the drop of a hat anymore...and low-level combat is still substantially quicker than 4e combat. I also find the absence of simple classes for someone who just wants to try the game or play casually or even someone not very interested in tactics is a total failure on 4e's part in drawing in new gamers. Well my players got up to level 5 and the game just felt sor of monotonous to us and combat took up way too much of our alloted game time. Right now my brother has started running Pathfinder and it's a breath of fresh air, where we actually progress through the story at a reasonable pace. But again this is all subjectively my feelings.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:


> To steal a line from Raven Crowking, time will tell . . . it always does!




I stole that line from Doctor Who.....And have been a Sad Panda that no one noted its source.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I'm with MerricB on this one.
> 
> For better or worse, there's a movement in the contemporary RPG scene which takes the view that RPGs are _games_, and that playing the game _by the rules_ should deliver the promised experience. That's fundamentally at odds with some more traditional ways of designing RPGs, which are all about having the rules of the game model the ingame world, and then relying on the GM to judiciously suspend the rules in order to deliver the desired play experience (fudging death results against low-level PCs being the most notorious example of this).
> 
> Thus, I agree with BryonD when he says:
> 
> 
> 
> WotC have decided that the best way to secure the future of D&D is to move from the traditional to the contemporary paradigm of RPG design. Now maybe that's a mistake for all sorts of reasons - it puts heavy demands on the integrity of design and development, it produces a steady flow of errata/updates, and it produces a game which at least some fans of the traditional approach don't like. At least some of those fans see it as changing the game from an RPG to a _real_ (video, board, whatever) game.
> 
> But I think it's a big call to say _for sure _that it's a mistake. The contemporary approach is not without fans. And it's not without success - some non-traditional games are pretty highly regarded: Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, Burning Wheel, Sorcerer, HeroWars/Quest.
> 
> Maybe WotC will turn out to be wrong. Maybe it will turn out that most people interested in buying RPG books like the traditional approach, and that the much larger number of people who like games of some sort or other really aren't interested in the RPG variant of games. That's certainly conceivable, because immersion in the gameworld is a big part of an RPG, and there seems to be a non-arbitrary connection between immersion in a gameworld and having mechanics that model that world.
> 
> But maybe WotC will turn out to be right. Because there also seems to be a non-arbitrary connection between wanting to have fun playing a game, and designing the rules of the game so that they (more or less, within the limits of what a small number of people on what I assume are fairly modest salaries can do) do deliver the promised fun.
> 
> I've said before that I see 4e as a bet by WotC that Ron Edwards is right in his view that the way to significantly increase the popularity of RPGs is to design them as _games _from the ground up, dropping whatever elements of world-simulating mechanics are necessary to achieve this. Presumably WotC have some market research to support their bet, but some aspects of what's coming out about Essentials and other downstream developments make me (as a 4e fan) worry that the bet may not have gone as well as they hope.
> 
> To steal a line from Raven Crowking, time will tell . . . it always does!




Yet all the best sellers under D&D are still simulationist systems, with gamist systems being outliers in sales and recognition... so I'm a little confused on how big this "movement" could possibly be.  

D&D has an advantage here in that it's the big dog, but I honestly think they messed up by going extrememly gamist in system (along with changing the fluff at the same time).  I mean yeah, you got me to buy the corebooks and even a couple of sourcebooks to give it a try... but now that I know what type of play experience you offer, I and many other players have found the mechanics don't provide the play experience we want and even the default D&D world is unfamiliar to us. I have to assume WotC has at least felt some kind of drop off in sales, as it's basic re-release of the core rules (with xtra stuff!!) is, at least partially, a common tactic in the rpg industry to boost sales.  Of course without data this is all conjecture on my part... but then again what in this thread isn't?


----------



## Bluenose

Imaro said:


> Yet all the best sellers under D&D are still simulationist systems, with gamist systems being outliers in sales and recognition... so I'm a little confused on how big this "movement" could possibly be.




White Wolf games are highly simulationist? Really? I mean, it might be truer in the science fiction end of the RPG market that simulationism is strongly favoured, but elsewhere it's hardly apparent.


----------



## MerricB

Raven Crowking said:


> I stole that line from Doctor Who.....And have been a Sad Panda that no one noted its source.




I always knew. It's the real McCoy, that one. 

Cheers!


----------



## I'm A Banana

pemerton said:
			
		

> KM, most of what you're posting in this thread I've found pretty interesting - especially the back-and-forth with Umbran and others about piracy.



Flattery will get you everywhere, sexy. 


> But the passage I've quoted struck me as a little odd.
> 
> You refer to "people who want to give WotC money for things they enjoy playing and reading, but some of WotC's practices (namely, not selling books from older editions) lead to them not wanting to spend money on WotC products." But isn't this just a slightly convoluted way of describing "people who are in the market for RPG stuff but aren't interested in buying WotC's RPG stuff"? And that's a pretty unremarkable state of affairs in any commercial market.




Sure. But the thread is largely about how WotC could theoretically avoid some of that situation, if it was inclined to respond to the demands here. Maybe they're cool with it, and the thread is mostly just wishful thinking.  



> It's the dressing up of this unremarkable state of affairs in the language of "practices", "suspicions" and "disenchantment" that I don't get. It would be different if WotC's ink and paper were grossly polluting, and these were the practices that produced disenchantment. That would be a bit like the Shell boycott in the 1980s for investing in South Africa, or more recent Nike boycotts. But as far as I can see nothing like that is going on. All we have is a company offering stuff for sale that some people don't want to buy. Fair enough. Don't buy it. Why isn't that the end of the story?




Really, any time in sales will tell you that customers are generally grumpy two-year-olds about their purchases. Stereotypically, this only gets worse as they get older.  It's not like WotC is doing anything immoral or wrong, but D&D is such a part of some people's lives that they have brand loyalty to the name even as they get old, have kids of their own, and start remembering their childhood with fuzzy colors. Not all of those people are interested in adopting an entirely new edition. A lot of 'em just want to buy that old 1e MM with the weird high school notebook cover art and page through it, or maybe teach it to their kids (who can then go on to buy the newest, kewlest, still-supported stuff, or not). 

People just want to remember and share _their D&D_. 

It's not the end of the story because innerdude wanted to make a bit of a manifesto about his own gripes (totally on-topic on an RPG message board), and a lot of people have things that WotC could do to win some gaming dollars from them (some realistic, some not so much). 

If you'd prefer not to hear about what the disenchanted would want from D&D, I'd recommend not clicking on the thread whose title would lead you explicitly down that path.

And _every_ company gets this. Because all customers are precious unique snowflakes. And they should be. If they weren't demanding, you'd get companies shoveling cheap crap at you and calling it good enough. McDonald's would never have sold salads, if they didn't hear the equivalent of threads like this.


----------



## renau1g

Imaro said:


> In Pathfinder characters don't die at the drop of a hat anymore...and low-level combat is still substantially quicker than 4e combat. I also find the absence of simple classes for someone who just wants to try the game or play casually or even someone not very interested in tactics is a total failure on 4e's part in drawing in new gamers. Well my players got up to level 5 and the game just felt sor of monotonous to us and combat took up way too much of our alloted game time. Right now my brother has started running Pathfinder and it's a breath of fresh air, where we actually progress through the story at a reasonable pace. But again this is all subjectively my feelings.




It's unfair to compare the combat's of Pathfinder vs 4e as they are usually far different animals. Many PF combats have a single monster, at least in the Kingmaker modules that I purchased, whereas 4e tends towards 4+ enemies at a time. I actually find it boring when we all get jazzed up for combat, we all roll init, then the barbarian charges in and in one hit kills the enemy. It's so anti-climatic. Again, maybe that's me, but 4e low-level combat is very deadly. I've had no problem killing PCs in that system, monster just need to "focus-fire" which is a very basic strategy even most unintelligent monsters would know. If all 5 monsters hit the PC in a round (not hard to do), they will almost certainly be ko'd. 

I also enjoy a story, but if I didn't want a challenging combat system I'd likely not play D&D and just sit around and do some collaborative story-telling with the DM.


----------



## Shazman

Imaro said:


> No argument here, but I think you missed my point... for many... the high level issues were a non-issue. As far as preperation goes, once one gets the rules down it's easy enough to fudge the rules to customize a monster or NPC when necessary... yet use a robust system when desired. I am a firm believer in learning the rules so that you can break them. It's probably easier than having to learn a whole set of new rules.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying WotC went against the assumptions they had on whether people wanted a new system and new fluff... and did it anyway? Doesn't seem a smart way to run a business. Yes Use the Force and healing have issues... but every game has issues. However, I was useing SWSE as a general example not a specifc iteration that should have been 4e. And I have seen both of those issues houseruled into a workable state in various ways quite easily on the Star Wars boards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, I say for your theory on 4e retaining more DM's to be true you assume there is only one type of DM, the one who runs long continuous campaigns in the same world with the same characters, which I just don't buy as the only type.




I really think that 4th edition should have been more like a fantasy version of SW Saga.  Sw Saga looks like a great system, but 4E seems to have many areas where the designers dropped the ball, namely excessive hp bloat of monsters and ultra-gamist elements like martial healing and divine challenge.


----------



## Shazman

[than I did with 4e and it's mathematical sweet spot across all levels.



True, but this assumes that they all wanted a *different game* with totally different fluff(and I'm almost positive that this isn't 100% true)...as opposed to the same game and fluff with fixes... or perhaps tweaks along the lines of Star Wars SE. 

Except, from my experience, there is no sweet spot in 4E.  The game starts out painful to play, with it taking way too long to drop enemies and only gets worse as the levels increase.  At least 3.5 had a sweet spot.


----------



## Shazman

renau1g said:


> It's unfair to compare the combat's of Pathfinder vs 4e as they are usually far different animals. Many PF combats have a single monster, at least in the Kingmaker modules that I purchased, whereas 4e tends towards 4+ enemies at a time. I actually find it boring when we all get jazzed up for combat, we all roll init, then the barbarian charges in and in one hit kills the enemy. It's so anti-climatic. Again, maybe that's me, but 4e low-level combat is very deadly. I've had no problem killing PCs in that system, monster just need to "focus-fire" which is a very basic strategy even most unintelligent monsters would know. If all 5 monsters hit the PC in a round (not hard to do), they will almost certainly be ko'd.
> 
> I also enjoy a story, but if I didn't want a challenging combat system I'd likely not play D&D and just sit around and do some collaborative story-telling with the DM.




Sorry, this doesn't fit with my experiences.  I've been in a number of Pathfinder combats with 7 pcs and over ten enemies, and they were still resolved in a fraction of the time than 4E combats usually are.   Besides, even if 4E combat is supposed to use more opponents than 3.5/Pathfinder combat, the end result is that 4E combat takes much longer to resolve than in Pathfinder.  That's what matters. How much time does combat eat up, and would some of that time be better spent doing non combat things?  Do I want to have one or two combats a game session with 4E (and have time for little else), or do I want to have 4 or 5 with Pathfinder (if that's what the adventure calls for), or just more time for RP and information gathering/problem solving/exploring?


----------



## amerigoV

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If they weren't demanding, you'd get companies shoveling cheap crap at you and calling it good enough. McDonald's would never have sold salads, if they didn't hear the equivalent of threads like this.




So by extension, 4e Essentials is like getting a salad at McDonalds... 

Mmmmm, salad.


----------



## renau1g

Shazman said:


> I really think that 4th edition should have been more like a fantasy version of SW Saga.  Sw Saga looks like a great system, but 4E seems to have many areas where the designers dropped the ball, namely excessive hp bloat of monsters and ultra-gamist elements like martial healing and divine challenge.




They've addressed the hp bloat of monsters in MM3 and I believe will have the DDI updated for this change. 

Ultra-gamist? How is Divine Challenge...the god of a paladin punishing those who ignore him in honourable combat any different than say Lay on Hands, the god granting the paladin the power to heal?  

Martial Healing bothers you? So you've never heard of great leaders who pushed on their soldiers through pain? I know I have. HP is an abstraction of damage so it _does_ work fine.


----------



## Imaro

renau1g said:


> It's unfair to compare the combat's of Pathfinder vs 4e as they are usually far different animals. Many PF combats have a single monster, at least in the Kingmaker modules that I purchased, whereas 4e tends towards 4+ enemies at a time. I actually find it boring when we all get jazzed up for combat, we all roll init, then the barbarian charges in and in one hit kills the enemy. It's so anti-climatic. Again, maybe that's me, but 4e low-level combat is very deadly. I've had no problem killing PCs in that system, monster just need to "focus-fire" which is a very basic strategy even most unintelligent monsters would know. If all 5 monsters hit the PC in a round (not hard to do), they will almost certainly be ko'd.




Unfair?  Why is it unfair to compare the combat systems of 2 rpg's... it doesn't seem "unfair" to compare them any time 4e has a supposed advantage over 3e.  Anyway, as a counterpoint... I find "heroes" having to focus fire on kobolds and goblins round, after round, after round anti-heroic, anti-climactic and boring.  In every edition up till now they were the dregs of the ecology.



renau1g said:


> I also enjoy a story, but if I didn't want a challenging combat system I'd likely not play D&D and just sit around and do some collaborative story-telling with the DM.




Doesn't have to be either or just because WotC made it that way in their game.  Runequest 2 from Mongoose has an engaging and challenging combat system and also runs way faster than 4e's combats.


----------



## renau1g

Shazman said:


> Sorry, this doesn't fit with my experiences.  I've been in a number of Pathfinder combats with 7 pcs and over ten enemies, and they were still resolved in a fraction of the time than 4E combats usually are.   Besides, even if 4E combat is supposed to use more opponents than 3.5/Pathfinder combat, the end result is that 4E combat takes much longer to resolve than in Pathfinder.  That's what matters. How much time does combat eat up, and would some of that time be better spent doing non combat things?  Do I want to have one or two combats a game session with 4E (and have time for little else), or do I want to have 4 or 5 with Pathfinder (if that's what the adventure calls for), or just more time for RP and information gathering/problem solving/exploring?




That depends, would you rather fight one dire wolf, then a pair of goblins, then a quad of kobolds (who all go down in one or two hits) or have one battle with all of them? The focus of 4e seems to trend towards less, but more important battles. I'd much rather have one or two very important combats (story-wise and combat-wise) per session (which also isn't my experience, in most 4 hour sessions with fit 4 combats easily + other stuff).


----------



## Imaro

renau1g said:


> They've addressed the hp bloat of monsters in MM3 and I believe will have the DDI updated for this change.




Yay, I can spend more money to get monsters that work right in my game!! Just like skill challenges!!


----------



## renau1g

Imaro said:


> Unfair?  Why is it unfair to compare the combat systems of 2 rpg's... it doesn't seem "unfair" to compare them any time 4e has a supposed advantage over 3e.  Anyway, as a counterpoint... I find "heroes" having to focus fire on kobolds and goblins round, after round, after round anti-heroic, anti-climactic and boring.  In every edition up till now they were the dregs of the ecology.
> .




They still are, it's just that all the "ecology" is a bit tougher. 

Fine, call it fair, but to make it equivalent you should make sure at least the total enemies are the same, so you should probably add at least 2-3 combats together for PF. Again you can compare apples to oranges, but that wouldn't be a fair assumption.

I find it anti-heroic when a kobold with a sling (the dregs that you speak of) take down many 1st level PC's with one shot. Again, each person enjoys different things.


----------



## renau1g

Imaro said:


> Yay, I can spend more money to get monsters that work right in my game!! Just like skill challenges!!




Ahh..nice post. Very open discussion. Ok, OTOH you can look at a company that is trying new things and makes some mistakes and works to improve them...or you can just post like this.


----------



## Neonchameleon

pemerton said:


> I'm with MerricB on this one.
> 
> For better or worse, there's a movement in the contemporary RPG scene which takes the view that RPGs are _games_, and that playing the game _by the rules_ should deliver the promised experience. That's fundamentally at odds with some more traditional ways of designing RPGs, which are all about having the rules of the game model the ingame world, and then relying on the GM to judiciously suspend the rules in order to deliver the desired play experience (fudging death results against low-level PCs being the most notorious example of this).




But if you _need_ to fudge, then the rules do _not_ model the ingame world. They model some idealisation of the ingame world that your game sometimes approaches. This is a fail at the level you claim you want to succeed.



> I've said before that I see 4e as a bet by WotC that Ron Edwards is right in his view that the way to significantly increase the popularity of RPGs is to design them as _games _from the ground up, dropping whatever elements of world-simulating mechanics are necessary to achieve this. Presumably WotC have some market research to support their bet, but some aspects of what's coming out about Essentials and other downstream developments make me (as a 4e fan) worry that the bet may not have gone as well as they hope.




Say Usenet rather than Ron Edwards. IMO, the Gamers/Dramatist/Simulationists setup makes far more sense than Ron Edwards' GNS.




El Mahdi said:


> Basically: What's the point of targeting teens with the goal of growing a long-term customer* pool, if you treat your long term customers in a manner which says: _"only the new customers matter"_?
> 
> It seems to me that working at _keeping_ customers is just as important...




What do you think things like Errata are for?  It's the experienced players that care, not the new ones who haven't found the reasons.



Kaiyanwang said:


> Point being, that 3.5 or its implements _can_ support the things you said. Explosive Spell metamagic feat was not core, but spread around people hit by a fireball.




So Fireballs and other things only ever explode with feat support.



> Bullrush push people.




Bullrush is the _opposite_ of what I am talking about. In a Bull Rush you take a running start and try to slam into someone. You are really trying rather than simply driving someone back because that's how you roll.



> Shield feats in pathfinder make S&B awesome AND make you fighter push and smash people.




Shield Slam is just about starting to get there. But it's again trying too hard. It's not that I hit someone with my shield. It's that I'm a large arrogant SOB with my shoulder behind my shield - and I am going to try to force you backwards and pin you against a wall automatically.



> Simply put, 3.5/Pathfinder design seem to put , maybe slightly, more emphasis on the way this happens in the gameworld. I Push people with my shield because I perform an action similar to spartans in phalanx, say.




Um... no. You push people with your shield because you use your shield to punch them out. A better method would be crowding them out - using your offensive weapon and crowding forward, your body behind your shield and forcing them to backpeddle. Which is exactly what any fighter (no BAB +6 requirement here) who wants to use this sword and shield style can do. And that is the way I fight much of the time when reenacting and armed with sword and shield. Shield bashes are something else.

So it takes a BAB of +6 and three pre-requisite feats to get your alternative to my RL combat style - and that's a wildly OTT charambara style rather than the controlled and disciplined one I'd expect. Right.



> Of course you can roleplay powers in 4th, but sometimes happpens that powers seems first conceived mechanically, then "fluffed".




Name three martial ones. (I'll grant you a few from the Swordmage list starting with Lightning Lure - but this is less of a problem for spellcasters as they can work on what they want to do first, then calculate a spell). IME, martial powers are fluff first then mechanics - and sometimes the mechanics don't quite live up to the fluff (see: Come and Get It).



> Another thing: 4th edition simply refutes to support mechanics slightly out of push, damage or some utility. This is great or lame, basing on your gamestyle. Let me make an example.




OK...



> In 3.5 and Pathfinder, Efreet can gran Wish to mortals. I see that many people see this as a great risk of gamebreaking. In fact, they see it as a potential abuse of the spell planar binding. What happened in 4th edition? At least in MMI (don't know others) Efreet are apparently far more cool in combat, with all their flames and whirling, flying scimitars. But designers removed the wish feature, because things like that are unthinkable in 4th edition.




No. In 4e, Efreeti can grant Wishes to mortals. However this is solely under the control of the DM because Wishes are _always_ plot devices. And as a plot device, the DM needs almost complete oversight. If an Efreet regularly grants wishes, it becomes almost unusable for anything else. If not, it's entirely up to the DM.



> Of course, the monster is very balanced, but, instatnly, any root with legends an arabian nights, any possible RP implication about desperate heroes, crazy summoners and twisted wishes is gone.




Say slightly suppressed at most rather than gone.



> Moreover, in 3.5/PF, if you advance the efreet with fighter, sorcerer, eldricht knight levels, you come up with a far more cool monster (IMO, this is debatable because of monster creation guidelines).




Very debatable. And coolness out of combat is up to the DM - whereas in combat it only needs enough coolness for the length of time it lives. (I'd say something about the Phane if I knew what one was).

*[*quote] point being, that, reading your post, seems that balance is a big priority... myslef, restrict the wishes of the Efreeti only to the fluff is really maim a monster.. take away something that makes it special. Destroy a whole story that could spring from a wish, a wish abuse, a clever rogue that found a bottle in a lost temple... is take away some magic, some inspiration from the game. From my game, from my tale.[/quote]

But by moving the wishes to the fluff, you don't change a thing. The Wishes are going to be given out by DM fiat and interpreted by DM fiat anyway. The DM can still hand out wishes from the Efreet as a plot device when he wants to. Nothing has really changed here. A clever rogue who finds the bottle in the lost temple still gets a plot device coupon (which is what a Wish is). Nothing has changed here.

If anything, I'd say that restricting the Wishes of an efreeti to the specific 9th level spell of the same name and thereby rendering them mechanical is the part that's taking away some (trivial) amount of magic.


----------



## Imaro

renau1g said:


> That depends, would you rather fight one dire wolf, then a pair of goblins, then a quad of kobolds (who all go down in one or two hits) or have one battle with all of them? The focus of 4e seems to trend towards less, but more important battles. I'd much rather have one or two very important combats (story-wise and combat-wise) per session (which also isn't my experience, in most 4 hour sessions with fit 4 combats easily + other stuff).




The funny thing is that the 4e modules don't back up your claim of running less but more important fights... where are you getting this philosophy from because I haven't seen it expoused in the books either?  And I have never had a 4 hour session of 4e that fit 4 combats (unless they were all super easy) and a bunch of other stuff.  I'd love to listen to a podcast or see a write-up of that session.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Imaro said:


> The funny thing is that the 4e modules don't back up your claim of running less but more important fights... where are you getting this philosophy from because I haven't seen it expoused in the books either?  And I have never had a 4 hour session of 4e that fit 4 combats (unless they were all super easy) and a bunch of other stuff.  I'd love to listen to a podcast or see a write-up of that session.



Most 4e modules suck, no argument.

But I'll run three major and tense combats (with at least one PC on negative HP at the end of most fights) and a fair amount of RP in a three and a half hour session including wondering why the dead PC is still walking.  (At least that's what I did last Sunday).


----------



## ExploderWizard

renau1g said:


> Ahh..nice post. Very open discussion. Ok, OTOH you can look at a company that is trying new things and makes some mistakes and works to improve them...or you can just post like this.




Trying new ideas and offering errata to correct mistakes are good qualities. Charging customers a premium for playtesting your product-not so much.


----------



## renau1g

Ah, I don't run many modules, so I can't really speak to that. I guess that's how _I've_ seen it and conducted it. I don't podcast things, I don't even know how to do it, nor do I have any desire to. I also don't feel like wasting my time writing up a session for you as I have gotten better things to do. If you don't believe me, that's cool, that's your right, but I am telling you my experiences, we've played up to around 8th level or so.


----------



## renau1g

ExploderWizard said:


> Trying new ideas and offering errata to correct mistakes are good qualities. Charging customers a premium for playtesting your product-not so much.




Not sure what you're talking about here? So... they should release a perfect product without any flaws? They _did_ playtest, but once you give thousands and thousands of players the rules than new things do come up and they have taken steps to correct them.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Makers of sheet music, printers of comic books, novels, magazines, newspapers and so forth are all involved in both printing physical and supplying digital IP- not a one of them I know of has reacted to piracy by withdrawing their product from the market.
> 
> Except WotC.




Comic books, magazines, and newspapers are all periodicals.  They are expected to have extremely limited lifespans in the market.  Novels, even, are mostly "read once, then stick on a shelf".  

Only one of the things you mention - sheet music - has anything like an extended time where you expect to use the content, and it still doesn't call for continuing support - nobody is concerned that your copy of Chris Cross' "Think of Laura" might not be compatible with your copy of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, or whether one represents power creep with respect to the other, or something.

And, I think your statement about removing content from the marketplace is not nearly so clear cut as you state it.  The content they currently support is in the digital marketplace as the DDI.  And that form is rather like what Marvel Comics is doing - they don't sell you pdfs once, and then forget it.  They give you _a subscription to a library_ that you may peruse at your leisure.  When your subscription runs out, your access likewise runs out.



> But while there isn't a new computer game or movie (thank God!) out there right now doesn't mean D&D isn't leading into other projects: they've got books, they've got HeroScape, minis...and who knows what they're negotiating for?  Not to mention "stealth" products- I don't know of any that WotC has in particular...




Loss-leading is a risk - like all marketing - and so risk management comes into play.  You loss-lead when the expected payoff overwhelms the risk.  Thus, you expect that they won't loss-lead until the thing they're leading into is sufficiently large to merit the risk.  I recall no announcements of anything so large that would nearly guarantee a payoff.  

You cannot look askance at their strategies base on things the _might be_ doing.  They _might be_ negotiating a partnership with Virgin Galactic, but I don't wonder why that doesn't lead them to develop a sci-fi game.  Things from my imagination are not things I expect their strategy to match.  



> The argument for withdrawing pdfs- which have a lower per unit cost and higher profit margins than physical books- from the market because of piracy is just as valid if not moreso for physical books.




Dude, how many times do I have to say this?  I don't claim that the move was _smart_.  I claim that the fear that led to the move should be _understandable_.  

Last I checked, perfect rationality was not actually a trait of humans.  And companies are made of humans.  While we can expect companies to be a bit distant and detached from our day-to-day concerns, that doesn't mean they aren't victim to human foibles.


----------



## ExploderWizard

renau1g said:


> Not sure what you're talking about here? So... they should release a perfect product without any flaws? They _did_ playtest, but once you give thousands and thousands of players the rules than new things do come up and they have taken steps to correct them.






Interoffice playtesting as the _only _playtesting is darn near none at all. 

It is the same as an author proofreading his/her own work.

A product should see at least one or two rounds of _blind_ playtesting before release.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Stormonu said:


> And quite honestly, "magic item emporiums" has always had a negative connotation associated with it among old-schoolers, who tend to associate it with Monty Haulism.




Speak for yourself. This old-schooler liked books like the Magister and that other one that tied in with Basic D&D.



Stormonu said:


> I'd love to see something like Aurora's Whole Realm Catalog back for 2E.




Agreed.



Imaro said:


> One of the things I find interesting about this whole line about marketing to a younger generation is that D&D has traditionally relied on older players to pull newer players in and teach them the game.




My group of friends learned how to play without the help of any older players.



Imaro said:


> They assumed that everyone ran super long campaigns into high levels, on a regular basis... when I would argue that is probably a small subset of DM's.




The only assumption I would assume they made is that people buying the game would want support for all levels covered in the rules. And I think the high popularity of Paizo's Adventure Paths shows strong evidence that the E6 & E8 groups were the small subset.



Imaro said:


> Personally I find games with consequences for my choices more rewarding than a game where I can make almost any choice and the system protects me from myself (I find this causes me to become bored and less interested in a system)... again, different strokes and all.




I prefer that consequences for my choices occur during play, not during character creation or advancement. 4E provides this for me.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ExploderWizard said:


> Interoffice playtesting as the _only _playtesting is darn near none at all.
> 
> It is the same as an author proofreading his/her own work.
> 
> A product should see at least one or two rounds of _blind_ playtesting before release.




What proof do you have that interoffice playtesting is the only type they performed? I personally know 4E playtesters that don't work for WotC.


----------



## BryonD

MerricB said:


> If a system requires you to fudge the rules as a matter of course, then I'm not such a big fan of the system.



This is a absolutely reasonable position.  I don't think there is any way it can be argued against.

However, I think my counter-point is also reasonable:

If a system thinks it can cover ever contingency within the covers of a book and never expect any fudging, then I'm not such a big fan of the system.

What I want out of an RPG is immense.  Honestly, it probably is not humanly possible to truly design the gold standard of what an RPG would be to me.

"The system" is the game side of an RPG.  What the players bring to the table is the "roleplaying" side of an RPG.  Those two pieces must touch.  And if fudging the system side is not permitted (or is simply minimized) then it is the RP side that must take up the slack.  I think this is the same divide that has been a theme of many of my posts in this thread.

Andy said of prior editions: you "get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience"  There is the EXACT same divide.  The "simulation" is held in balance against the "game play".

Come and Get It, as an example of the general approach, was discussed and the expectation that the players will look at their mechanics (game play) and then define a role play response to fit.  ("pop quiz roleplaying")

And, again, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with focusing on the game side of RPGs.  I don't claim that.  I just claim it is different.

I consider myself a "gamer".  If asked if I was a gamer, I'd say yes without pause.  But, maybe I'm wrong.  I play RPGs.  I have a small stack of board games.  I enjoy them on occasion.  But they can easily go months untouched.  I basically play RPGs.  And I've changes game system many times over the years.  But I don't tend to bounce around.  I generally play one system.  And all these facts have the same reason.  The *game* isn't that important to me.  It is the creation and roleplay that is paramount to me.  That is what I love.  

I am far far more likely to be found detailing a minor npc or even inventing a short historic narrative around them than I am to be playing Pandemic or Arkham Horror.  (both games I have and enjoy, on occasion).  These things, nine times out of ten, don't even impact events at the table.  That isn't their primary purpose.  Their primary purpose is the joy it gives me.  

I love playing with a group because I love seeing my creations come to life with others.
I love playing with a group because I love seeing other people change my creations is cool and unexpected ways.
I also enjoy playing with a group because the *game* is fun.

But the first two are the key.

"The system" is a matrix for creating a reality.  It is the backbone.  But there is no system that can live up to my expectations.  3E doesn't meet my standards.  PF doesn't meet my standards.  4E doesn't meet my standards.

Fudging is needed.  Trying to build a system that avoids fudging is missing the point, for the experience I desire.

I can easily see how someone who is more into "a game" is going greatly prefer a system that doesn't anticipate a lot of fudging.  And 4E allows unlimited roleplay capacity on top of that solid game foundation.  So you have a great game and all the roleplay you could want.  

But it isn't giving me the things I want.  At least, not nearly as well as some other systems.


----------



## Raven Crowking

renau1g said:


> That depends, would you rather fight one dire wolf, then a pair of goblins, then a quad of kobolds (who all go down in one or two hits) or have one battle with all of them?




I can do either or both with my system of choice.  A battle between 4 6th level PCs and over a dozen carnivorous apes, for example, took less than half an hour to play through.  And this was during playtesting, when the players still had to think about thier abilities.  And one of the playtesters was 11.

I could also do this in 3e, simply by choosing appropriate Challenge Ratings.

Consequently, I don't believe that this is an either/or thing....Or that you cannot have a system that offers both tactical complexity and speed of play.  

That said, I will agree that 4e does a particular type of combat very well, and that the designers _*should have *_gone with your philosophy of "running less but more important fights" giving the system they produced.  It's a point in your favour that you espouse it with this system, but AFAICT WotC doesn't do the same.

WotC should, IMHO, official endorse this philosophy, both in its books and in its adventures.  Focus on moving the adventure forward through role-playing, interaction, and skill challenges.  Make tough combats a penalty for failing in a skill challenge, with the stakes of the combats being more than just life-or-death, and the goals of the NPCs being more than just killing the PCs.

For example:  PCs want to save NPC sacrificial victim (SV).  A skill challenge allows them to get close enough to disrupt the ceremony, and then they have to fight their way out.  Failure in the skill challenge means they have to fight their way _*in*_, against a ticking clock....And if the sacrifice is completed, the enemies all become much more powerful.

When the goal becomes something other than "maximize your damage potential", all those nifty powers that PCs have matter a lot more.  This is as true in 4e as it is in any other edition.....including "unofficial editions", like LL and OSRIC.



Neonchameleon said:


> Most 4e modules suck, no argument.




Then there are some things we can all (or almost all) agree on!  


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> What proof do you have that interoffice playtesting is the only type they performed? I personally know 4E playtesters that don't work for WotC.




Glad to hear it. Care to have any of them come here and share their experiences?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My group of friends learned how to play without the help of any older players.




Me too.  But as an older player, I have introduced many others to the hobby.



> I prefer that consequences for my choices occur during play, not during character creation or advancement.




This is one of my biggest beefs with 3e.  



BryonD said:


> Trying to build a system that avoids fudging is missing the point, for the experience I desire.




It is also an exercise in futility, unless you sharply limit what can be done within the system.

Computer games can avoid fudging, because you can only attempt what the programmers planned for in the first place.  You can avoid fudging in a tabletop rpg using the same method:  "Sorry, there's no specific rule for that, so you can't do it."  Otherwise, no rpg system does anything more than supply rules for specific situations, and guidelines for extrapolating from those rules in a fair and consistent manner (i.e., fudging).

Within this context, the oft-cited Page 42 might well be entitled "Your Guide to Creative Fudging".  And that's cool.  That's a good thing.

Skill challenges?  Setting DCs?  Deciding how recent events affect the local market?  Deciding what monsters are encounted?  All fudging.  At least within the meaning of "fudging" being used here.  And that sort of fudging, IMHO at least, is a large part of what differentiates a role-playing game from a non-role-playing game.



RC

.


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> And that form is rather like what Marvel Comics is doing - they don't sell you pdfs once, and then forget it.  They give you _a subscription to a library_ that you may peruse at your leisure.  When your subscription runs out, your access likewise runs out.




Actually, they do pretty much, at least for selected titles. You can buy libraries of the Fantastic Four and the Avengers on DVD-ROM. They haven't been pulled because of piracy and, I can assure you, they're available out there on torrent sites.

EDIT: And Spiderman and X-men.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Skill challenges?  Setting DCs?  Deciding how recent events affect the local market?  Deciding what monsters are encounted?  All fudging.  At least within the meaning of "fudging" being used here.  And that sort of fudging, IMHO at least, is a large part of what differentiates a role-playing game from a non-role-playing game.




Raven- I think we often see to be at odds on things, but in this case I agree with you completely. 

To ME, what makes a roleplaying game special is the human element. The ability (and expectation) of a human player, to take what exists within the framework of the game, and bend/manipulate it to make it a better fit.

I think the heart of the quote, "Say Yes" is the basic essence of a role playing game.  A role playing game, unlike other games lets you say yes. 

Instead of no, you can't move your game piece here, or no you can't steal that car (it's just scenery) a roleplaying game gives you the tools to say "Yes, you can..." 

You might not like the outcome of actually doing/trying whatever it is you did/tried... But at least you had the chance!


----------



## El Mahdi

Umbran said:


> Well, first off, "new" is a relative term. If you're new compared to folks who have been your customers for a decade, you can still expect several years of good service, which is probably enough for now.
> 
> The new folks are more used to the CCGs and videogame models, where games change pretty constantly. They may not be expecting the decade or more of support that some of the older players do.
> 
> And, to be cynical, the new players don't know much about how players of older editions feel they were treated, and they probably don't much care, either. For one thing, not every customer of old feels put upon (I don't, for example). The ones who do feel put upon, I fear, paint themselves in such a poor light as to make the newer players... glad that they aren't around.




Perhaps I didn't state my question very clearly because your answer really doesn't cover the topic I was trying to get at. Most likely poor communication on my part.

Let me try this: How can one's strategy be considered to be "cultivating a long-term customer pool", if the only effort put into cultivating is with "new" customers, while neglecting to entice current customers to stay?

Basically, I'm saying that WotC's marketing has not seemed to be geared toward creating a long-term customer pool (at least until the Red-Box Essentials line). Maybe that's changing a bit now. But for those saying that WotC is targeting teens in order to generate a long-term customer pool, the logic doesn't add up. WotC already has a long-term customer pool that for the last few years they have seemed to be unwilling to woo.

Generating a few years (or even a decade) of loyalty from a customer does not, to me, equate to a "long-term" customer pool. Perhaps our definitions are different, but I view a long-term customer as someone you attempt to keep for the majority of the customers life. Even a ten-year customer plan is just a short term targeting of a specific demographic for maximized short-term earnings. But then again, maybe my concept of this is simply at odds with standard American business philosophy?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Raven- I think we often see to be at odds on things




We do, but I enjoy reading your posts, and I agree with you more than you probably realize.  I sometimes get caught up in minutia (odd for a gamer, I know) and forget to look at the big picture.  In the big picture, most EN Worlders are people I'd share a pint or a game table with.  AFAICT, anyway.



> but in this case I agree with you completely.




Makes you wonder where you made the mistake, doesn't it?  



RC


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> Actually, they do pretty much, at least for selected titles. You can buy libraries of the Fantastic Four and the Avengers on DVD-ROM.




Here's something interesting.  Those libraries don't seem to be available on Marvel's own site.  Only through Amazon (and, I guess, other retailers).  If you go to Marvel itself, they're offering their Digital Unlimited (which includes those libraries, and a whole lot more).  The iPad app gives access to... it looks like 10% of the total library.

Interesting business decisions, there...


----------



## ggroy

El Mahdi said:


> Let me try this: How can one's strategy be considered to be "cultivating a long-term customer pool", if the only effort put into cultivating is with "new" customers, while neglecting to entice current customers to stay?
> 
> Basically, I'm saying that WotC's marketing has not seemed to be geared toward creating a long-term customer pool (at least until the Red-Box Essentials line). Maybe that's changing a bit now. But for those saying that WotC is targeting teens in order to generate a long-term customer pool, the logic doesn't add up. WotC already has a long-term customer pool that for the last few years they have seemed to be unwilling to woo.
> 
> Generating a few years (or even a decade) of loyalty from a customer does not, to me, equate to a "long-term" customer pool. Perhaps our definitions are different, but I view a long-term customer as someone you attempt to keep for the majority of the customers life. Even a ten-year customer plan is just a short term targeting of a specific demographic for maximized short-term earnings. But then again, maybe my concept of this is simply at odds with standard American business philosophy?




What would be an example of a "long term customer pool" in the rpg business?

Outside of rpgs, the only "long term customer pool" I can think of offhand would be for various food brands like Coke, McDonalds, etc ...


----------



## Shazman

renau1g said:


> They've addressed the hp bloat of monsters in MM3 and I believe will have the DDI updated for this change.
> 
> Ultra-gamist? How is Divine Challenge...the god of a paladin punishing those who ignore him in honourable combat any different than say Lay on Hands, the god granting the paladin the power to heal?
> 
> Martial Healing bothers you? So you've never heard of great leaders who pushed on their soldiers through pain? I know I have. HP is an abstraction of damage so it _does_ work fine.




I find divine challenge silly.  Having the god smite the paladin's enemies makes sense.  Having the god smite only those enemies that attack other party members makes no sense.  It is a gamist construct that exists only because the paladin is supposed to be a defender.  I can possibly see martial leaders inspiring others to push on when they are hurt, but what about when a character is dying (in game terms) and shouldn't even be able to hear the encouraging shouts of the warlord?  He literally goes from dying to being able to fight just fine because someone without any magical healing capability shouted at him?  Sorry, that crosses the line for me.  I am actually surpised they didn't go even farther with divorcing 4E from any reality or versimaltude, cause once you get to this point you might as well say that all PC's can fly, don't need to eat or sleep, and can breathe and move in water just fine because that's more "fun" than your characters acting like real flesh and blood characters.

*This thread has done a pretty good job of staying away from edition wars. Don't shove it in that direction, please. ~ PCat*


----------



## Beginning of the End

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We also know from sales figures that certain 4Ed releases are at least as strong in the market as 3.5 was.  Those sales have to come from somewhere.




I'll confess ignorance. Could you link me to these sales figures you're talking about? I'm unaware of WotC releasing any comprehensive data like that.


----------



## Kaiyanwang

Neonchameleon said:


> So Fireballs and other things only ever explode with feat support.



The feat came in 3.5. 4th edition came later - so designers were experienced and had more things to add to spells and effects. BUt my point was that 3.5/PF CAN support effect like this in spells, regardless of when they was first introduced. Some spell has feats "directly built into" like delayed fireball and Delay Spells. The fact that I have feats to apply increases customization and enjoyment of the system, at least for me.



> Bullrush is the _opposite_ of what I am talking about. In a Bull Rush you take a running start and try to slam into someone. You are really trying rather than simply driving someone back because that's how you roll.



Bullrush is push people using strenght. You can fluff it in thousand ways. Jump and push with your feet, headlong rush, take and launch back (even if this is more like grapple), strike with the top of your axe on the face and then use a strike with your shoulders... and with PF CMB vs CMD, yeah, is actually how high you roll.



> Shield Slam is just about starting to get there. But it's again trying too hard. It's not that I hit someone with my shield. It's that I'm a large arrogant SOB with my shoulder behind my shield - and I am going to try to force you backwards and pin you against a wall automatically.



I don't see what's the problem with this feat... I don't understand what you mean here.



> Um... no. You push people with your shield because you use your shield to punch them out. A better method would be crowding them out - using your offensive weapon and crowding forward, your body behind your shield and forcing them to backpeddle. Which is exactly what any fighter (no BAB +6 requirement here) who wants to use this sword and shield style can do. And that is the way I fight much of the time when reenacting and armed with sword and shield. Shield bashes are something else.



 I continue to do not understand.. you mean that is the same of Tide of Iron, but in 4th fighters take ToI before? This is a good point but I don't see other things. And are not things like ToI that make me wonder, but for this see below.



> So it takes a BAB of +6 and three pre-requisite feats to get your alternative to my RL combat style - and that's a wildly OTT charambara style rather than the controlled and disciplined one I'd expect. Right.



Shield proficency, fighter already has it. So TWO feats. As I said, I can understand the BAB that one can consider too high.. but remember that is an additional control given to one dude that is beating you. If a PF fighter starts to beat you, you are not "marked". *You are gonna die.*

Two weapon fighting is not only used for shields. You can use 2 shortswords and be a thrower with that feat. The fighter will switch "stance", simply dopping or placing in the backpack weapon not needed, and drawing the more appropriate. A good fighter takes advantage form every feat he has, not only from capstones. And tries different strategies from different feats and weapons. Even S&B can vary dramatically, if I'm using Combat Expertise, improved trip and Shield + Light Flail, or Power Attck and Shield + Handaxe.



> Name three martial ones. (I'll grant you a few from the Swordmage list starting with Lightning Lure - but this is less of a problem for spellcasters as they can work on what they want to do first, then calculate a spell). IME, martial powers are fluff first then mechanics - and sometimes the mechanics don't quite live up to the fluff (see: Come and Get It).



Come and Get it Strengt vs AC (??) Exorcism of Steel. You complain about Shield Slam by level 6? Here we have a disarm by level 17 (but this is on the same weirdness of Sand in the Eyes)!!  Blinding barrage (why don't stab them directly in the eyes, you you are so accurate?). IMO, they simply decided that Rogue needed a blinding power, and then fluffed it.



> No. In 4e, Efreeti can grant Wishes to mortals. However this is solely under the control of the DM because Wishes are _always_ plot devices. And as a plot device, the DM needs almost complete oversight. If an Efreet regularly grants wishes, it becomes almost unusable for anything else. If not, it's entirely up to the DM.



IME, Whishes are not necessarily plot devices. they can be unexpected tricks, surprises, gift or disaters both for PCs and DM. And I would decide by myself if use or not to use an Efreeti, instead to recurr to DM-fiat and to a monster that iss redundant with a devil or a fire giant (has horns and kills me with fire).



> Say slightly suppressed at most rather than gone.



We have different concepts of "slightly suppressed" so . 



> But by moving the wishes to the fluff, you don't change a thing. The Wishes are going to be given out by DM fiat and interpreted by DM fiat anyway. The DM can still hand out wishes from the Efreet as a plot device when he wants to. Nothing has really changed here. A clever rogue who finds the bottle in the lost temple still gets a plot device coupon (which is what a Wish is). Nothing has changed here.
> 
> If anything, I'd say that restricting the Wishes of an efreeti to the specific 9th level spell of the same name and thereby rendering them mechanical is the part that's taking away some (trivial) amount of magic.



Meybe they change with an errata.. but IIRC is clearly stated that Efreeti don't grant wishes. A favor to anoble one grants another favor, that the lore check (see under DC 30) states as a "wish". And i read as a "of course is a wish" with a pat on my shoulder.

Something has changed here.


----------



## Neonchameleon

RavenCrowking said:
			
		

> Otherwise, no rpg system does anything more than supply rules for specific situations, and guidelines for extrapolating from those rules in a fair and consistent manner (i.e., fudging).




Here there are two things sharing terminology.

When fudging was brought up first (low level), I was thinking of the fudging to keep PCs alive.  Slight DM intervention to change results of the sort you need when wizards have d4 hp and weapons do d6 damage.  Explicitely and secretly changing the rules as things go on.  Rather than responding and playing fairly but creatively.



BryonD said:


> If a system thinks it can cover ever contingency within the covers of a book and never expect any fudging, then I'm not such a big fan of the system.




Of course.  You're never going to get a perfect RPG 

On the other hand, any good system should strive to minimise the amount of fudging you actually need.  Or quite intentionally make it very open (as the 4e skill/skill challenge system does)



> Come and Get It, as an example of the general approach, was discussed and the expectation that the players will look at their mechanics (game play) and then define a role play response to fit. ("pop quiz roleplaying")




And yet, to me the core problem with CAGI is that it was a power someone worked out and thought cool (which it is) and the mechanics of the implementation lag behind the goal.  (I'd have done Close Burst 3, Str+2 vs Will, Hit: Target must move their speed, moving closer to you each square by the easiest path until they come adjacent.  Secondary attack: Str (+ Weapon) vs AC.



> But I don't tend to bounce around. I generally play one system. And all these facts have the same reason. The *game* isn't that important to me. It is the creation and roleplay that is paramount to me. That is what I love.




And me   - but a good system facilitates good RP to me and makes me feel more like my character.  A clunky system with a lot of looking up (e.g. Rolemaster: Tables Lore) or mechanics that make competent characters incompetent (e.g. Serenity) throws me out.  The kinaesthetic nature of 4e helps draw me in.



Raven Crowking said:


> It is also an exercise in futility, unless you sharply limit what can be done within the system.




Eliminating crime is an excercise in futility unless you shoot everyone or make everything legal.  This doesn't mean I don't want a good legal system or police force.  There's merit in the goal.



> Within this context, the oft-cited Page 42 might well be entitled "Your Guide to Creative Fudging". And that's cool. That's a good thing.




And the existance of page 42 reduces the amount of fudging required - I'm not making it all up, instead I've got guidelines and a framework.  Like a police force it's never going to be perfect but a fair attempt is a very good thing.


----------



## renau1g

Raven Crowking said:


> WotC should, IMHO, official endorse this philosophy, both in its books and in its adventures.  Focus on moving the adventure forward through role-playing, interaction, and skill challenges.  Make tough combats a penalty for failing in a skill challenge, with the stakes of the combats being more than just life-or-death, and the goals of the NPCs being more than just killing the PCs.
> 
> For example:  PCs want to save NPC sacrificial victim (SV).  A skill challenge allows them to get close enough to disrupt the ceremony, and then they have to fight their way out.  Failure in the skill challenge means they have to fight their way _*in*_, against a ticking clock....And if the sacrifice is completed, the enemies all become much more powerful.
> 
> When the goal becomes something other than "maximize your damage potential", all those nifty powers that PCs have matter a lot more.  This is as true in 4e as it is in any other edition.....including "unofficial editions", like LL and OSRIC.




I agree with this, I wish there was more consequence to combat, but as you say, not edition specific. I may have to take a look at your rules then. 



Shazman said:


> I find divine challenge silly.  Having the god smite the paladin's enemies makes sense.  Having the god smite only those enemies that attack other party members makes no sense.  It is a gamist construct that exists only because the paladin is supposed to be a defender.  I can possible see martial leaders inspiering others to push on when they are hurt, but what about when a character is dying (in game terms) an sshouldn't even be able to hear the encouraging shouts of the warlord.  He literally goes from dying to being able to fight just fine because someone without any magical healing capability because someone shouted at him?  Sorry, that crosses the line for me.  I am actually surpised they didn't go even farther with divorcing 4E from any reality or versimaltude, cause once you get to this point you might as well say that all PC's can fly, don'y need to eat or sleep and can breathe and move in water just fine because that's more "fun" than your characters acting like real flesh and blood characters.




Actually, having gods smite people makes no sense in any context, nor does casting magic missile, or divine healing, or 99% of D&D. If you have no problem with a wizard stopping the very fabric of time (Time Stop) I fail to see how it's that different. 

Ok, so you can't hear the warlord physically, maybe the spirit of the warrior has yet to enter death's door, the light is inviting and so warm, but suddenly there's a pull from somewhere else, a familiar voice cuts through the darkness and reminds the fallen hero that there's unfinished business. Somehow, this hero pulls away from the light and returns to his body, ready to continue his quest. 

Very little in D&D is actually "acting like flesh and blood" that's for far grittier systems. There's no real-world physics in any edition of D&D, fireball _doesn't _ light anything on fire? Really? How does that make sense?


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> Honestly Merric, I don't have much experience with high level 3e and I think this might be one of the things WotC messed up on. They assumed that everyone ran super long campaigns into high levels, on a regular basis... when I would argue that is probably a small subset of DM's.




My recollection from the time of 3e's release is a bit different from that:

The market research had shown them that a typical campaign that got off the ground ran for 12 to 18 months, and whatever level it go to at the end of that time is what it got to.  The assumption is that during those 12 to 18 months, folks wanted to see a greater percentage of the power levels available at the system - that in an 18 month campaign, you could reach level 18 to 20.  

So the game was designed such that playing once a week, three or four encounters per session, 13.3 encounters per level (on average - so roughly one level per month), and you get into that upper tier near the end of 18 months.

If there was a flaw in the assumptions, it was that folks wanted to see those higher power levels.


----------



## Shazman

Imaro said:


> Yay, I can spend more money to get monsters that work right in my game!! Just like skill challenges!!




Okay, so it took them 3 monster manuals to maybe get monsters right.  In this case, "getting it right", is having the monsters do more damage, so perhaps DMs will use lower level monsters, so perhaps combats will be slightly quicker.  Sounds like too little, too late to me.  I still can't fathom how they didn't see the "grind" in playtesting, or if they did, they didn't consider it to be big enough problem to try and fix it.  It really makes me skeptical as to how much playtesting was done, cause I don't see how they would have deemed a typical 4E combat to have been completed in an acceptable amount of time unless they always used mostly minions in their encounters.


----------



## BryonD

Beginning of the End said:


> I'll confess ignorance. Could you link me to these sales figures you're talking about? I'm unaware of WotC releasing any comprehensive data like that.



I don't have any links.  But the initial core for 4E sold a ton.  There is no doubt about that.


----------



## El Mahdi

ggroy said:


> What would be an example of a "long term customer pool" in the rpg business?
> 
> Outside of rpgs, the only "long term customer pool" I can think of offhand would be for various food brands like Coke, McDonalds, etc ...




Those are exactly what I envision when I think of a long-term customer pool.

Maybe my definition is different than those used by most businesses?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Kaiyanwang said:


> Bullrush is push people using strenght. You can fluff it in thousand ways. Jump and push with your feet, headlong rush, take and launch back (even if this is more like grapple), strike with the top of your axe on the face and then use a strike with your shoulders... and with PF CMB vs CMD, yeah, is actually how high you roll.




"You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.". It requires me to build up a head of steam or stop trying to slice them open in order to push someone. That is the opposite approach to the one of crowding the enemy and taking their position and unbalancing them by being right up there in their face that Tide of Iron represents in this case.

Bull Rush is a maneuver I have chosen to do instead of trying to cut someone open. Tide of Iron is how I fight reflexively and doesn't hinder my trying to eviscerate someone.



> I don't see what's the problem with this feat... I don't understand what you mean here.




I have no problem with the feat. If I had a problem with OTT cinematic martial arts I wouldn't play 4e. It just doesn't do the job. I can get the big flourishes in 3e - but 4e gives me small ones of the sort that add richness.



> Shield proficency, fighter already has it. So TWO feats.




Point.



> As I said, I can understand the BAB that one can consider too high.. but remember that is an additional control given to one dude that is beating you. If a PF fighter starts to beat you, you are not "marked". *You are gonna die.*




You probably are in 4e as well. The marking just means that running or finding a new opponent means you die _faster_.



> Come and Get it Strengt vs AC (??)




Was fluff first and bad mechanical implementation IMO.



> Exorcism of Steel. You complain about Shield Slam by level 6? Here we have a disarm by level 17 (but this is on the same weirdness of Sand in the Eyes)!!




Again, that's fluff first and weaker mechanical resolution. Disarm shouldn't be in 4e other than as explanatory fluff from PCs and a very rare power.



> Blinding barrage (why don't stab them directly in the eyes, you you are so accurate?). IMO, they simply decided that Rogue needed a blinding power, and then fluffed it.




Why? I wouldn't have done it that way if I'd wanted one. (Bad joke is how I'd have described it).



> IME, Whishes are not necessarily plot devices. they can be unexpected tricks, surprises, gift or disaters both for PCs and DM. And I would decide by myself if use or not to use an Efreeti, instead to recurr to DM-fiat and to a monster that iss redundant with a devil or a fire giant (has horns and kills me with fire).




You've just defined a minor plot device.  Edit: In a number of RPGs I'd just call it plot points and have done.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Neonchameleon said:


> Here there are two things sharing terminology.




Agreed.

I am not at all a fan of "fudging to keep PCs alive".  I have no problem with PCs dying, either as a player or a GM.  Obviously, YMMV.  Moreover, the more effort it requires to create a PC, the harder it is to make another....



> Eliminating crime is an excercise in futility unless you shoot everyone or make everything legal.  This doesn't mean I don't want a good legal system or police force.  There's merit in the goal.




Only if this sort of fudging is analogous to crime (i.e., something undesired in the first place).  If you are of the same mind as I am (that this sort of creative adaptation of the rules is what makes a role-playing game function), it would read more like:  "Eliminating legitimacy is an excercise in futility unless you make everything illegal."



renau1g said:


> I agree with this, I wish there was more consequence to combat, but as you say, not edition specific. I may have to take a look at your rules then.




Please wait until revisions are done, and a pdf with Table of Contents, Index, and Bookmarks becomes available later this year.  You'll be happy you waited.

EDIT:  In the meantime, you can throw a little RCFG into your 4e, thanks to this thread:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/249639-yoink-rcfg.html .


RC


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> Here's something interesting.  Those libraries don't seem to be available on Marvel's own site.  Only through Amazon (and, I guess, other retailers).  If you go to Marvel itself, they're offering their Digital Unlimited (which includes those libraries, and a whole lot more).  The iPad app gives access to... it looks like 10% of the total library.
> 
> Interesting business decisions, there...




It's not *that* interesting. I can get those DVD-ROMs at my local comic store like all the other books and comics I can't get on Marvel's site. It's simple enough. The Marvel.com site focuses on licensed merchandise and direct subscriptions but Marvel's comics and trade paperbacks are distributed in the traditional way. I know distributors (and probably game stores) who wish Paizo would follow in the same model as a publisher.


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> It is also an exercise in futility, unless you sharply limit what can be done within the system.



Obviously, I agree with you in principle.  But, honestly, I don't think there is any action a PC or NPC can take in 3E that the same PC or NPC can not take in 4E.

"What can be done" isn't really the issue.  It is more about how the system models these things and whether "imagining what could exist and ... assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic " or "good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming" should be the controlling factor in building that model.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Beginning of the End said:


> I'll confess ignorance. Could you link me to these sales figures you're talking about? I'm unaware of WotC releasing any comprehensive data like that.




There was a poster here who used to post Amazon (and other sources) sales figures on a regular basis- essentially, 4Ed books equalled or exceeded their 3.5 counterparts in comparative sales windows.

Or as ByronD put it, it sold a ton.


----------



## billd91

Edit: Eh, whatever.


----------



## BryonD

Neonchameleon said:


> On the other hand, any good system should strive to minimise the amount of fudging you actually need.  Or quite intentionally make it very open (as the 4e skill/skill challenge system does)



That sounds fine, but only in a vacuum, as you have placed it.   

Again, we agree there will never be a perfect RPG.  The perfect RPG for me would never require fudging.

But, any good system should strive to create as accurate a model as possible.  And, to me, this is far more important than the presence or absence of fudging.  




> And yet, to me the core problem with CAGI is that it was a power someone worked out and thought cool (which it is) and the mechanics of the implementation lag behind the goal.  (I'd have done Close Burst 3, Str+2 vs Will, Hit: Target must move their speed, moving closer to you each square by the easiest path until they come adjacent.  Secondary attack: Str (+ Weapon) vs AC.



Fair enough, to me CAGI isn't the point itself, it was just the example that drives to the point.  The defense of CAGI has been that the player should roleplay in a manner that fits the mechanics, not the other way around.  And that applies much more broadly to the design philosophy of 4E in general.  And this aspect has been trumpeted as a great thing about 4E by its fans.  So fine, it is fun and does exactly as intended.  But it remains a difference.



> And me   - but a good system facilitates good RP to me and makes me feel more like my character.  A clunky system with a lot of looking up (e.g. Rolemaster: Tables Lore) or mechanics that make competent characters incompetent (e.g. Serenity) throws me out.  The kinaesthetic nature of 4e helps draw me in.



Again, roleplay on top of any system is not the question.  The question is: how well does the system model the roleplay?

I don't play RM or Serenity, so no comment there.  But I've been running 3E for a decade now.   Your concerns listed don't apply, so they don't add to this conversation.




> And the existance of page 42 reduces the amount of fudging required - I'm not making it all up, instead I've got guidelines and a framework.  Like a police force it's never going to be perfect but a fair attempt is a very good thing.



If you realize that I don't think a set of books could ever capture everything I need, you can probably easily imagine how I feel about trying to achieve that in a page.


----------



## Shazman

renau1g said:


> I agree with this, I wish there was more consequence to combat, but as you say, not edition specific. I may have to take a look at your rules then.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, having gods smite people makes no sense in any context, nor does casting magic missile, or divine healing, or 99% of D&D. If you have no problem with a wizard stopping the very fabric of time (Time Stop) I fail to see how it's that different.
> 
> Ok, so you can't hear the warlord physically, maybe the spirit of the warrior has yet to enter death's door, the light is inviting and so warm, but suddenly there's a pull from somewhere else, a familiar voice cuts through the darkness and reminds the fallen hero that there's unfinished business. Somehow, this hero pulls away from the light and returns to his body, ready to continue his quest.
> 
> Very little in D&D is actually "acting like flesh and blood" that's for far grittier systems. There's no real-world physics in any edition of D&D, fireball _doesn't _ light anything on fire? Really? How does that make sense?




Yes, a lot of things in D&D are not realistic, but they make sense in context of how things in the D&D universe are supposed to work.  A lot of things introduced in 4E are not only not realistic, but are completely disconnected from how things are supposed to work in D&D.  I believe the term for this is versimalitude, and it is something that I find almost completely lacking in 4E.  It is, however, something that I and many others expect from my RPG of choice because it enhances suspension of disbelief and thus enjoyment of the game.  It's hard to be immersed in a game when everytime you try to really get into it, you get smacked in the face by something so unabashedly gamist that it completely jolts you out of your suspension of disbelief.  This is one my criticisms against 4E.


----------



## Umbran

El Mahdi said:


> Generating a few years (or even a decade) of loyalty from a customer does not, to me, equate to a "long-term" customer pool. Perhaps our definitions are different




I expect our definitions are different.  In my mind, "long term" is a relative thing.

For example, take the comic book trade.  I'm told by folks in the trade that the expected term for a comic book customer is a couple of years.  You get into them in junior high or high school, read and buy frantically for a couple of years, and then stop.  There's some variation in that pattern, and certainly a long tail of die-hard fans that are useful to the trade, but the bulk of the actual sales of comics are to these short-timers.  An ever-revolving door, which is why comics repeat origin stories and exposit the history so often.  For comics, a long-term customer is anyone sticking around much longer a couple of years.

So, what's the typical retention time for a gamer as a customer?  Not just how long to they continue to play in general, or how long they play a particular game, but how long do they continue to buy products for a particular system?  I would not be surprised if, in general, a given player is saturated after only a couple of years, and purchases will drop precipitously.  Once you've got an entire shelf full of stuff, you probably don't need more to continue playing that game indefinitely.

In this scheme, a 10-year customer would be long-term, just as it would be for comics.

Ten years also seems to be about the lifespan of an edition, interestingly enough....


----------



## BryonD

renau1g said:


> IThere's no real-world physics in any edition of D&D, fireball _doesn't _ light anything on fire? Really? How does that make sense?




3E PH: Fireball:  The _fireball_ sets fire to combustibles...

PF Core: Fireball:   The _fireball_ sets fire to combustibles...

Just fyi


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> Obviously, I agree with you in principle.  But, honestly, I don't think there is any action a PC or NPC can take in 3E that the same PC or NPC can not take in 4E.




That is the beauty of RPGs, and of the base idea that the system serves the setting, not the other way around.

The pertinent question, IMHO, is "Does a game support this base idea, or not?"  For example, if the game has problems if a power only works when it makes sense within the context of the setting, then that game does not support the idea that the system serves the setting.

An example of this is the oft-mentioned CaGI, where the power works regardless of whether or not it matches the NPCs/monsters affected, or the circumstances.  How do you CaGI a construct that follows a preprogrammed set of instructions?  How do you CaGI a swarm of pirhanna out of the ocean and up onto land?  How does a push power work on a creature physically too heavy to push?  (In the case of this last question, I have heard "Perhaps it was always there" as a response....In which case, Why use a grid?)  How do you yell a dying man back on his feet.....And, once that initial surge of adrenalin is gone, why doesn't he collapse again?

That these problems exist isn't the real problem, though.  As has been rightly pointed out, all editions of D&D have had similar problems.

The real problem, IMHO, is that, in prior editions, the DM was supposed to adjudicate the rules in order to correct these problems.  In 4e, over and over, I have heard that the DM who corrects these problems *is doing something wrong*.

And that is where the problem lies.  If the setting leads to the mechanics, then correcting the mechanics to the setting is a good thing.  If the mechanics lead to the setting, it is expected that the setting will shift to match what the mechanics do.

Nothing WotC has put out indicates anything other than an expectation that the setting will shift to match what the mechanics do.

Or, if they have adjusted this philosophy, I haven't seen it.....And would like some info on where to find it.



RC

.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Raven Crowking said:


> That these problems exist isn't the real problem, though. As has been rightly pointed out, all editions of D&D have had similar problems.
> 
> The real problem, IMHO, is that, in prior editions, the DM was supposed to adjudicate the rules in order to correct these problems. In 4e, over and over, I have heard that the DM who corrects these problems *is doing something wrong*.
> 
> And that is where the problem lies. If the setting leads to the mechanics, then correcting the mechanics to the setting is a good thing. If the mechanics lead to the setting, it is expected that the setting will shift to match what the mechanics do.
> 
> Nothing WotC has put out indicates anything other than an expectation that the setting will shift to match what the mechanics do.
> 
> Or, if they have adjusted this philosophy, I haven't seen it.....And would like some info on where to find it.
> 
> 
> 
> RC
> 
> .




I must spread some XP around. That is a fantastic parsing of the rules serving the game principle.


----------



## Kaiyanwang

Neonchameleon said:


> "You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.". It requires me to build up a head of steam or stop trying to slice them open in order to push someone. That is the opposite approach to the one of crowding the enemy and taking their position and unbalancing them by being right up there in their face that Tide of Iron represents in this case.
> 
> Bull Rush is a maneuver I have chosen to do instead of trying to cut someone open. Tide of Iron is how I fight reflexively and doesn't hinder my trying to eviscerate someone.




OK.. tide of iron can do it better. Or least, can do it before. But this does not demostrates that there are things that 3.5/PF cannot do compared to 4th (the original point). You can say Tide>BR, not Tide>Shield Slam. And BR can be a good substitution if played smart.

Moreover, once a shield fighter hit level 6, he can full attacks. It can be immediately 2 "tides" per round. Think about a Shield Slam + Whirlwind Attack. I prefer 3.5/PF because if well combined, 2 "powers" become 4, 6 basing on the situation.



> I have no problem with the feat. If I had a problem with OTT cinematic martial arts I wouldn't play 4e. It just doesn't do the job. I can get the big flourishes in 3e - but 4e gives me small ones of the sort that add richness.




You mean, you got more things at level 1 in 4th. Fair. 4th has the concept of sweet spot extended. But I prefer PC grow like they do in 3.5 pathfinder - and less options are better for newbies too (once the newb learned to smash people, he will learn to sunder, trip, disarm and so on).



> You probably are in 4e as well. The marking just means that running or finding a new opponent means you die _faster_.




Not sure at the same rate. But this is, of course, a thing connected to the math of the game. I prefer more swingy combats, but, again, a matter of tastes.



> Was fluff first and bad mechanical implementation IMO.




OK, but I decided my future buyings (for 4th edition: nr. 0) basing my decision even on these things (to stay on topic).



> Again, that's fluff first and weaker mechanical resolution. Disarm shouldn't be in 4e other than as explanatory fluff from PCs and a very rare power.




See above. About disarm, myself, I remember an epic intimidate check of a Fighter in a former campaing. Made after 7 guardsmen disarmed in the same round. I can see how disarm should be difficult (so a feat/power depending from the edition) but IMO relegate it to fluff is way too much. Again, your tastes, that I respect.



> You've just defined a minor plot device.  Edit: In a number of RPGs I'd just call it plot points and have done.




OK - but a favor is not a spell (see the DC 30 lore check). So, assuming that they ae both plot devices (well, ANYTHING should be, following this reasoning), they will work differently. If they do not, I risk to kill my player immersion.


----------



## caelum

renau1g said:


> Imaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yay, I can spend more money to get monsters that work right in my game!! Just like skill challenges!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh..nice post. Very open discussion. Ok, OTOH you can look at a company that is trying new things and makes some mistakes and works to improve them...or you can just post like this.
Click to expand...



Although Imaro made it in a flippant way, I think this is a valid point.  Along with the change in rules, WotC changed their business philosophy with 4e.  Probably due to the hue and cry over 3.0/3.5, they decided that comparable upgrades will just occur organically as periodic patches to the system.  This leads to a continuous stream of "rules updates" - which are much bigger than errata, in some cases they reflect substantial changes in the underlying design.  Like, for example, the change in monster damage. 

I'm sure the response is that the new rules are accessible through DDI, but for a casual gamer who just wants to try the system out, that's not really a helpful option.  (To WotC's credit, they don't charge for these kinds of thing - you can download the update documents for free.  But errata are really hard to use unless you know them really, really well, so it is an unwieldy solution.)

I think that core rules should stand on their own, and at this point 4e's have been so heavily modified that they are unwieldy!  Conveniently enough, Essentials is now about to come out and assemble the new rules in one source.

There's no good answer to this - certainly the rapid 3.0/3.5 update wasn't a good solution either.  But it is a definite change, and one that many people find unattractive.


----------



## El Mahdi

Umbran said:


> I expect our definitions are different. In my mind, "long term" is a relative thing.
> 
> ...
> 
> In this scheme, a 10-year customer would be long-term, just as it would be for comics.
> 
> Ten years also seems to be about the lifespan of an edition, interestingly enough....




This makes sense...I don't like it, but it makes sense.


----------



## Reynard

caelum said:


> I think that core rules should stand on their own, and at this point 4e's have been so heavily modified that they are unwieldy!  Conveniently enough, Essentials is now about to come out and assemble the new rules in one source.
> 
> There's no good answer to this - certainly the rapid 3.0/3.5 update wasn't a good solution either.  But it is a definite change, and one that many people find unattractive.




Even with DDI, a table-top RPG is not a piece of software. Constant patches and upgrades work for MMOs largely because most of the math is done behind the scenes and most people don't pay any attention anyway. TTRPGs don't work that way. The mechanics are more intimate.

But then, I think simplifying rules and speeding play and putting the fun back into the eyes 9and hands) of the beholders is the only real way to get back the "disenchanted". The only reason Pathfinder is a success and the retro-clones exist is because current D&D isn't "doing it" for a significant number of D&D players. That should be a major concern for WotC: people are getting their D&D fix elsewhere.


----------



## El Mahdi

caelum said:


> ...To WotC's credit, they don't charge for these kinds of thing - you can download the update documents for free. But errata are really hard to use unless you know them really, really well, so it is an unwieldy solution...




You aren't kidding either. Did you see Morrus's attempt to incorporate errata into his PHB? He has an entertaining description here: Morrus attempts to update his PHB. 

It reminds me of additions, corrections, and supplements that were made to T.O.'s (Technical Orders*) in the military.  They would end up with dozens of extra inserted pages showing new text.



*T.O.'s, or Technical Orders are procedural and informational books used to operate and maintain technical systems and equipment...such as aircraft, ground support equipment, etc. They contain repair procedures, schematics, and operating information, etc. They can be anywhere from the size of a paperback book, to a 200 year old family bible.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Next comment I see about CAGI as representative of 4e is going to be met by a diatribe housecats and the way they can slaughter commoners and first level wizards as representative of 3e/PF. CAGI is a (rare) example of the mechanics falling short of the fluff. And there's a reason it's the one always brought up.



BryonD said:


> But, any good system should strive to create as accurate a model as possible. And, to me, this is far more important than the presence or absence of fudging.




Accurate or precise? Because I'm more than happy to give up some precision even with a little accuracy. (I own GURPS vehicles).



> Again, roleplay on top of any system is not the question. The question is: how well does the system model the roleplay?




The question to me is: How well does the system _support_ the roleplay. Modelling is just one of the steps towards supporting.



> I don't play RM or Serenity, so no comment there. But I've been running 3E for a decade now. Your concerns listed don't apply, so they don't add to this conversation.




OK



Shazman said:


> Yes, a lot of things in D&D are not realistic, but they make sense in context of how things in the D&D universe are supposed to work. A lot of things introduced in 4E are not only not realistic, but are completely disconnected from how things are supposed to work in D&D.




And there we have our problem  4e is a new game.



> I believe the term for this is versimalitude, and it is something that I find almost completely lacking in 4E.




And I find it far more present there than in many other games including 3e and PF - as I've mentioned, the default ability to move people when you do relevant things rather than have them just stand there goes a long way.



Raven Crowking said:


> The pertinent question, IMHO, is "Does a game support this base idea, or not?" For example, if the game has problems if a power only works when it makes sense within the context of the setting, then that game does not support the idea that the system serves the setting.




And again, I'm pointing out the kinaesthetics, and wizards _not needing crossbows._ Oh, and fighters being able to protect people.



> An example of this is the oft-mentioned CaGI




See above. And no one IIRC came up with a decent alternative to CAGI on the unrealistic power stakes.



> (In the case of this last question, I have heard "Perhaps it was always there"








> How do you yell a dying man back on his feet.....




Break him out of shock. And see Rocky for details of yelling someone dropping unconscious onto their feet.



> And, once that initial surge of adrenalin is gone, why doesn't he collapse again?




The shock's gone and the blood's now flowing.



> The real problem, IMHO, is that, in prior editions, the DM was supposed to adjudicate the rules in order to correct these problems. In 4e, over and over, I have heard that the DM who corrects these problems *is doing something wrong*.








> Nothing WotC has put out indicates anything other than an expectation that the setting will shift to match what the mechanics do.




And very little of the 4e mechanics affect things outside a 100 yard radius of the PCs. 4e runs on Holywood Physics.



> Or, if they have adjusted this philosophy, I haven't seen it.....And would like some info on where to find it.




I think Dark Sun's giving it a go. I'll be interested in the output.



Kaiyanwang said:


> OK.. tide of iron can do it better. Or least, can do it before. But this does not demostrates that there are things that 3.5/PF cannot do compared to 4th (the original point). You can say Tide>BR, not Tide>Shield Slam. And BR can be a good substitution if played smart.




BR is _not_ a good substitution. Because BR does something fundamentally different - it prevents you hitting people with your sword. BR is for throwing people around, not for almost unconscious bullying.



> Moreover, once a shield fighter hit level 6, he can full attacks. It can be immediately 2 "tides" per round. Think about a Shield Slam + Whirlwind Attack. I prefer 3.5/PF because if well combined, 2 "powers" become 4, 6 basing on the situation.




Yes, I get it. Pathfinder Fighters are combat beasts. It's not effectiveness I'm talking about here - it's mechanical support for the way your character actually moves and thinks.



> You mean, you got more things at level 1 in 4th. Fair.




Not the point. I mean that the PF fighter is incapable of fighting the way _I_ fight with sword and board. The 4e fighter can - almost effortlessly. If a supposedly professional fighter is worse at a type of fighting than I am, something is going wrong.



> Not sure at the same rate. But this is, of course, a thing connected to the math of the game. I prefer more swingy combats, but, again, a matter of tastes.




I meant that the 4e fighter would kill someone faster than he otherwise would if they try and escape. Not comparing the two fighters.



> See above. About disarm, myself, I remember an epic intimidate check of a Fighter in a former campaing. Made after 7 guardsmen disarmed in the same round. I can see how disarm should be difficult (so a feat/power depending from the edition) but IMO relegate it to fluff is way too much. Again, your tastes, that I respect.




It's not all gone - I've regularly disarmed people using attacks meant to knock them prone (and instead they dive to pick up their weapon.)



> OK - but a favor is not a spell (see the DC 30 lore check). So, assuming that they ae both plot devices (well, ANYTHING should be, following this reasoning), they will work differently. If they do not, I risk to kill my player immersion.




Or you just give Efreets Wishes.


----------



## MichaelSomething

I wonder why some people even play D&D when GURPS seems to be a better fit for their tastes anyway...


----------



## Imaro

MichaelSomething said:


> I wonder why some people even play D&D when GURPS seems to be a better fit for their tastes anyway...




I wonder why some people even play D&D when the boardgame Descent seems to be a better fit for their tastes anyway...

NOTE: See how that works? So why even go there?


----------



## Umbran

Raven Crowking said:


> The real problem, IMHO, is that, in prior editions, the DM was supposed to adjudicate the rules in order to correct these problems.  In 4e, over and over, I have heard that the DM who corrects these problems *is doing something wrong*.




Real question:  Where are you hearing that?  Actual WotC published things?  Can you cite where?  'Cause I have heard random people espouse that position, but I honestly cannot recall where I've seen that from WotC, and would like my impression corrected if it is wrong.



> Nothing WotC has put out indicates anything other than an expectation that the setting will shift to match what the mechanics do.




I think there's an error simply in the idea that there is a "the setting" for D&D.  D&D is the original poster child for a game with more settings than there are game masters running the game.  

D&D isn't WoD, isn't Shadowrun, isn't Star Wars, or any other game with a strongly defined, strongly assumed setting. The vast majority of the published settings for D&D have always been designed to fit with the published rules, not the other way around.  This is decades of history we're talking about here - nobody should be surprised by this.


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> D&D isn't WoD, isn't Shadowrun, isn't Star Wars, or any other game with a strongly defined, strongly assumed setting. The vast majority of the published settings for D&D have always been designed to fit with the published rules, not the other way around. This is decades of history we're talking about here - nobody should be surprised by this.




Eh, I'm gonna have to say I disagree here... at leats in the 2e era, and now that I'm thinking about it the 3e era as well. As I remember it most campaign settings tweaked, added to and subtracted from the rules so that D&D better fit the setting, so I'm a little confused on your view.  As I recall rules were modified to fit setting, not the other way around.


----------



## caelum

pemerton said:


> It's the dressing up of this unremarkable state of affairs in the language of "practices", "suspicions" and "disenchantment" that I don't get. It would be different if WotC's ink and paper were grossly polluting, and these were the practices that produced disenchantment. That would be a bit like the Shell boycott in the 1980s for investing in South Africa, or more recent Nike boycotts. But as far as I can see nothing like that is going on. All we have is a company offering stuff for sale that some people don't want to buy. Fair enough. Don't buy it. Why isn't that the end of the story?




As one of the people you quoted in your earlier post, I feel compelled to rise to the defense of this thread.  

First, you objected to the use of "angry" in response to WotC's choices.  That's probably fair - I should have been more specific and used "annoyed" or something milder.  True anger should be saved for, say, drunken captains who cause enormous oil spills and the companies that defend them.  

That said, I think that we - as WotC's customers, potential customers, or former customers, have every "right" to have negative responses to their choices, whether that is phrased as disenchantment, annoyance, or anger.

From my (untrained) perspective, the whole point of a brand is to foster an emotional connection in the customer, a warm and fuzzy feeling when they think of D&D or the Gap or whatever.  So the whole point is to bring emotion into the business relationship.  When the brand then changes, or ceases to support one segment of the market, those positive emotions will naturally be replaced by negative ones.  I am quite sure that every brand wants to minimize those negative reactions in order to retain as many customers as possible.  I don't see anything wrong with disenchantment, and I don't see anything wrong with vocal complaints by those who feel the brand has left them behind.  If, in good times, the brand exists to develop this mutual relationship, then the customer has a right to express his/her opinion later on as well.

Another important point is that the blind appeal to the bottom line as justification for any business decision only works if the company in question is evaluating the market correctly.  And that's a very, very tough thing to do.  I doubt that WotC brought in focus groups of hard-core gamers and asked them how they would react to pulling the old edition pdfs.  I'd guess they were surprised at the fury that greeted them, in fact.  And now they are hearing, in this thread, that people still feel strongly about it.  Obviously it's their choice whether to do anything about it, and it may be that they decide it's simply not worth the trouble.  

But if the (in this case, former) customers did not raise the issue at all, then WotC might not even realize it existed, and there'd be no chance of change.  I don't see anything at all wrong with a group voicing its opinion to a company, and I don't understand why those who do get attacked for expressing such views in this thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Neonchameleon said:


> And again, I'm pointing out the kinaesthetics, and wizards _not needing crossbows._  Oh, and fighters being able to protect people.




Sorry, but you can have those things without mechanics leading setting.  

I do.

See, I don't care that there might be uber housecats in 3e/Pathfinder -- the GM is _*expected to resolve that problem*_ (should it occur in-game) because the mechanics lead the setting.  Only if the players cry Foul! because the GM prevents a cat from killing commoners (because it is opposed to common sense and common experience, i.e., the setting) is there a problem.

Moreover, I don't care if there are uber housecats in 3e/Pathfinder because, while I steal and convert their modules -- and 4e modules now -- I don't play those games.  

And, yes, I am sure -- absolutely sure -- that RCFG has similar problems, but the GM is _*expected to resolve that problem*_ (should it occur in-game) because the mechanics lead the setting.  



> See above.  And no one IIRC came up with a decent alternative to CAGI on the unrealistic power stakes.




Sure they did.  And then the thread closed.

But, you should also accept that people who don't play 4e probably have better things to do than scour through the books looking for examples of problems.  As with any system, the most obvious, easy to point at, problems get mentioned over and over.  Not because there aren't any others -- *lots* of others, in any system -- but because "folks is lazy".

Again, if the DM was expected to rule that CaGI only worked when it made sense, within the context of the setting, that CaGI worked, I would be on your side here.  I don't think it is incumbent upon the designers to figure out every way that a rule can be warped, nor do I think it possible.  Or even desireable.....After all, that way the madness of 3e lies!

No.  Give me a game where the basics are covered, and where the GM is encouraged to follow the logic of the setting over the mechanics.  It might not be a good game for beginners (unless taught by others), but it qualifies more as a role-playing game, and less as a story-writing game, in my eyes.

I don't need a game to write stories.

YMMV.



>




My reaction was similar.

And it will be interesting to see where Dark Sun goes.  Because it isn't the *ideas* in 4e that don't do it for me (I can ban dragonborn as easily as I did halfdragons); it's the implementation.  At its heart, there are some really, really good ideas in 4e.  Change the design philosophy, and those ideas might even blossom into something I would agree is great.  

That's why I have some hope for 5e.

And, probably, if 4e had been OGL, someone like Necromancer Games, Paizo, or Green Ronin would have created a version that pinged for me.  And that allowed me to use the WotC materials in a way I liked.  And that therefore gave WotC some of my RPG money (apart from what they've managed to glean from Underdark and a couple of modules).

The seed is there.  But it is buried under too much "mechanics first" to grow.  That could change.  Heck, if I invested in reading the 4e houserules forum, there are probably enough ideas out there to change it already, if I cared to.  (But, of course, that change would be disliked by others.  And so it goes.....)

OTOH, RCFG is free except for my time, and the playtest group I am running includes folks who play 4e.  Thus far, RCFG is unanimously more fun than 4e.

(Could be the GM though......  )



RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ExploderWizard said:


> Glad to hear it. Care to have any of them come here and share their experiences?




I can ask, but I don't know of any of them that are here on ENWorld.



El Mahdi said:


> Let me try this: How can one's strategy be considered to be "cultivating a long-term customer pool", if the only effort put into cultivating is with "new" customers, while neglecting to entice current customers to stay?




Who says current customers aren't being enticed to stay? If 4E had held truer to 3E I would probably not have adopted it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Imaro said:


> Eh, I'm gonna have to say I disagree here... at leats in the 2e era, and now that I'm thinking about it the 3e era as well. As I remember it most campaign settings tweaked, added to and subtracted from the rules so that D&D better fit the setting, so I'm a little confused on your view.  As I recall rules were modified to fit setting, not the other way around.




Yup.

And in the 1e era, DragonLance changed classes and races to fit its concepts.  Greyhawk Adventures included rules for 0-lvl characters.  Oriental Adventures had new classes and races, new proficiencies, an honor system, etc.

It's actually hard to point to a developed setting (the sketchy Greyhawk Gazetteer is all I can think of) where the setting seems to follow the previously published rules.  Even 1e Forgotten Realms didn't.

That there seem to be some 4e settings (Gamma World, Darksun) that change the rules to match the setting is a hopeful sign, IMHO.  It is my understanding that the Nentir Vale gaz is a break from this policy as well.  Another hopeful sign!

5e, I'm waiting for you!


RC


----------



## BryonD

Neonchameleon said:


> Next comment I see about CAGI as representative of 4e is going to be met by a diatribe housecats and the way they can slaughter commoners and first level wizards as representative of 3e/PF. CAGI is a (rare) example of the mechanics falling short of the fluff. And there's a reason it's the one always brought up.



 I agree, but as I've said before, CAGI is a specific example with problems.  And there are plenty of problem feats in 3E.  The outlier bad cases are not the problem in either edition.



> Accurate or precise? Because I'm more than happy to give up some precision even with a little accuracy. (I own GURPS vehicles).



See my repost of Andy's comment.



> The question to me is: How well does the system _support_ the roleplay. Modelling is just one of the steps towards supporting.



This reply seems to suggest that there is a *correct* amswer.  I think my posts should make what I'm looking for more than clear.  

If you are looking for something different than me and you are happy with 4E, then I don't see what your comments contribute to WotC gaining more purchases from disenchanted players.



> And there we have our problem  4e is a new game.



EXACTLY.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran said:


> Real question




I try to learn from my mistakes.  Really, I do.

But, for some reason, I engaged with you in another thread.  Despite saying that I would not do so again.

Please help me keep my resolution, because I am weak.


----------



## Kaiyanwang

Neonchameleon said:


> BR is _not_ a good substitution. Because BR does something fundamentally different - it prevents you hitting people with your sword. BR is for throwing people around, not for almost unconscious bullying.




I would not call drop someone down on a cliff, or into the Black Tentacles "unconscious bullying". But whatever. Point was that 3.5 /PF CAN support these mechanics, even if I recognize the shield thing comes earlier in 4th. But we are going in circles here, maybe.



> Yes, I get it. Pathfinder Fighters are combat beasts. It's not effectiveness I'm talking about here - it's mechanical support for the way your character actually moves and thinks.



I don't get it.. please explain (here and below, I ABSOLUTELY don't intend to be harsh - I respect your point of view and enjoy the conversatio, I fear I could make a mistake on the tone since English is not my native language and the topic is.. hot )



> Not the point. I mean that the PF fighter is incapable of fighting the way _I_ fight with sword and board. The 4e fighter can - almost effortlessly. If a supposedly professional fighter is worse at a type of fighting than I am, something is going wrong.



Again, pleas explain what a Shield Slam has less than a tide of iron, barring the level you get it (this, I admit could matter.. but nothing else).



> I meant that the 4e fighter would kill someone faster than he otherwise would if they try and escape. Not comparing the two fighters.



3.5 had a lot of AOO feats. A warrior could get an AOO for almost every thing an enemy were doing. MS:Ticket of Blade, Sweeping Strike, Mage Slayer, Supernatural Opportunist, Backstab...

And a core PF can too... somewhat. If you escape and he trips you, AOOs and other attacks will be more likely to land. You have step up to remain sticky (you remain sticky --> you are more likely to full attack). There is Standstill.



> It's not all gone - I've regularly disarmed people using attacks meant to knock them prone (and instead they dive to pick up their weapon.)



I praise you refluff, but as a DM prefer separate trip and disarm. For my gamestyle, the opposite could  lead to inconsistencies and troubles in the way I want to play NPCs, the way thei react. Moreover, if you need to refluff something, IMO something is gone.



> Or you just give Efreets Wishes.



Cool. And I could need guidelines to adjudicates what these wishes could do. And guidelines for this are in the Wish spell, in the 3.5 or Pathfinder SRD. See what's the problem? I am the first that consider rules as guidelines, but please, gimme those guidelines if you want me buy the books.

Moreover, as I said above answering to Scribble, when I was a kid I didn't know Genies.. I'm not sure I could have the ideas about the Wishes, and all the fun that followed, without have them stated in the rules of the monster. Better an inspiring rule, even if prone to troubles, than a bland, balanced one. My tastes, of course.


AAAND: an housecat can gouge your eye. For an hero, it's a pain you must endure (and then you can  unleash your fury on the Pet Shop). For a commoner (or a wizard level 1, an educated commoner) means you stay on the ground screaming. The DM roleplays the cat as a cat, so it flees after the attack, since an animal attacks mainly for self defence or for hunger.

This is not even comparable to CAGI, IMO.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Umbran said:


> Real question: Where are you hearing that? Actual WotC published things? Can you cite where? 'Cause I have heard random people espouse that position, but I honestly cannot recall where I've seen that from WotC, and would like my impression corrected if it is wrong.




A springboard tight RAW that requires constant updates, and revisions kind of speaks for itself. A game system that provides good starting guidelines and leaves the common sense adjudication of the small details to the human beings playing the game doesn't require such tireless tweaking and patching. Isn't that amount of fine tuning a bit overboard for a system that is supposed to be run by a human DM? 




Umbran said:


> I think there's an error simply in the idea that there is a "the setting" for D&D. D&D is the original poster child for a game with more settings than there are game masters running the game.
> 
> D&D isn't WoD, isn't Shadowrun, isn't Star Wars, or any other game with a strongly defined, strongly assumed setting. The vast majority of the published settings for D&D have always been designed to fit with the published rules, not the other way around. This is decades of history we're talking about here - nobody should be surprised by this.




I would agree that there is no default D&D setting. The original game encouraged DM's to build their own campaigns. I would say that the vast majority of published rulesets have been designed to fit a multitude of possible settings. The original exception based design so to speak. Meaning that the rules supported a world that people could relate to as a default with certain exceptions such as the existance of monsters, magic, etc. and any others a DM might want to add such as reduced gravity. This would modify the expectations for that world to include impossibly high jumps, easier flying and so forth.


----------



## Bluenose

BryonD said:


> 3E PH: Fireball:  The _fireball_ sets fire to combustibles...
> 
> PF Core: Fireball:   The _fireball_ sets fire to combustibles...
> 
> Just fyi




3e PH re Fireball: A _fireball _spell is an explosion of flame; and I expect PF says something similar. 

The funny thing is, apart from the obvious 'flames do not explode', an explosion often puts out fires. They may start up again afterwards, either because the fire is spreading into the area from outside, because something in the affected was already burning and the explosion was insufficient to put it out, or because material superheated by the explosion landed on something flammable, but the explosion shouldn't set fire to anything. Bot actually complicated physics.


----------



## Mournblade94

Shazman said:


> I really think that 4th edition should have been more like a fantasy version of SW Saga.  Sw Saga looks like a great system, but 4E seems to have many areas where the designers dropped the ball, namely excessive hp bloat of monsters and ultra-gamist elements like martial healing and divine challenge.




That is one of the reasons I was so jazzed about 4e.  I thought (foolishly perhaps) that it would be a saga BASED game.  I know people hate the video game analogy, but it is apparent the designers injected video game conventions into the design.  For some people that is not bad.  Healing surge being case in point, and marking is the aggromechanic.  Roles have always been a part of D&D, but those four roles have been refined in the realm of video game design.

Fighters were not always your TANK for instance, they may have taken the scrapper role.  A wizard was not always a controller, they might have taken the artillery role, etc.

Perhaps the market research showed this is what the younger crowd would recognize, I don't know.  Point is WOTC is the flag ship of a hobby, and in the hobby market the customers may very well get angry at things that other lay customers would not.

Kind of scary to me:  EVERYTHING I loved as a kid is now OWNED by hasbro:

D&D
Transformers (Always were)
STAR WARS toy line
Axis and Allies
Avalon Hill
GI JOE

Geez, I bet if it was still around they would have bought Mattel Electronics, of intellivision fame.

Sometimes I wonder if the big conglomerates are necessary better.  When I buy chicken from a Community supported agriculture farm, it sure as hell tastes better than Purdue.

Don't know where any of that came from, I apologize.


----------



## El Mahdi

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Who says current customers aren't being enticed to stay? If 4E had held truer to 3E I would probably not have adopted it.




A significant portion of long-term customers are not being enticed to stay. If they were, we wouldn't have this thread.

I'm pretty sure that 4E wasn't designed to be different from 3E so as to purposely entice you to stay. (Perhaps you possess a memo from WotC R&D talking about _"designing the new edition in a way to ensure we keep that Vyvyan Basterd guy as a customer"_?) However, I am sure that one of the reasons it was designed in the manner they did, was to specifically target a younger crowd...as has already been discussed and argued ad nauseum. The fact that a significant group of long term gamers prefer the system is less about a purposeful marketing focus as it's simply about the fact that they like D&D, in any iteration. In other words, you weren't specifically invited to the party, but they're glad you came.

A sample of one doesn't prove a trend or purpose.

So, if this was more than simply making a subjective statement about yourself, what specifically were you trying to say or prove with your statement?


----------



## BryonD

Bluenose said:


> 3e PH re Fireball: A _fireball _spell is an explosion of flame; and I expect PF says something similar.
> 
> The funny thing is, apart from the obvious 'flames do not explode', an explosion often puts out fires. They may start up again afterwards, either because the fire is spreading into the area from outside, because something in the affected was already burning and the explosion was insufficient to put it out, or because material superheated by the explosion landed on something flammable, but the explosion shouldn't set fire to anything. Bot actually complicated physics.



Actually, the pressure wave associated with the explosion is what can put out fires.  The book also says: "the explosion creates almost no pressure".

If you want to argue that it isn't an "explosion", then fine.  But to consider this a meaningful conversation at that level is silly.

An incorrect statement was made and I corrected it.  That's all.


(At least in 3E a fireball is actually a "ball" and not a firecube.    )


----------



## renau1g

ExploderWizard said:


> A springboard tight RAW that requires constant updates, and revisions kind of speaks for itself. A game system that provides good starting guidelines and leaves the common sense adjudication of the small details to the human beings playing the game doesn't require such tireless tweaking and patching. Isn't that amount of fine tuning a bit overboard for a system that is supposed to be run by a human DM?




Meh, I had most of the "errata" as house-rules in my home game anyways. In 3.5e they just left all the broken elements out there, ex. the DMM's and those sticks that recharged them (I forget the name now). 

Many DM's are comfortable with running the game and saying "no, that ain't cool what you're doing there", but if a new DM is running it, they may not have that experience.


----------



## renau1g

El Mahdi said:


> A significant portion of long-term customers are not being enticed to stay. If they were, we wouldn't have this thread.




Do we have data to support that? Just curious, as I could then just as easily say a not-significant portion.


----------



## Mournblade94

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> What proof do you have that interoffice playtesting is the only type they performed? I personally know 4E playtesters that don't work for WotC.




I have 2 friends in NJ that were official playtesters for 4e before its release.  They were not paid, but still had to a sign a NDA (not saying this is bad, relax).

Because of this I know for sure WOTC playtested well for what they wanted.  I was intensely jealous of my friends.


----------



## El Mahdi

renau1g said:


> Do we have data to support that? Just curious, as I could then just as easily say a not-significant portion.




You're right...and I'm right.

Significant is a relative and subjective term.  I view the number of people posting about this, in this thread and others, as significant.  If you don't, that's understandable.  To me, these threads represent a significant portion of long-term customers that are not being represented in WotC current marketing strategy.  So for me, these threads are the data.


----------



## El Mahdi

Mournblade94 said:


> I have 2 friends in NJ that were official playtesters for 4e before its release. They were not paid, but still had to a sign a NDA (not saying this is bad, relax).
> 
> Because of this I know for sure WOTC playtested well for what they wanted. I was intensely jealous of my friends.




Yeah, I remember the releases leading up to 4E.  There was a lot of talk from WotC about their playtesting, and not just in-house playtesting.  I don't know how many people outside of WotC were involved, but it sounded fairly extensive.  I think it's a bit of a spurious argument to say that 4E wasn't properly playtested or tested only in-house.


----------



## Mournblade94

Umbran said:


> Here's something interesting.  Those libraries don't seem to be available on Marvel's own site.  Only through Amazon (and, I guess, other retailers).  If you go to Marvel itself, they're offering their Digital Unlimited (which includes those libraries, and a whole lot more).  The iPad app gives access to... it looks like 10% of the total library.
> 
> Interesting business decisions, there...



Incidentally I have been subscribing to that library for 2 years now.

There are LOTS of gaps which frustrated me, and thinks like issues 1 and 2 of 3 issue limited series.  I like to think it is not intentional.

Still it is great and I love it.  One of the only things I have been into that Hasbro no longer claims rights to... except for toys


----------



## Mournblade94

Neonchameleon said:


> The kinaesthetic nature of 4e helps draw me in.




I am a but of a literalist so I must be forgiven for that.  I have seen kinesthesis, or that the 4e game is kinesthetic several times in this thread.  What are we refering to here?

Is it that forces are illustrated in the powers?  Because the forces are wonky.  Let me tell you, several decades of SCA broadsword fighting and I have never seen anyone knocked back 5 feet from a blow, unless someone was charging.  Now I don't care if 4e powers do that, it is fine it is a fantasy game.  BUT I do not want to hear how the 4e powers are more REALISTIC because they knock someone back.


----------



## renau1g

Mournblade94 said:


> Let me tell you, several decades of SCA broadsword fighting and I have never seen anyone knocked back 5 feet from a blow, unless someone was charging.




Apparently you haven't seen anyone with an 18/00 Str


----------



## ggroy

renau1g said:


> Apparently you haven't seen anyone with an 18/00 Str




Would the present governor of California have an 18/00 STR?


----------



## Shazman

No, I think that only an olympic weightlifter or a 7ft giant from the WWE would have something close to an 18/00 str.


----------



## renau1g

Naw, he might have a girdle of giant strength or something... at least back in his prime, putting him well above mortal men. 

Nowadays, I might put him there.


----------



## renau1g

Shazman said:


> No, I think that only an olympic weightlifter or a 7ft giant from the WWE would have something close to an 18/00 str.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEgVM3bzN_Y]YouTube - Arnold Schwarzenegger Mr. Olympia 1975[/ame]


----------



## MichaelSomething

Imaro said:


> I wonder why some people even play D&D when the boardgame Descent seems to be a better fit for their tastes anyway...
> 
> NOTE: See how that works? So why even go there?




Honestly, I don't know how to respond to your question.  Should I go into a long analysis on what D&D is versus what people want D&D to be or should I just spout out another spiffy one liner?



El Mahdi said:


> Yeah, I remember the releases leading up to 4E.   There was a lot of talk from WotC about their playtesting, and not just  in-house playtesting.  I don't know how many people outside of WotC  were involved, but it sounded fairly extensive.  I think it's a bit of a  spurious argument to say that 4E wasn't properly playtested or tested  only in-house.




Conveniently, they list all the playtesters on page 316 of the PHB.  I  guessimate about 600 playtesters, or at least enough names to fill a  whole page with a small font.  I'm not gonna count out every name to find out exactly how many.


----------



## ggroy

renau1g said:


> YouTube - Arnold Schwarzenegger Mr. Olympia 1975




What STR did Conan have in the 1E AD&D Conan modules?


----------



## Scribble

ggroy said:


> Would the present governor of California have an 18/00 STR?




Ahrnald is a member of the SCA?


----------



## renau1g

ggroy said:


> What STR did Conan have in the 1E AD&D Conan modules?




Only 18/90 actually....wait... his Int was 14? Juma had a 18/51 Str.... good ol' Conan...


----------



## DaveMage

El Mahdi said:


> However, I am sure that one of the reasons it was designed in the manner they did, was to specifically target a younger crowd...as has already been discussed and argued ad nauseum. The fact that a significant group of long term gamers prefer the system is less about a purposeful marketing focus as it's simply about the fact that they like D&D, in any iteration.




I think that another of the reasons it was so different from prior editions is to assure the OGL was not used by some 3rd party to create a clone of the game.

(As Ryan Dancey once indicated - paraphrasing - that in order for D&D to ever be closed again it would have to be radically different from D&D as we'd known it.  Voila - 4E!)


----------



## DaveMage

renau1g said:


> Do we have data to support that?




Pathfinder, the RPG.


----------



## ST

DaveMage said:


> Pathfinder, the RPG.




Seems pretty insulting to Paizo to me to insinuate that people only buy their product because it's not 4e.

I mean, Paizo's been known for years for doing good, solid Adventure Paths, and I often hear their module/adventure support mentioned as a reason people are fans of their products. 

By the way, that's also as logically incomplete an argument as saying "All people who hate Pepsi, drink Coke" or "All people who drink Coke, hate Pepsi" (note also those two aren't logically inverse, as well as the fact that other beverages exist).

No offense, but you're inventing a causative connection out of thin air, those things typically need an associated argument. 

To be fair, it does seem true that some of the most vocal detractors of 4e have adopted Pathfinder, and attempted to make this connection. But that only says something about that small, vocal group, not Paizo's customer base as a whole.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

El Mahdi said:


> A significant portion of long-term customers are not being enticed to stay. If they were, we wouldn't have this thread.




Significant? What 10%? 40%? And I wouldn't base it off of percentages seen here on ENWorld. Members of ENWorld are a niche of a niche.



El Mahdi said:


> I'm pretty sure that 4E wasn't designed to be different from 3E so as to purposely entice you to stay.




Me personally? No. Just like it wasn't purposely designed to "fire" any customers.



El Mahdi said:


> However, I am sure that one of the reasons it was designed in the manner they did, was to specifically target a younger crowd...as has already been discussed and argued ad nauseum. The fact that a significant group of long term gamers prefer the system is less about a purposeful marketing focus as it's simply about the fact that they like D&D, in any iteration. In other words, you weren't specifically invited to the party, but they're glad you came.
> 
> A sample of one doesn't prove a trend or purpose.
> 
> So, if this was more than simply making a subjective statement about yourself, what specifically were you trying to say or prove with your statement?




All I can speak for is myself. But I think you are making a false assumption. You are minimizing my enjoyment of the design of 4E and making it seem the only reason I followed to 4E is because I like D&D. That's kind of insulting if I understand you correctly. I feel that the system was designed keeping bith new players in mind and those (like me) who had become disenchanted with 3E's design goals and structure.


----------



## renau1g

DaveMage said:


> Pathfinder, the RPG.




I bought Pathfinder the RPG... wait, but I also play 4e and enjoy it... ahhh.... wait no one person can't possibly play and enjoy both, they're mutually exclusive....ahhh ....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA]YouTube - Scanners (1981) Head Explosion Shot[/ame]



Oh, yeah I am sure Lisa Stevens and company would be pretty insulted to hear that also. I'm sure _most_ people who went to PF weren't because it was 4e, but rather because it's a well-designed system from a respected publisher


----------



## DaveMage

ST said:


> I mean, Paizo's been known for years for doing good, solid Adventure Paths, and I often hear their module/adventure support mentioned as a reason people are fans of their products.




Pathfinder, *THE RPG*.



ST said:


> By the way, that's also as logically incomplete an argument as saying "All people who hate Pepsi, drink Coke" or "All people who drink Coke, hate Pepsi" (note also those two aren't logically inverse, as well as the fact that other beverages exist).




The question was whether those disenchanted with 4E was significant.  My point was that it was significant enough for a game company to thrive on those looking for a continuation (more or less) of 3.5.


----------



## renau1g

Again, I'm not disenchanted with 4e, yet I also buy Pathfinder *THE RPG!!!!* material as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one.


----------



## BryonD

ST said:


> Seems pretty insulting to Paizo to me to insinuate that people only buy their product because it's not 4e.



I think that is a pretty serious distortion of what he said.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Kaiyanwang said:


> I would not call drop someone down on a cliff, or into the Black Tentacles "unconscious bullying". But whatever. Point was that 3.5 /PF CAN support these mechanics, even if I recognize the shield thing comes earlier in 4th. But we are going in circles here, maybe.
> 
> I don't get it.. please explain (here and below, I ABSOLUTELY don't intend to be harsh - I respect your point of view and enjoy the conversatio, I fear I could make a mistake on the tone since English is not my native language and the topic is.. hot )
> 
> Again, pleas explain what a Shield Slam has less than a tide of iron,  barring the level you get it (this, I admit could matter.. but nothing  else).




When you use Shield Bash, you are literally hitting someone with your shield and the mechanics leave no other interpretation.  Tide of Iron isn't (normally) about that.  It's about the footwork you use to step into the enemy's ground and drive them back.  (It requires a shield because if you try coming forward like that without a shield to protect yourself you're simply going to walk onto the enemy's blade).



Mournblade94 said:


> I am a but of a literalist so I must be forgiven for that.  I have seen kinesthesis, or that the 4e game is kinesthetic several times in this thread.  What are we refering to here?
> 
> Is it that forces are illustrated in the powers?  Because the forces are wonky.  Let me tell you, several decades of SCA broadsword fighting and I have never seen anyone knocked back 5 feet from a blow, unless someone was charging.  Now I don't care if 4e powers do that, it is fine it is a fantasy game.  BUT I do not want to hear how the 4e powers are more REALISTIC because they knock someone back.




The forces aren't realistic.  Of course they aren't.  This is a game of Dungeons and Dragons.  By 5th level you've left mundane realism far behind.  They, on the other hand, fit being larger than life.  If I'm creating a damn big explosion, I want to see people thrown back by it.  And there's a lot of satisfaction in throwing monsters into their own pit traps.  If I wanted a realistic fantasy game I'd break out GURPS (or possibly WHFRP 2e if I wanted the tropes).


----------



## BryonD

renau1g said:


> Again, I'm not disenchanted with 4e, yet I also buy Pathfinder *THE RPG!!!!* material as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one.



Would you say that this group you are in is "significant"?


----------



## Herschel

Imaro said:


> Yay, I can spend more money to get monsters that work right in my game!! Just like skill challenges!!




Actually, MM1 monsters worked great, depending on your party composition. Gee, just like DR/SR critters in 3E worked great or bad depending on party composition. 

And "book bloat" in 3E was huge too, especially with the OGL. Sorry, your rant doesn't hold water as nothing from that standpoint has really changed.


----------



## DaveMage

renau1g said:


> Again, I'm not disenchanted with 4e, yet I also buy Pathfinder *THE RPG!!!!* material as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one.




I'd call that good planning for when you do become disenchanted with 4E.


----------



## Reynard

Before this thread goes into lock down, I want to point out something I think is important, especially to any Lurking Mearls' (CR 1) and the like out there:

All this arguing and inevitable finger pointing, virtual shouting and general hostility is rooted in something very good and very positive: love for the game. We all love D&D or we wouldn't be here, even if we stopped buying or playing it after Supplement I. And love begets passion, which can often cloud our judgement and make us do and say things we might rather have not said or done.  But in those passionate wors and acts, there's truth if you can sift through to find it.

People defending 4E for whatever reason are saying *something* important, and so are the people disparaging it. Advancing any particular edition or playstyle says something of value to those that make the game -- or, now, those that make the GAMES.  Because we have to face it: before, there was D&D and Everything Else, and now, due to the OGL, there are many D&D's. Labyrinth Lord and Swords and Wizardry and OSRIC and Pathfinder ARE D&D, even if the trademark had to be filed off, and people play them and purchase their products. Wizards can't ignore that. They can choose to hand over that portion of their potential customer base to others, because it isn't profitable or profitable enough, but they can't ignore it. Every sale of Labyrinth Lord might not be a lost sale of 4E, but it is a lost sale of D&D to WotC.

And for me, the D&Der who loves old school D&D and yet enjoys his new school version as well, that's awesome. I get to have my cake and eat it to. I can purchase new stuff for the best RPG in the world -- any edition of it -- and support the companies that keep it alive, AT THE SAME TIME as voting against 4E with my dollars by not having to support WotC.

But it isn't a boycott. I already have my sights on Gamma World because I am curious what they do with it. It could be awesome. I may even buy an Essentials product or two to see if they made a 4E I could love (probably not, but here's hoping). But if they really want my dollars, if they really want me back as a WotC customer, they'll consider me and a whole lot of people like me worth the expense to do their own official D&D retro-clone, or repackage the old games, or even just sell the PDFs again. Until that time, as I said upthread, someone else is getting paid when I get my D&D fix.


----------



## renau1g

BryonD said:


> Would you say that this group you are in is "significant"?




I'll say it's as significant as those who play PF because they're disenfranchised with WotC.


----------



## renau1g

Reynard said:


> Before this thread goes into lock down, I want to point out something I think is important, especially to any Lurking Mearls' (CR 1) and the like out there:
> 
> All this arguing and inevitable finger pointing, virtual shouting and general hostility is rooted in something very good and very positive: love for the game. We all love D&D or we wouldn't be here, even if we stopped buying or playing it after Supplement I. And love begets passion, which can often cloud our judgement and make us do and say things we might rather have not said or done.  But in those passionate wors and acts, there's truth if you can sift through to find it.




Actually, despite these threads commonly going into personal insult territory pretty quickly, this one is very civil, albeit quite a bit off-topic.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

DaveMage said:


> Pathfinder, *THE RPG*.




Eh, the main reason for the larger split in the community this time is the OGL. People who enjoy buying new material for the game have a real choice this time that they didn't have with previous edition switches. The popularity of Pathfinder the RPG is mainly because Paizo has a reputation for creating quality material. That popularity is a corrallary to 3E continued support, not the cause. If Paizo had continued publishing 3.5 adventures and support I believe the strength of 3E supporters would remain as it is today.


----------



## Phaezen

BryonD said:


> Would you say that this group you are in is "significant"?






renau1g said:


> I'll say it's as significant as those who play PF because they're disenfranchised with WotC.




I think there is a significant number of gamers who own a multitude of systems and recognise different systems suit different styles of campaigns.  More power to us I think


----------



## El Mahdi

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Me personally? No. Just like it wasn't purposely designed to "fire" any customers.




I didn't say it was.  Ignoring isn't firing.  And "ignoring", in and of itself, isn't necessarily bad.  I've merely said that I believe WotC's _marketing_ approach to be foolish and illogical.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> All I can speak for is myself. But I think you are making a false assumption. You are minimizing my enjoyment of the design of 4E and making it seem the only reason I followed to 4E is because I like D&D. That's kind of insulting if I understand you correctly. I feel that the system was designed keeping bith new players in mind and those (like me) who had become disenchanted with 3E's design goals and structure.




You didn't understand me correctly.  I don't know what your reasons were, or what anybody elses reasons were, for choosing 4E over any other edition.  Frankly, I don't care.  I have no problem whatsoever with anybody elses choice of system or their reasons for that choice.  As I've also said before, I don't have a problem with 4E, and actually like a good portion of it - most of which I use in my houserules.

All I was saying is that I don't believe WotC designed 4E to target long-term players.  Period.  Not criticism, not compliment, not anything other than a statement of opinion of what I believe the 4E disigners motivations were or weren't.  If you don't agree with my opinion, that's cool.  You may even have information that shows my belief wrong.  In which case I would enjoy your sharing it.  But insulting?

I'd love to continue this conversation, as I have found it enjoyable, thought provoking, and genial.  If however, you don't think it has been or that it can't remain so, then I've enjoyed talking to you and bid you good day.


----------



## Herschel

DaveMage said:


> The question was whether those disenchanted with 4E was significant. My point was that it was significant enough for a game company to thrive on those looking for a continuation (more or less) of 3.5.




And yet some "disenchanted" with 4E admittedly have never played it or even read it yet continue to rant on internet boards about how awful it is.

As for "significant", WotC is still the big dog. 

Paizo puts out a great product for a certain segment and seems to be doing well enough on their scale with it. That's great, but is it really significant "to WotC"? How many play/buy both?

How many people play Warhammer RPG that used to play D&D? World of Darkness? Castles & Crusades? GURPS? Are they also all disenchanted with WotC or 4E? How many of them didn't like 3E also?

Or are you saying Paizo isn't garnering any new customers, just grabbing WotC 3E retreads? I find that rather insulting to Paizo because they work to grow their brand/game too. Just because I don't like the system doesn't mean I don't think they put out a good product that others like (and I buy a number of their products, just not rules stuff).

Some have admitted that the Essentials line intrigues them and they're going to give it a try. That does appear to me that WotC is making reasonable attemps to make some people who were overwhelmed by 4E feel more comfortable and may lure some lapsed players back. I admit to not caring much but now being intrigued by the line as a current player.


----------



## El Mahdi

This thread seems to be veering towards, or beginning to concentrate on, those that are disenchanted with 4E. I believe the majority of posts, mine included, have been about being disenchanted with WotC and WotC _marketing_. I do know that the OP was specifically about WotC _marketing_. Why are there people trying to turn a perfectly good thread into one about 4E and not 4E?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

El Mahdi said:


> I didn't say it was.  Ignoring isn't firing.




No, you didn't. My comment related to others' viewpoints in this very thread. Sorry if it seemed I was attributing that viewpoint to you.



El Mahdi said:


> All I was saying is that I don't believe WotC designed 4E to target long-term players.  If you don't agree with my opinion, that's cool. You may even have information that shows my belief wrong.




I don't have any inside information to back up my feelings, if that's what you mean. But I think it has been show through the history of D&D that change does interest long-term players while concurrently drumming up controversy. 1E's Unearthed Arcana; 2E Kits and Players' Option series; 3E Warlock, Book of Nine Swords, Incarnum, etc.

Many long-term players, including myself, welcome change in the system. I welcomed it at the start of 3E, but a fundamental flaw (IMO) in the very base of the system made it a game I no longer wanted to play in the end.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

El Mahdi said:


> This thread seems to be veering towards, or beginning to concentrate on, those that are disenchanted with 4E. I believe the majority of posts, mine included, have been about being disenchanted with WotC and WotC _marketing_. I do know that the OP was specifically about WotC _marketing_. Why are there people trying to turn a perfectly good thread into one about 4E and not 4E?




The OP limited his view of WotC to the D&D side (no mention of Magic, et al). WotC D&D _is_ 4E, so it is inevitable that the discussion would turn there.


----------



## Kaiyanwang

Neonchameleon said:


> When you use Shield Bash, you are literally hitting someone with your shield and the mechanics leave no other interpretation.  Tide of Iron isn't (normally) about that.  It's about the footwork you use to step into the enemy's ground and drive them back.  (It requires a shield because if you try coming forward like that without a shield to protect yourself you're simply going to walk onto the enemy's blade).




Ok! now I understood. I actually use either the descriptions basing on what the player is going to do (simply push back the enemy, or follow him with a 5 foot step to splat him on the wall). But I can see what you meant for different. Thanks!


----------



## Mircoles

MichaelSomething said:


> I wonder why some people even play D&D when GURPS seems to be a better fit for their tastes anyway...




It's easier to find D&D players than GURPS players. 

I love GURPS, but it's a bitch finding people willing to play it.


----------



## El Mahdi

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> My comment related to others' viewpoints in this very thread.




Yeah, there have been more than a few saying that. 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> ...But I think it has been shown through the history of D&D that change does interest long-term players while concurrently drumming up controversy...




Ain't that the truth!


----------



## Neonchameleon

Kaiyanwang said:


> Ok! now I understood. I actually use either the descriptions basing on what the player is going to do (simply push back the enemy, or follow him with a 5 foot step to splat him on the wall). But I can see what you meant for different. Thanks!



My pleasure 

So seldom that understanding is reached in this sort of thread...


----------



## BryonD

Herschel said:


> And yet some "disenchanted" with 4E admittedly have never played it or even read it yet continue to rant on internet boards about how awful it is.



Heh, so let me get this right, you are arguing that you can't compare one real but unquantified group with another real but unquantified group, and you are doing that by referencing a questionable and completely unquantified group?  

That's funny.




> As for "significant", WotC is still the big dog.
> 
> Paizo puts out a great product for a certain segment and seems to be doing well enough on their scale with it. That's great, but is it really significant "to WotC"? How many play/buy both?
> 
> How many people play Warhammer RPG that used to play D&D? World of Darkness? Castles & Crusades? GURPS? Are they also all disenchanted with WotC or 4E? How many of them didn't like 3E also?



This is certainly true.  But, the question isn't "how does WotC get Paizo fans back?"  The question is: How can Wotc get disenchanted former fans back?".

I think those numbers are significant enough the topics keeps coming back up.  And, honestly, the conversation is pointless.

Yep. WotC is the big dog.  AND D&D is the big brand name.  If we lived in an alternate universe where Warhammer 3E was the system called D&D 4E and the D&D 4E system was called Warhammer 3e, then the game system published with the big dog name and the big dog brand would be THE BIG GAME.    (And, yes, that reasoning applies to 3E just as well)

That is NOT to say that people like 4E just because of the name.  But brand exposure is huge.  Take four games that people like and put the big brand on one and that one will be the big dog.  And as people play THAT game, their dedication to that particular game will grow.

Of course, how long 4E stays the big dog remains to be seen.


----------



## Jasperak

Neonchameleon said:


> Next comment I see about CAGI as representative of 4e is going to be met by a diatribe housecats and the way they can slaughter commoners and first level wizards as representative of 3e/PF. CAGI is a (rare) example of the mechanics falling short of the fluff. And there's a reason it's the one always brought up.




Then maybe WOTC should either change it or get rid of it. As long as its there, it is a handy way of stereotyping what some people believe to be one of the inherrent flaws of the system.


----------



## Jasperak

Imaro said:


> I wonder why some people even play D&D when the boardgame Descent seems to be a better fit for their tastes anyway...
> 
> NOTE: See how that works? So why even go there?




Too bad I cannot give you XP. I would have said either Hero/D&Dscape or DDM.


----------



## Jasperak

MichaelSomething said:


> Honestly, I don't know how to respond to your question.  Should I go into a long analysis on what D&D is versus what people want D&D to be or should I just spout out another spiffy one liner?
> 
> 
> 
> Conveniently, they list all the playtesters on page 316 of the PHB.  I  guessimate about 600 playtesters, or at least enough names to fill a  whole page with a small font.  I'm not gonna count out every name to find out exactly how many.




Amazing, for a game played by millions. 

BTW where did they get these playtesters from, the RPGA? (Honestly asking, not trying to be snarky )


----------



## Hussar

Jasperak said:


> Amazing, for a game played by millions.
> 
> BTW where did they get these playtesters from, the RPGA? (Honestly asking, not trying to be snarky )




IIRC, most of the playtesters were drawn from the RPGA.

Honestly, I've always maintained that 4e is the RPGA edition.  Much of the changes, at least in the initial core books, seem geared towards RPGA style play where you will be playing with strangers very often and rules abuse is difficult to control when you only have a limited time frame to play with.

Polymorph a problem?  Yoink, gone.
People taking way too much table time because of pets and summonings?  Yoink, gone.
Certain vague spell effects that can range from superpowered to pointless (illusioins I'm looking at you)?  Yoink, gone.

That sort of thing.  Which, IMO, is one of the prime reasons for the issues a lot of people have with 4e.  If you have a well established group that can sort these sorts of things out during one of the many bull sessions at the Waffle House after a gaming session, then all of these "fixes" are pretty much superfluous to you.


----------



## Jasperak

Hussar said:


> IIRC, most of the playtesters were drawn from the RPGA.
> 
> Honestly, I've always maintained that 4e is the RPGA edition.  Much of the changes, at least in the initial core books, seem geared towards RPGA style play where you will be playing with strangers very often and rules abuse is difficult to control when you only have a limited time frame to play with.
> 
> Polymorph a problem?  Yoink, gone.
> People taking way too much table time because of pets and summonings?  Yoink, gone.
> Certain vague spell effects that can range from superpowered to pointless (illusioins I'm looking at you)?  Yoink, gone.
> 
> That sort of thing.  Which, IMO, is one of the prime reasons for the issues a lot of people have with 4e.  If you have a well established group that can sort these sorts of things out during one of the many bull sessions at the Waffle House after a gaming session, then all of these "fixes" are pretty much superfluous to you.




Interesting, your point jives with my thoughts about 4e. I would have no problem now playing in a one-shot or maybe D&D Encounters, but I would never choose 4e for my regular game. I don't think I will ever go anywhere near the RPGA again though.


----------



## Mournblade94

Jasperak said:


> Amazing, for a game played by millions.
> 
> BTW where did they get these playtesters from, the RPGA? (Honestly asking, not trying to be snarky )




My friends were not part of the RPGA, but they are involved in gaming networks throughout the state of NJ.  I would give names but I have no business doing so.  The playtesters were gathered here in NJ from the Dexcon circuit.


----------



## howandwhy99

You know what would be awesome?  If Wizards would OGL all of the pre-2000 game mechanics.  

That would win me over pretty much in total.  Then they could go on about their business of designing and selling story games.  And those of us who love the IP they refuse to print could design and share our own D&D game in peace.  The 3.x guys have it and a publisher in Paizo.  Why not the older editions?

Are those rules really so threatening to the company to not have under copyright?
Is this move not worth the cost to relieve such tension in the community?

It may no longer be in their philosophical game design ballpark, but older games still do have adherents.  If Wizards is unwilling to publish older games for money, I think it would be a very classy move on their part.


----------



## MerricB

Raven Crowking said:


> Yup.
> 
> And in the 1e era, DragonLance changed classes and races to fit its concepts.  Greyhawk Adventures included rules for 0-lvl characters.  Oriental Adventures had new classes and races, new proficiencies, an honor system, etc.
> 
> It's actually hard to point to a developed setting (the sketchy Greyhawk Gazetteer is all I can think of) where the setting seems to follow the previously published rules.  Even 1e Forgotten Realms didn't.




Erm...

I'm trying to think where 1E FR broke the rules. As I recall, it did so in *one* area, and that was how handled dragons (adding 9 and 10 hit point/die for the really scary ones, and a change in breath weapons). 2E broke more rules, IIRC. Admittedly, FR did redefine the very Greyhawk-y elves to fit its appearance, but ruleswise nothing changed.

Greyhawk boxed set (1983) had one variance with standard rules: certain priests could take an XP penalty in exchange for some mostly minor powers.

Dragonlance in its original incarnation (the modules) changed one thing: halflings out, kender in. Oh, and no orcs. By the time the Dragonlance Adventures book arrived on the cusp of 2e, they added a bunch of new classes and races - some of dubious quality.

Oriental Adventures broke the rules in a big way.

In comparison...

Forgotten Realms (4E) adds in a bunch of FR-only backgrounds and feats, as well as new races and a new class which, although they can be used elsewhere, are more "realmsy". 

Eberron (4E) adds in the Dragonmark feats and paragon paths, a bunch of backgrounds and feats that are Eberron-only, and races and the Artificer class which just scream "Eberron". 

Both those settings traditionally used pretty much everything that was in the D&D of the time, whilst adding a few of their own elements. This is still true. (In fact, it was a selling point of Eberron when it came out).

The Dark Sun (4E) is being more restrictive - no divine magic from what I hear - is welcome. 

Cheers!


----------



## I'm A Banana

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Or, if they have adjusted this philosophy, I haven't seen it.....And would like some info on where to find it.




FWIW, the "Make stuff up to fit the incredibly carefully balanced rules we give you, however you justify it" approach does seem to be on the down slide. 

For instance, the Dark Sun Themes are specifically the other way around:



			
				Rodney Thompson said:
			
		

> Notice how the power allows the templar to provide an incentive for the next person who hits the target. This is one of the mechanical concepts present throughout the templar. The templar provides incentives for her allies and then rewards the first one to succeed. This reflects the templar’s ability to command others with the authority of the sorcerer-kings, their penchant for encouraging fierce competition between their servants, and their ability to reward those who follow the decrees of the sorcerer-kings. That’s the kind of flavor that went into figuring out what the mechanical concepts were going to be in each theme.




It seems like the process went: "How can we reflect the Templar's unique flavor in a combat ability? The Templar should offer rewards and encourage competition. Here is a power that actually does that to the players at the table, by giving someone a payoff for doing what the Templar commands before anyone else does."

I think certain aspects of that "rules first" worldview are kind of ingrained into the system itself (healing is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiig one), but it's not everywhere, and it's showing signs of transformation.


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> Eh, I'm gonna have to say I disagree here... at leats in the 2e era, and now that I'm thinking about it the 3e era as well. As I remember it most campaign settings tweaked, added to and subtracted from the rules so that D&D better fit the setting, so I'm a little confused on your view.  As I recall rules were modified to fit setting, not the other way around.




Please, go take a look at the 4e Forgotten Realms and Eberron materials.  I'll wait...

_*insert Girl From Ipanema Musak*_

So, did you notice the races and classes introduced for those settings?  Drow as PCs, spellswords, warforged, changelings and artificers, and more?

RC mentioned setting specific races and classes as part of how earlier editions tweaked rules.  Well, 4e has those!  And the entire point of 4e's exception based design is that the new sub-systems or rules for a given class are buried within its own powers, so there's no need to elucidate an entire new system of resolving particular kinds of actions.  

I was figuring you guys ere talking about really fundamental changes (like, say, replacing HP with WP/VP, or somesuch) - but my contention was that in general, if I went to a game in a D&D setting with only my PHB, I'd still be okay, the fundamental rules of the game were still the same, because new settings didn't change the fundamentals.

But now, it sounds more like... you've just missed the fact that there are rules differences, because they're put within the races and classes, instead of spelled out separately.


----------



## Umbran

ExploderWizard said:


> A springboard tight RAW that requires constant updates, and revisions kind of speaks for itself.




With respect, I don't think it does.  To say that it speaks is actually to say that you're divining an intent of the author from the result, and that is not nearly the same as having the authors explicitly say so.

I am not at all sure it is that the RAW needs updates.  I think it is that large sections of the player base _wants_ updates.  Folks have been screaming about how slow they are with errata since 3e came out.  And it sure wasn't like 2e and 1e didn't need them - we just didn't _expect_ them, because TSR had no good way to deliver them.


----------



## The Little Raven

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It seems like the process went: "How can we reflect the Templar's unique flavor in a combat ability? The Templar should offer rewards and encourage competition. Here is a power that actually does that to the players at the table, by giving someone a payoff for doing what the Templar commands before anyone else does."




It seems like the process went: "How can we reflect the Warlord's unique flavor in a combat ability? The Warlord should offer additional tactical superiority to his allies. It has powers that actually do that to the players at the table, by giving someone bonus attacks and additional movement."


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> Please, go take a look at the 4e Forgotten Realms and Eberron materials. I'll wait...
> 
> _*insert Girl From Ipanema Musak*_
> 
> So, did you notice the races and classes introduced for those settings? Drow as PCs, spellswords, warforged, changelings and artificers, and more?.




Sure did, and now that you've had your chance to be snarky I'll try to reply without adding my own.



Umbran said:


> RC mentioned setting specific races and classes as part of how earlier editions tweaked rules. Well, 4e has those! And the entire point of 4e's exception based design is that the new sub-systems or rules for a given class are buried within its own powers, so there's no need to elucidate an entire new system of resolving particular kinds of actions.




I'm not RC, and I was responding to your post... I didn't mention added races or classes



Umbran said:


> I was figuring you guys ere talking about really fundamental changes (like, say, replacing HP with WP/VP, or somesuch) - but my contention was that in general, if I went to a game in a D&D setting with only my PHB, I'd still be okay, the fundamental rules of the game were still the same, because new settings didn't change the fundamentals.




Oh, you mean like the rules in planescape for how magic worked differently on different planes... or Eberron 3e introducing action points... or 2e Dark Sun with rules for different weapon materials or maybe something like Ravenloft's fear, terror and madness rules... and so on. Yeah, that was what I was talking about. And as a player you probably could show up with a PHB and still play(though personally I find this hard to believe). Since I am talking about rules that were changed to accomodate the *setting* that would fall more under the purview of the DM... wouldn't it? Thus whether you could show up with a PHB and play or not would be irrelevant to my point.



Umbran said:


> But now, it sounds more like... you've just missed the fact that there are rules differences, because they're put within the races and classes, instead of spelled out separately.




No, it sounds more like you aren't addressing my post.  The above is bull, those races don't change the rules in any significant way to accomodate the setting... they can and are expected to be used in any and every D&D setting... new races and classes have been a staple of new settings since at least 2e.

the problem I was addressing was with having rules that actually give the feel and enhance the individuality of a setting in play which 4e seems to be lacking in... again rules first, setting second which always wasn't the case as you tried to argue in your previous post.


----------



## Imaro

The Little Raven said:


> It seems like the process went: "How can we reflect the Warlord's unique flavor in a combat ability? The Warlord should offer additional tactical superiority to his allies. It has powers that actually do that to the players at the table, by giving someone bonus attacks and additional movement."




Yeah, but then they went... Hey, mechanically we need someone besides the Cleric who can heal... uh, the Warlord's a leader so... let's make him heal with the power of shouting at people or slaps to the face or whatever, the player can justify it somehow, the important thing is that he can heal so that there's a healer besides the Cleric... and messed it up for some people.


----------



## I'm A Banana

The Little Raven said:
			
		

> It seems like the process went: "How can we reflect the Warlord's unique flavor in a combat ability? The Warlord should offer additional tactical superiority to his allies. It has powers that actually do that to the players at the table, by giving someone bonus attacks and additional movement."




Really?

To me it seemed more like the process for that went "We don't want the cleric to be the only healer anymore, and we define healing as a 'leader' role ability, and 'leaders' also include general character enhancements. Also, we like playing with minis, and we're making this in-depth tactical combat system, and we need a class to show it off. Lets make our new healer a tactical buffer!"

I don't think I'm alone in that perception, and, unless you've got some evidence to the contrary, that perception could certainly mesh up with reality. 

And if it does, this represents a slight shift, at least here, in how the design is driven.

You position could mesh up with reality, too, but given how a warlord screaming at you doesn't give you the power to ignore wounds, but *actually heals HP, erasing the damage done*, I don't find it quite as tenable, personally.

I mean, these designers are clever. If I wanted a warlord's scream to represent added endurance, I would, say, allow their "inspiring word" to increase the threshold for unconsciousness by healing surge+1d6 (or whatever). So, normally, you go unconscious at 0, but when the warlord screams at you (and maybe have a healing surge value of 10 and roll a 3), you go unconscious at -13 instead, giving you a few extra rounds to fight. And once the combat is over, and the adrenaline stops flowing, the buff wears off and you fall unconscious, showing how great of a toll the wounds still took on your body.

That's a little sloppy, but it at least actually mirrors the story justification for how the ability works. Right now, the ability doesn't.

_Edit_: Another possibilty would be to give temporary HP, or some sort of Resist 5 Everything, and it maybe could be keyed to the Bloodied status, because I am not sure how much more resolve I'll find in myself if I'm not feeling like I'm in much danger. Point being, there's a lot of ways to reflect that story, and the current method isn't reflective of it.


----------



## ExploderWizard

howandwhy99 said:


> You know what would be awesome? If Wizards would OGL all of the pre-2000 game mechanics.
> 
> 
> That would win me over pretty much in total. Then they could go on about their business of designing and selling story games. And those of us who love the IP they refuse to print could design and share our own D&D game in peace. The 3.x guys have it and a publisher in Paizo. Why not the older editions?
> 
> Are those rules really so threatening to the company to not have under copyright?
> Is this move not worth the cost to relieve such tension in the community?
> It may no longer be in their philosophical game design ballpark, but older games still do have adherents. If Wizards is unwilling to publish older games for money, I think it would be a very classy move on their part.




We already have that. The actual mechanics are not under copyright. That is why we can have S&W, LL, OSRIC, and others. What we _can't _have is the cool unique flavor that is the essence of D&D to go along with it- Mordenkainen, Tenser, Greyhawk, you know, the good stuff.
All those trappings are tied into the brand name and belong to whoever owns D&D. 



Umbran said:


> With respect, I don't think it does. To say that it speaks is actually to say that you're divining an intent of the author from the result, and that is not nearly the same as having the authors explicitly say so.
> 
> I am not at all sure it is that the RAW needs updates. I think it is that large sections of the player base _wants_ updates. Folks have been screaming about how slow they are with errata since 3e came out. And it sure wasn't like 2e and 1e didn't need them - we just didn't _expect_ them, because TSR had no good way to deliver them.




I agree that a large section of the player base wants updates. As a WOW player we sit around waiting for the devs to "fix" our problems while hoping that the next round of patching won't create too many more. Meanwhile another group is hoping beyond hope that the "fixes" we want to see never happen. It is all part of a gaming culture _that accepts the way their game plays from outsiders._

It is a state of affairs that is fairly recent as far as tabletop play is concerned. The reliance on software and cool innovations like regular delivered updates have turned the D&D populace into starving goldfish just waiting to see what WOTC taps out of it's shaker for them each month. It is a brutal cycle of dependence and a contributing factor to why DM's who are worth a damn are in high demand and in such short supply.

As long as I'm playing 4E then my little fish lips are puckering too. 
I don't really enjoy the presentation of most published adventures so I convert older material and write my own stuff. I can honestly say that I am heavily dependent on the monster builder to DM a 4E campaign. Take away the ability to quickly generate custom NPC's and monsters and I will step down from running the game. The statblocks are so ponderous that I simply wouldn't be willing to devote the prep time in generating them by hand. 

Face to face gaming is all about the people. The exact ruleset doesn't have the importance that it seems to have these days. If more people would stop and think about that instead of impatiently waiting for an outside agency to fix an issue that might not even be an issue when examined with a dose of common sense the community would be better off.


----------



## MerricB

ExploderWizard said:


> I can honestly say that I am heavily dependent on the monster builder to DM a 4E campaign. Take away the ability to quickly generate custom NPC's and monsters and I will step down from running the game. The statblocks are so ponderous that I simply wouldn't be willing to devote the prep time in generating them by hand.




I take it the same applies to 3E?

Indeed, it is the drawback of a format that wants to inject more variety into battles.

Cheers!


----------



## pemerton

ExploderWizard said:


> If the contemporary RPG scene truly held the view that rpg's are _games_ then there wouldn't be so much focus on storytelling going on.



I don't see the contrast you're trying to draw. One measure of the success of an RPG like Burning Wheel, as a game, is that playing it by the rules produces an awesome fantasy adventure story. The BW rulebooks stress this over and over. One point that Ron Edwards makes, which I tend to agree with and think is very interesting, is that games aimed at "gamist" (ie competitive play) experiences, and games aimed at "narrativist" (ie playing by the rules will produce an awesome story) experiences, are likely to resemble one another quite closely in the shape of their mechanics, and in their common departures from simulationist design. This is because both need to give the _players_ appropriate opportunities to use the rules to drive play in a certain direction (towards winning, for gamist play, and towards thematic climaxes, for narrativist play).



ExploderWizard said:


> Traditional rpg design does indeed have the rules of the game model the ingame world. Where you are making the huge assumption is in your assertion of some universal 'desired play experience'. In traditional rpg gameplay the rules are used and for those _playing a game,_ the desired play experience will come from using the rules, playing, and seeing what outcome happens to be the result.



Sure, that's a fair description of a certain sort of purist-for-system play (I think Classic Traveller exemplifies this especially well). But WotC are betting that the number of people who want the RPG play experience to be "Let's model a fantasy world and see what happens" is fewer than those who want the experience to be either "Let's play fantasy tactical combats with continuity of characters and world background!" or "Let's play a game where we find out what it means to be a fantasy hero with an epic destiny awaiting him/her!".



ExploderWizard said:


> _designing_ mechanics to achieve that specific outcome throws out the _game _part of rpg.



I don't understand this at all. If the desired outcome is "gripping tactical battles", how does designing mechanics to produce gripping tactical battles throw out the game part of an RPG? Or if the desired outcome is "finding out what it means to be a fantasy hero", how does designing mechanics that create opportunities for players to make choices in the course of play, and encouragiong those choices to be structured in a way that makes them hard choices for heroes to make, throw out the game part of an RPG? In either case, it would seem that those mechanics _are_ the game part of the RPG.

For what it's worth, I think that 4e clearly aims at the "gripping tactical battles" goal - I'm one who thinks it succeeds, but I know a lot of posters disagree (my group has not encountered the "grind" problem). I also think it can support the "fantasy hero" goal, although that is probably a secondary goal from the point of view of design. For example, epic destinies and paragon paths are tactical options first, hard thematic choices second. But the thematic choices are still there, and it doesn't take much to foreground them a bit more. Also, this is not the same as saying that it's mechanics first, flavour second - quite a bit of the thematic choices is built into the mechanics. For example, choosing a necrotic over a radiant power isn't just a tactical choice - it also has thematic consequences, for example in the relationship between the PC and undead as enemies.


----------



## pemerton

Reynard said:


> We all love D&D or we wouldn't be here
> 
> <snip>
> 
> before, there was D&D and Everything Else, and now, due to the OGL, there are many D&D's.



I love fantasy role playing. I like 4e D&D. I like Rolemaster too. And Runequest. And I don't feel this D&D/Everything Else divide.

In any event, there were always many D&Ds - do any two tables really play OD&D the same way? Or 1st ed AD&D? Not to mention that, when I got into D&D, there was the difference between AD&D and Moldvay/Cook D&D. At the time I drifted from the latter to the former in pursuit of a certain sort of simulationism which the latter didn't deliver. So even then the different versions of D&D were better or worse suited to different playstyles.



caelum said:


> From my (untrained) perspective, the whole point of a brand is to foster an emotional connection in the customer, a warm and fuzzy feeling when they think of D&D or the Gap or whatever.  So the whole point is to bring emotion into the business relationship.  When the brand then changes, or ceases to support one segment of the market, those positive emotions will naturally be replaced by negative ones.  I am quite sure that every brand wants to minimize those negative reactions in order to retain as many customers as possible.  I don't see anything wrong with disenchantment, and I don't see anything wrong with vocal complaints by those who feel the brand has left them behind.  If, in good times, the brand exists to develop this mutual relationship, then the customer has a right to express his/her opinion later on as well.





Kamikaze Midget said:


> People just want to remember and share _their D&D_.



This right here is the bit I don't get - the "brand" thing, "their" D&D. Maybe it's because I left D&D for a long time to focus on Rolemaster as my main fantasy RPG of choice. I've never felt any need or desire to play a brand or a particular company's games). I've just looked for a ruleset that does what I want it to.

I understand that marketers want to build brand loyalty. I guess I'm a little surprised by just how successful they seem to have been among RPGers.



caelum said:


> I doubt that WotC brought in focus groups of hard-core gamers and asked them how they would react to pulling the old edition pdfs.  I'd guess they were surprised at the fury that greeted them, in fact.  And now they are hearing, in this thread, that people still feel strongly about it.



Personally, I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't anticipate the reaction - to the extent that the reaction is driven by brand identification, I would assume their marketing team - who have fostered that identification - to be at least reasonably on top of it's extent.

The inference I would draw is that severing the links between the brand and the customers in question doesn't matter much to WotC.



El Mahdi said:


> Generating a few years (or even a decade) of loyalty from a customer does not, to me, equate to a "long-term" customer pool.



I would assume that any hobby publisher would be budgeting for customer churn much more frequently than once per decade. I assume that keeping a customer for a couple of years would be regarded as a success.

Several people have posted on this thread that they bought the core 4e books, but have bought nothing since. And they are presenting themselves as lost customers, as _failures_ from WotC's point of view. But I would imagine that from WotC's point of view they're _successes_. Not the best possible successes - those would be people like me, who own 20 4e hardbacks and hope to pick up a couple more when they become available in Melbourne. But I must be a pretty unrepresentative instance of the overall WotC customer base. And I imagine the same is true of those who are really missing the older edition PDFs.



howandwhy99 said:


> You know what would be awesome?  If Wizards would OGL all of the pre-2000 game mechanics.
> 
> That would win me over pretty much in total.  Then they could go on about their business of designing and selling story games.  And those of us who love the IP they refuse to print could design and share our own D&D game in peace.



Those older mechanics already exist in OGL form. See OSRIC and the other retro-clones. What's missing? (And if someone really wants the Players Option point-buy rules to be OGLed, I'll ask How could anyone want that!?)

Also, this is a bit like saying, what would be really awesome would be for WotC to give away all it's property for free. While true - that would be awesome - I think it's a bit unrealistic to actually hope for.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> That is the beauty of RPGs, and of the base idea that the system serves the setting, not the other way around.



I wouldn't describe 4e (or other "contemporary" games) as ones where the setting serves the system. I would describe them as ones where the system serves the _players_. That is, the metagame is more overt than in a "traditional" RPG.



Shazman said:


> I can possibly see martial leaders inspiring others to push on when they are hurt, but what about when a character is dying (in game terms) and shouldn't even be able to hear the encouraging shouts of the warlord?





renau1g said:


> Ok, so you can't hear the warlord physically, maybe the spirit of the warrior has yet to enter death's door, the light is inviting and so warm, but suddenly there's a pull from somewhere else, a familiar voice cuts through the darkness and reminds the fallen hero that there's unfinished business. Somehow, this hero pulls away from the light and returns to his body, ready to continue his quest.



Even more radically - the unconscious PC is slipping further and further into the inviting light - but then remembers the Warlord PC, and how s/he stressed the importance of never giving up until the mission is completed - and then the unconscious PC's eyes flicker open.

Using a power in 4e is clearly something that the _player_ of the PC does, but it's always an open question whether or not it is something that the PC him/herself has done. For a lot of martial powers, I think it's often the case that the PC herself has not "used a power". Rather, the player has spent a "plot point"/"fate point" to directly change the state of the ingame world. Besides warlord healing, this is the only way to make sense of Come and Get It that I'm aware of. (It also explains why CAGI does not involve a Will attack - it's as if the player had spent an "unluck" point against the enemies who are targetted by the attack.)

This fits with the notion of the system serving the players - 4e has a lot of mechanics (like the martial powers discussed in the previous paragraph) that are implicitly metagame mechanics. I say "implicitly" because the rules text is often a bit ambiguous about this (eg it uses the second person to refer indifferently to the player and the PC).

A common remark from those who like 4e, _and_ who want to establish its continuity with earlier versions of D&D, is to point out that (for example) hit points were always abstract and encompassed morale as well as physical endurance. This is true as far as it goes, but I think it tends to understate the contrast between 4e and earlier versions. A player's interaction with hit points is essentially passive - as actions are taken hit points are added to the pool or subtracted from them, and the player does not necessarily have to engage with the hit point mechanic beyond this. On the other hand, playing 4e requires a player to frequently engage with these mechanics like Inspiring Word, Second Wind, encounter powers and martial dailies more generally, etc etc. And to engage in an active fashion. I wouldn't expect a player who dislikes the game/metagame separation to especially like this sort of play.



Neonchameleon said:


> When fudging was brought up first (low level), I was thinking of the fudging to keep PCs alive.  Slight DM intervention to change results of the sort you need when wizards have d4 hp and weapons do d6 damage.  Explicitely and secretly changing the rules as things go on.  Rather than responding and playing fairly but creatively.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And the existance of page 42 reduces the amount of fudging required - I'm not making it all up, instead I've got guidelines and a framework.



This is exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned fudging, and more broadly the contrast between "traditional" and "contemporary" RPG design.



Imaro said:


> Yet all the best sellers under D&D are still simulationist systems, with gamist systems being outliers in sales and recognition... so I'm a little confused on how big this "movement" could possibly be.



Well, I did call WotC's strategy a _bet_. On the other hand, I assume a company like WotC doesn't change the fundamental orientation of its game just because a few designers (Heinsoo, Mearls, Laws) think it's an aesthetically desirable thing to do, or find Ron Edwards' arguments persuasive. I assume they did some research too.


----------



## ExploderWizard

MerricB said:


> I take it the same applies to 3E?




You would be correct.



pemerton said:


> Sure, that's a fair description of a certain sort of purist-for-system play (I think Classic Traveller exemplifies this especially well). But WotC are betting that the number of people who want the RPG play experience to be "Let's model a fantasy world and see what happens" is fewer than those who want the experience to be either "Let's play fantasy tactical combats with continuity of characters and world background!" or "Let's play a game where we find out what it means to be a fantasy hero with an epic destiny awaiting him/her!".




I would say with little doubt that your bet is a solid one. 




pemerton said:


> I don't understand this at all. If the desired outcome is "gripping tactical battles", how does designing mechanics to produce gripping tactical battles throw out the game part of an RPG?




Gripping tactical battles is not an outcome. It is one means of achieving an outcome. The outcome in this case would be to win or lose that gripping tactical battle. In this case the play of the game involves the gripping tactical battles. 



pemerton said:


> Or if the desired outcome is "finding out what it means to be a fantasy hero", how does designing mechanics that create opportunities for players to make choices in the course of play, and encouragiong those choices to be structured in a way that makes them hard choices for heroes to make, throw out the game part of an RPG? In either case, it would seem that those mechanics _are_ the game part of the RPG.
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> If those mechanics facilitate a path toward a destination known from the start then you don't really have a game. Lets say I sit down to play and the stated goal of the game is becoming a fantasy hero. If that goal is a known fact than anything taking place in the game that would appear to invalidate that goal couldn't be taken very seriously. Obviously my character is going to become a freaking legend and go off to demigodhood so some loudmouth BBEG threatening to end my life isn't even worthy of my consideration much less fear.
> 
> If you lined up to play a game of football and knew at the kickoff that you would win by a fieldgoal in the final 10 seconds of play would being down by 2 touchdowns in the 3rd quarter really impact your choices? No matter what plays you call, the win is in the bag before the final whistle.
> 
> Hard choices come when the actual outcome of the game is riding on them.
Click to expand...


----------



## I'm A Banana

> This right here is the bit I don't get - the "brand" thing, "their" D&D. Maybe it's because I left D&D for a long time to focus on Rolemaster as my main fantasy RPG of choice. I've never felt any need or desire to play a brand or a particular company's games). I've just looked for a ruleset that does what I want it to.
> 
> I understand that marketers want to build brand loyalty. I guess I'm a little surprised by just how successful they seem to have been among RPGers.




Why?

People get attached to brands all the friggin' time. We are a consumer culture. We identify ourselves with our purchases. 

Perhaps more key, there seems to be a period in about the teens when people form very emotional attachments to things. Be it Justin Beiber, Twilight, Fantasy novels, the Beatles, Iron Maiden, Nirvana, Farah Fawcett, or your first real romantic relationship.

For a lot of D&D players, the friendships and experiences playing the game were some of the best experiences of those rocky (especially rocky for a lot of D&D players, who are usually amongst the more nerdy kids) years. 

Having that attachment to D&D is not very different from having that attachment to a particular cute boy, sexy girl, rockin' band, kickass novel, inspiring movie, or whatever other piece of culture you pick up and stick to yourself like an identity in a period of life where people seek out identity like they are starving in the desert.

_This post brought to you by Developmental Psychology! Developmental Psychology: explaining why it sucks to be a teen since 1925!_


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> Sure did, and now that you've had your chance to be snarky I'll try to reply without adding my own.




Just to be clear, that wasn't an attempt to be snarky, just humorous.  If it came across as disrespectful, my apologies.  That wasn't the intent.



> Oh, you mean like the rules in planescape for how magic worked differently on different planes... or Eberron 3e introducing action points... or 2e Dark Sun with rules for different weapon materials or maybe something like Ravenloft's fear, terror and madness rules... and so on.




4e has Eberron and FR, and that's it.  FR never needed different rules, as it is supposed to be generic.  And Eberron's specialness has been incorporated either as race/class stuff, or as core mechanics (like the action points).

There as a time when D&D had just three settings - Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and FR.  Dragonlance's mechanical uniqueness was limited to races and classes.  The other two pretty much used just the core rules.

So, is the problem that the rules don't change for the settings... or that there aren't half a dozen other settings for the system that require different rules?  



> No, it sounds more like you aren't addressing my post.




With respect, I thought I was addressing your post.  You just weren't very specific about what you meant.


----------



## renau1g

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why?
> 
> People get attached to brands all the friggin' time. We are a consumer culture. We identify ourselves with our purchases.




Like iPods...Apple's made their fortune on this fact.


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> 4e has Eberron and FR, and that's it. FR never needed different rules, as it is supposed to be generic. And Eberron's specialness has been incorporated either as race/class stuff, or as core mechanics (like the action points).




Actually 4e also has Ravenloft... as part of the default setting in the Shadowfell... another example of what I am talking about. So there's...
Forgotten Realms (which actually had different character creation rules in 3e from the Greyhawk/default setting)
Eberron
Ravenloft
Nentir Vale/PoL
... all done "4e style"



Umbran said:


> There as a time when D&D had just three settings - Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and FR. Dragonlance's mechanical uniqueness was limited to races and classes. The other two pretty much used just the core rules.




First, that is why I referenced 2e and 3e... not 1e. Second... so what, for more of D&D's history it has had specific rules for different campaign settings, including Hollow World for BECMI. (which if I recall correctly, and I may not be, there were only two major settings for... yet rules were used to bring out the uniqueness in different regions with the gazetteer series as well.)



Umbran said:


> So, is the problem that the rules don't change for the settings... or that there aren't half a dozen other settings for the system that require different rules?




Personally for me the problem is that they have chosen not to differentiate any of the settings listed above through unique rules to enhance their flavor. However it seems they may have gotten a clue with Dark Sun... though I'm not sure if I have enough faith in WotC to even buy it to see.





Umbran said:


> With respect, I thought I was addressing your post. You just weren't very specific about what you meant.




With respect, you decided to lump my reply to your post in with comments by others which obfuscated my point... as I was very specific about what era/editions of D&D I was speaking of and what characterictics I was talking about... again, not once did I mention 1e or races and classes.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> So, what's the typical retention time for a gamer as a customer?  Not just how long to they continue to play in general, or how long they play a particular game, but how long do they continue to buy products for a particular system?



The answer there depends, of course, on how long the system is commonly available before being replaced by another. 







> I would not be surprised if, in general, a given player is saturated after only a couple of years, and purchases will drop precipitously.  Once you've got an entire shelf full of stuff, you probably don't need more to continue playing that game indefinitely.



I'm probably the exception, as usual, but almost 30 years in I'm still buying stuff for 1e.

Lan-"even though I don't really need it"-efan


----------



## MerricB

ExploderWizard said:


> You would be correct.




Thank you. I think Wizards did _try_ to make monster generation simpler in 4e - and I do think they succeeded - but it's still nowhere near as easy as in 1e!

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar

ExploderWizard said:


> We already have that. The actual mechanics are not under copyright. That is why we can have S&W, LL, OSRIC, and others. What we _can't _have is the cool unique flavor that is the essence of D&D to go along with it- Mordenkainen, Tenser, Greyhawk, you know, the good stuff.
> All those trappings are tied into the brand name and belong to whoever owns D&D.




And, lets be honest, no one in their right mind is going to give up that IP, no matter how much goodwill it would generate.  That would mean giving up IP on the mindflayer and beholder, just to name two.  Not going to happen in this lifetime.



> /snip
> 
> It is a brutal cycle of dependence and a contributing factor to why DM's who are worth a damn are in high demand and in such short supply.




Oh, come on.  DM's worth a damn have ALWAYS been in short supply.  Sturgeon's law certainly applies to DM's as much as anything else.  Having played with more than my share of very bad DM's, I can say that my main impetus for starting to run games was being so sick and tired of crap gaming.

The fact that even back in 2002, when I started playing over OpenRPG, I could get five players at any point in time within a week of advertising showed me that half decent DM's are few and far between.




> As long as I'm playing 4E then my little fish lips are puckering too.
> I don't really enjoy the presentation of most published adventures so I convert older material and write my own stuff. I can honestly say that I am heavily dependent on the monster builder to DM a 4E campaign. Take away the ability to quickly generate custom NPC's and monsters and I will step down from running the game. The statblocks are so ponderous that I simply wouldn't be willing to devote the prep time in generating them by hand.
> /snip




It's funny.  I just designed my very first 4e adventure.  4th level adventure.  I have ((checks notes)) 23 distinct stat blocks (many are level variations of various monsters - level 2 brute, level 3 brute, level 4 brute, that sort of thing - but it does change the numbers).  I statted up all 23 TOKENS in Maptool (which takes a HELL of a lot longer than doing it on paper) in an hour or two.  

I wouldn't DREAM of doing that in 3e.  I'd still be calculating stat blocks.  Ponderous?  Why?  Good grief, most stat blocks are pretty small and adjusting up or down is a snap.  I understand a lot of the criticisms of 4e, but, complaining that it's too work intensive for the DM is new one.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> This right here is the bit I don't get - the "brand" thing, "their" D&D. Maybe it's because I left D&D for a long time to focus on Rolemaster as my main fantasy RPG of choice. I've never felt any need or desire to play a brand or a particular company's games). I've just looked for a ruleset that does what I want it to.
> 
> I understand that marketers want to build brand loyalty. I guess I'm a little surprised by just how successful they seem to have been among RPGers.




KM is right on the money, but it's not *just* about brand. It's also been about availability. Which RPG has been the most accessible to the public? It's never been Rolemaster. It's been D&D. It rode at the crest of a fad in RPGs and got its foot in to many doors showing up in Waldenbooks, B.Daltons, Borders, Barnes and Nobles, mom and pop bookstores in small towns like Baraboo, WI (no lie, saw it there in the early 1980s), and in public library systems. You're far more likely to find a D&D player, lapsed or current, than any other RPG as a result. So if you're looking to find D&D players, it's usually not been that hard - until you start factoring in edition variation. When it was mainly 1e/2e AD&D, it wasn't too hard. The games were far more compatible than any edition changes since. 3e kind of caught another wave of faddish popularity which made it a little easier, plus most concepts remained the same (spell casting, level advancements, roles the PCs played in the game world) even if some mechanics changed (skills, saving throws, AC numbers). Now, it gets harder with the gap between 1e/2e and 3e now adding a gap between 3e and 4e mechanics and between 1e/2e/3e and 4e concepts.

So that's why change is a bigger deal with D&D than it is for, say, Rolemaster and other games that are fringes compared to the mass of RPG players that know about and play D&D.

The availability has been instrumental to making the D&D brand as powerful as it is both in consumer loyalty and in the mindshare of the general public. Even people who have never played are far more likely to have heard of the term D&D than Rolemaster, GURPS, Champions, Vampire, or any other RPG. So again, another reason why these issues are so amplified when dealing with D&D than most other games.


----------



## MerricB

Hussar said:


> I wouldn't DREAM of doing that in 3e.  I'd still be calculating stat blocks.  Ponderous?  Why?  Good grief, most stat blocks are pretty small and adjusting up or down is a snap.  I understand a lot of the criticisms of 4e, but, complaining that it's too work intensive for the DM is new one.




It's in comparison to 1E/Basic, not 3E, though. There's still quite a bit of text there in 4E. (Context of comparison is important! )

I know that preparing for a 1E game takes me less time that 4e (although, admittedly, I tend to not create custom monsters much in either system). However, I also know that my players don't enjoy the lack of player options in 1e and Basic D&D, so that's not a solution!

Going back to the main topic: I do not believe that Wizards can attract lapsed D&D players without also disenchanting some of its current players. It's just the way it goes... nor can a static system maintain its player base as the world changes around it, except in exceptional circumstances.

Cheers!


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I wouldn't DREAM of doing that in 3e. I'd still be calculating stat blocks. Ponderous? Why? Good grief, most stat blocks are pretty small and adjusting up or down is a snap. I understand a lot of the criticisms of 4e, but, complaining that it's too work intensive for the DM is new one.




It's not a common complaint, but I'm one who has it. 

Mostly, it's a style conflict. 4e assumes I want to prepare something for the party to go through. My native style is just to have a vague idea of possibilities and fill in the details during play. 4e doesn't like that, because it doesn't know what slots to put things in unless I tell it.

Forex, 4e says "you don't need to stat out NPC's who aren't going to be in combat," which is an entirely sensible thing to say, if you know which NPCs are and are not going to be in combat. For my style, I don't know this ahead of time. Best I can do is an educated guess, but even that could be last-minute. 

3e had enough of a support network of "rules for everything" that I could pull something out with a few dice rolls. In 3e, if I needed an entire town generated on the fly, I could have it. 

Comparatively, in 4e, I can't even roll for random magic items. 

4e assumes a level of planning that I didn't do until 4e, whenever I DMed 2e or 3e it was by the seat of my pants. That's something that, so far, 4e hasn't made very possible for me.

I understand my style is likely a strange one, though.


----------



## MerricB

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Comparatively, in 4e, I can't even roll for random magic items.
> 
> 4e assumes a level of planning that I didn't do until 4e, whenever I DMed 2e or 3e it was by the seat of my pants. That's something that, so far, 4e hasn't made very possible for me.
> 
> I understand my style is likely a strange one, though.




It's not entirely strange. I have a lot of sympathy for it. 

I've run D&D 4E "by the seat of my pants", but it works in a different way to earlier editions. Instead of having a random table, I had the Monster Builder or Compendium open on my laptop, and I'd quickly search & copy the relevant stats for that encounter - or item. (Need a 17th level item... hmm, that looks good!)

Without technological assistance, it's a little harder, but not impossible. Thankfully, Adventurer's Vault has items by level. 

I wouldn't be creating statblocks on the fly, that was for certain. (I wouldn't in 3E, either!) Instead, I took advantage of the library of blocks that was available to me, reskinning them as necessary. Some good sessions came out of that playstyle, though I normally structure the sessions beforetime - if not long beforetime.

I can fully understand why 4E doesn't have random tables for magic items: apart from being far more structured about *what* items are given out, it also has an ever-increasing list of items, so the tables would have to change too much. (Also, do you presume the owner of AV2 has AV1?) Ditto monsters. That doesn't mean I don't want such tables for some occasions. I seem to remember some people working on those projects - like Asmor - but it's hard to keep up with the releases.

Cheers!


----------



## WheresMyD20

MerricB said:


> Going back to the main topic: I do not believe that Wizards can attract lapsed D&D players without also disenchanting some of its current players. It's just the way it goes...




I think this is largely true.  I don't think there's a single edition of D&D that would even come close to satisfying everyone.  I know that WotC wants to avoid splitting the market, but it seems to me that there's a pretty big divide between 4e, 3e, and "old-school" already.  They are already three different markets.  The split has already happened.  In my estimation (FWIW), it's too late to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.



MerricB said:


> nor can a static system maintain its player base as the world changes around it, except in exceptional circumstances.




I disagree.  There's a large number of classic boardgames that have remained popular for decades:  Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Scrabble, Stratego, etc.  Then there's the true classics which have been around for centuries: Chess, Checkers, Backgammon, etc.  A classic game can be static and still remain popular.  It can even work for RPGs:  Call of Cthulhu has been pretty much the same for about 30 years and is still quite popular.

I mention this not as an argument against the current edition of D&D (which is a good game in its own right), but as a reason for bringing back into print a classic version of the game.  Why can't a classic version and a modern version co-exist?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> It can even work for RPGs: Call of Cthulhu has been pretty much the same for about 30 years and is still quite popular.




And HERO's main changes have been tweeks- the bones of the system are essentially unchanged since 1981.

I think the same may even be said of GURPS.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Well, not to turn this too much into my problems...
[sblock]


> Instead of having a random table, I had the Monster Builder or Compendium open on my laptop, and I'd quickly search & copy the relevant stats for that encounter - or item. (Need a 17th level item... hmm, that looks good!)




Yeah, I prefer not spending time thinking about it, considering the items, weighing options. Closest I get now is with the DDI, searching various keywords to my adventure to get things at least kind of thematically related. Even that's kludged, though, because I miss the level. And it takes a LOT of time to page through those 17th level items at the table. I'd rather just have some table spit me out something.



> I wouldn't be creating statblocks on the fly, that was for certain. (I wouldn't in 3E, either!) Instead, I took advantage of the library of blocks that was available to me, reskinning them as necessary.




Here's where 4e's "lots of monsters in an encounter" works against it, for me. In 3e, I could have a vague idea of an adversary or two, and throw them at the party, and see what happens. In 4e, if a combat breaks out (and it's D&D, so combat breaks out frequently), I need 5 different types of monsters spread across 4 levels and 3 group types, along with interesting terrain. I also need to pay attention to the party makeup: a party without a controller might get decimated by minions, and a party without a striker turns soldier-types into a slog. 

That's a lot of complexity that I just don't have time to consider the ramifications of when the party decides it wants to fight the goblins.

And if the party decides it wants to have a philosophical debate with the goblins instead, I'm even more adrift in the grey, samey, Skill Challenge zone.
[/sblock]
Buuuuuuuuuuuuut, as a current D&D customer, I'm not officially amongst the disenchanted. I'm enchanted enough (weirdly enough, it comes down to 4e's approach to buffing that wins me over -- lazy DM says fiddly cascading +1's are more effort than they're worth). I do more work to prep for my game now than I used to though, and I think that kind of sucks. I get the sense that most DMs don't share my suffering here, though.


----------



## MerricB

WheresMyD20 said:


> I disagree.  There's a large number of classic boardgames that have remained popular for decades:  Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Scrabble, Stratego, etc.  Then there's the true classics which have been around for centuries: Chess, Checkers, Backgammon, etc.  A classic game can be static and still remain popular.  It can even work for RPGs:  Call of Cthulhu has been pretty much the same for about 30 years and is still quite popular.




It's very interesting to look at the circumstances of each of those games and analyse why they are still popular. Do I consider each to have an exceptional circumstance? I certainly do. Most games do not survive so long.

This is not a large number of games. It is a very small number comparative to how many have been designed.

In RPGs, there are games that have managed to survive over 30 years without changing their mechanics much. However, you've got to ask yourself this: do they even approach the sales of D&D? I cannot think of one that does. They sell to a very small market; enough to survive and make a profit, but not to be a game on the level of D&D.

Call of Cthulhu is an interesting case. In fact, I shall be running a session of it on Friday when my regular D&D 4E campaign takes a break. This is a game which has one good and important mechanic (Sanity) and then the rest of it comes from the theme and play of the game.

Meanwhile, all of these games have pressure from the greater world outside. D&D is particularly vulnerable to the rise of fantasy computer games such as World of Warcraft. D&D's magic was designed with an eye towards that of Jack Vance, but how does this relate to a world in which the young adult whose introduction to fantasy was Harry Potter, where the characters cast spell after spell after spell?

D&D is special in that it has a uniqueness to itself (D&Dness), but it draws upon the fantastic imagination of the world at large. If something becomes an important part of the concept of fantasy in the world, then D&D will likely incorporate it into itself. Compare meanwhile to Call of Cthulhu, which has a much more restrictive body of work to draw upon.

(One wonders at how Vampire is faring these days: a game that seemed to draw heavily on Anne Rice now dealing with vampire tales like Twilight? Will Vampire be the game that those who read Twilight and like RPGs go to, or will something else develop for them?)

Game systems can exist for years without change, but to be successful through that time and beyond? That is exceptional.

I will note in closing that there has never, ever been a time when D&D was not changing. From its original release in 1974 through to the present day, the game has always had the addition of new material and the revision of the old.

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar

KM - I can totally understand that.  I've never been a "seat of my pants" DM, so, for me, it's a major win.  As MerricB rightly says, it's all a trade off.  I can have a system that's incredibly easy to stat out - like 1e D&D.  But, I lose a great deal of mechanical complexity in the process.

I'm not willing to do that honestly.  Losing that much mechanical complexity does not seem a fair trade-off to me.  I want more complexity.  Now, you can go too far - which is where 3e kinda lost me.  I haven't written a 3e adventure from scratch in years, despite playing weekly or even twice weekly.  I played 3e with modules almost exclusively.

Doing this 4e adventure has been a major blast.  But a totally different approach from what I did before.  This time, I started with the math, kinda divided things out and then designed the adventure around the encounters.  Pretty much backwards to what I did before.

I can totally see why that would turn some people off.


----------



## pemerton

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why?
> 
> People get attached to brands all the friggin' time. We are a consumer culture. We identify ourselves with our purchases.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For a lot of D&D players, the friendships and experiences playing the game were some of the best experiences of those rocky (especially rocky for a lot of D&D players, who are usually amongst the more nerdy kids) years.



This makes some sense. I guess I still find it a bit surprising that the "outsiders"/nerds who are into D&D are just like the insiders in their approach to self-identity, except they've substituted the D&D brand for whatever it is that the cool kids are interested in.



billd91 said:


> KM is right on the money, but it's not *just* about brand. It's also been about availability.



This makes a lot of sense, including the stuff I snipped about the impact of edition changes.

My RM group was formed while I was at a big university in a city of 3 million people, and I never had trouble finding players. I can imagine things might be a bit different in a modestly sized town or small city. The brand becomes a place-holder for the whole activity.


----------



## pemerton

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 4e assumes I want to prepare something for the party to go through. My native style is just to have a vague idea of possibilities and fill in the details during play. 4e doesn't like that, because it doesn't know what slots to put things in unless I tell it.



I have had exactly the same experience - I do a lot more GM prep than I used to.

Although RM has a reputation for being crunch-heavy, it can be played very prep-light, because there are big books of monsters with even shorter stat blocks than 4e monsters, and there are good pre-prepared tables for NPCs. And the tactics of combat and spell casting are to do with allocating skill bonuses to attack, defence, and so on, and rationing power points. These are decisions made in the course of play - they don't require advance planning. (RM can be very prep-heavy in one respect, namely, deciding what ruleset to use, given the various versions out there and the huge range of options that have been published by ICE and developed by fans. But that's a bit different from session/adventure prep.)

For me, the extra prep for 4e is not so much NPCs/monsters (I mostly just use monsters from the books, and I can adjudicate an interaction skill challenge on the fly), but maps. We never used encounter maps in RM - if a picture was needed, I would just draw up a sketch of the combat location - but they are pretty central to the tactical element of 4e play.


----------



## pemerton

WheresMyD20 said:


> There's a large number of classic boardgames that have remained popular for decades:  Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Scrabble, Stratego, etc.  Then there's the true classics which have been around for centuries: Chess, Checkers, Backgammon, etc.  A classic game can be static and still remain popular.  It can even work for RPGs:  Call of Cthulhu has been pretty much the same for about 30 years and is still quite popular.



Adding to what others have said - the boardgames (i) make a lot of repeat sales as kids grow up, pieces are lost, boards are damaged, grandparents need to find gifts for grandkids, etc, and (ii) do not need to earn any more money than is necessary to make a return on milling pieces and printing boards.

D&D, on the other hand, makes fewer repeat sales - books don't get lost or broken at the same rate - and is trying to support a full-time stable of writers, plus pay for the work of the many associated freelancers. (In that sense it strikes me as a curious business model - it's a game which only needs to be bought once to play, but it's trying to make money like a publishing house constantly selling new books to readers who have finished with the old ones.)

It's true that Cthulhu hasn't changed much. But the flip side of that is that it's a small game with comparatively little published support. Sales of Cthulhu aren't keeping a big writing team afloat.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> And HERO's main changes have been tweeks- the bones of the system are essentially unchanged since 1981.
> 
> I think the same may even be said of GURPS.



And Rolemaster - the move to RMSS in the early/mid-90s was not as big a change as that between AD&D and 3E. On the other hand, ICE is no longer an example of a flourishing RPG publisher.


----------



## pemerton

ExploderWizard said:


> Gripping tactical battles is not an outcome.



Well, it is an outcome in the sense I intended it. I know it can be a desired outcome of play to enjoy gripping tactical battles, because I have that desire for that outcome.

I can tell you one fantasy RPG that does not produce gripping tactical battles, at least in my experience: Runequest. Very few tactical choices have to be made by a player either in character build or play, and the resolution of combat turns purely on the dice rolls. Runequest has a lot going for it as a system, but gripping tactics is not one of those things.

The fact that I can describe an RPG that doesn't deliver the desired outcome reinforces my conviction that it is an outcome of play that it makes sense to desire.



ExploderWizard said:


> The outcome in this case would be to win or lose that gripping tactical battle.



Well, that's also an outcome. But as GM I don't particularly care whether the PCs win or lose - I just want gripping tactics! And, conversely, Runequest will also deliver wins or losses in battle, but it won't deliver gripping tactics.

Winning and losing battles is not the outcome that I'm interested in. It's the fact that the battles involve gripping tactics that I care about, and that (for my group) 4e delivers on (as does RM, but in a different way - and at the moment at least 4e is more satisfying for my group).



ExploderWizard said:


> If those mechanics facilitate a path toward a destination known from the start then you don't really have a game.



This just isn't true. The mechanics of chess facilitate a path towards a destination know from the start - namely, resignation by one player (or checkmate in some cases) because the position is one in which his/her king cannot be defended from the other player's attack. It's still a game.

Cthulhu-based roleplaying games facilitate a path towards a destination known from the start, namely, revelations of cult activity that lead to confrontations between bookish investigators and strange creatures that threaten to overwhelm those investigators both physically and psychically. It's still a game.



ExploderWizard said:


> Hard choices come when the actual outcome of the game is riding on them.



Well, I talked about a game in which the desired outcome is "finding out what it means to be a fantasy hero". Such a game of necessity will involve hard choices - if no hard choices are put in front of a player, s/he is hardly going to find out what heroism means! But those hard choices won't be ones that threaten the desired outcome - they will ensure that it is achieved. For example (a choice that has already come up in my 4e campaign), Do heroes make deals with slave traders to buy back their slaves, or do they rescue those slaves by beating up on the slave traders? My players went for the first option. Other players might very well feel that dealing with slave traders is never justified, even if it's the most convenient way of freeing the slaves in question. That's a hard choice (not hard like "Should I have kids or not?", but hard enough for a fairly low key recreational pursuit). The gameplay turns upon that choice. Ingame outcomes ride on it (eg do the slavers live to continue their evil trade, or not?). But the occurence of that choice does not put the overall goal, of finding out what it means to be a fantasy hero, into question. It makes realising that goal possible.

And what I've just described manifestly involves playing a game - it's a pretty bog-standard instance of playing an RPG.


----------



## The Little Raven

Imaro said:


> Forgotten Realms (which actually had different character creation rules in 3e from the Greyhawk/default setting)




3e - Region (area you're from).

4e - Background (are you're from). Multi-Class Only Class - Spellscarred. New Class - Swordmage.



> Eberron




3e - Dragonmarks. New Class - Artificer.

4e - Dragonmarks. New Class - Artificer.



> Ravenloft




Not an actual setting in 4e. Merely the inspiration for the Domains of Dread concept in 4e. Note that none of the Domains of Dread presented are from Ravenloft.



> Personally for me the problem is that they have chosen not to differentiate any of the settings listed above through unique rules to enhance their flavor. However it seems they may have gotten a clue with Dark Sun... though I'm not sure if I have enough faith in WotC to even buy it to see.




So, "Region" is a unique rule to enhance the flavor of the Realms in 3e, but it's 4e brother-by-another-mother "Background" doesn't count. And a multi-class only class (which exists in no other setting so far) doesn't count either or an entirely new class doesn't count? The same Dragonmarks and Artificer class available in both editions of the game means that 3e has unique rules for the setting, but 4e doesn't?


----------



## The Little Raven

WheresMyD20 said:


> Then there's the true classics which have been around for centuries: Chess, Checkers, Backgammon, etc.




And took centuries to reach the current forms we know. They weren't the static games they are now.


----------



## Primal

The Little Raven said:


> So, "Region" is a unique rule to enhance the flavor of the Realms in 3e, but it's 4e brother-by-another-mother "Background" doesn't count. And a multi-class only class (which exists in no other setting so far) doesn't count either or an entirely new class doesn't count? The same Dragonmarks and Artificer class available in both editions of the game means that 3e has unique rules for the setting, but 4e doesn't?




To be fair, 'Region' determined your optional starting equipment and which FR Regional/Racial feats you could take. 'Background', AFAIK, is only a static bonus to one of the skills -- or your initiative, which is "the" choice for most optimizers I know.


----------



## wedgeski

Posrep to everyone who has achieved a 53 page thread on this subject with no lock. It's been a great read and I hope there are eyes from Wizards giving it a scan.


----------



## Imaro

The Little Raven said:


> 3e - Region (area you're from).
> 
> 4e - Background (are you're from). Multi-Class Only Class - Spellscarred. New Class - Swordmage.
> 
> 
> 
> 3e - Dragonmarks. New Class - Artificer.
> 
> 4e - Dragonmarks. New Class - Artificer.
> 
> 
> 
> Not an actual setting in 4e. Merely the inspiration for the Domains of Dread concept in 4e. Note that none of the Domains of Dread presented are from Ravenloft.
> 
> 
> 
> So, "Region" is a unique rule to enhance the flavor of the Realms in 3e, but it's 4e brother-by-another-mother "Background" doesn't count. And a multi-class only class (which exists in no other setting so far) doesn't count either or an entirely new class doesn't count? The same Dragonmarks and Artificer class available in both editions of the game means that 3e has unique rules for the setting, but 4e doesn't?




Go back and re-read the posts... backgrounds are in the general 4e rules, so no they are not a specific chnge in rules or new mechanic that differentiates gameplay in FR vs. Nentir Vale or anywhere else (unlike 3e where this was quite specific to FR period)... likewise classes.  When did I say the Artificer in Eberron (I cited the introduction of action points officially in Eberron and only officially in Eberron) or new classes in general was what I was talking about, I gave specific examples of the types of things I was talking about... again, please go back and read my posts before trying to engage me in discussion.  You're not addressing anything I've posted.

As far as Ravenloft goes... you're nitpicking, but whatever.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Really?
> 
> To me it seemed more like the process for that went "We don't want the cleric to be the only healer anymore, and we define healing as a 'leader' role ability, and 'leaders' also include general character enhancements. Also, we like playing with minis, and we're making this in-depth tactical combat system, and we need a class to show it off. Lets make our new healer a tactical buffer!"




Had that been _all_ they wanted, they could simply have used the arcane healer in 3.X - the Bard - as the second Leader (and some other new class).  On the other hand, PHB 1 classes were clearly produced with less skill than PHB 2 classes (for instance there were V shaped classes).  They clearly had the idea of the Warlord and wanted to use that to show off what could be done.


----------



## Shazman

Except, I don't think they knew what they wanted the bard to be like at that time.  I think I remember them saying somehwere that they didn't know what to do with the bard and gnome, which is why they weren't in the PHB I.  So we got the warlord instead.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I would point out the Gazateers for Mystara, each of which had new rules related to the area described, and the historical "green books" for 2e as *obvious* places where the rules are being changed to fit the setting.  As has been mentioned upthread, all the fear, terror, and madness rules of Ravenloft are another *obvious* place.  

If "swap halflings for kender" was the only change you noted going from pre-DragonLance D&D into Krynn, well, the authors failed, because they were trying to make that world feel unique, and specific changes were made to accomplish that task.  Three moons of magic and all that, if nothing else.



RC


----------



## renau1g

Imaro said:


> Go back and re-read the posts... backgrounds are in the general 4e rules, so no they are not a specific chnge in rules or new mechanic that differentiates gameplay in FR vs. Nentir Vale or anywhere else (unlike 3e where this was quite specific to FR period)... likewise classes.  When did I say the Artificer in Eberron (I cited the introduction of action points officially in Eberron and only officially in Eberron) or new classes in general was what I was talking about, I gave specific examples of the types of things I was talking about... again, please go back and read my posts before trying to engage me in discussion.  You're not addressing anything I've posted.
> 
> As far as Ravenloft goes... you're nitpicking, but whatever.




Well, the FR backgrounds are actually quite a bit different in their mechanics than the "core" ones. Also, IIRC, the backgrounds weren't introduced into the "core" material until PHB2, which was 2009 release, whereas the FR books came out in 2008, so they introduced it first.


----------



## Imaro

renau1g said:


> Well, the FR backgrounds are actually quite a bit different in their mechanics than the "core" ones. Also, IIRC, the backgrounds weren't introduced into the "core" material until PHB2, which was 2009 release, whereas the FR books came out in 2008, so they introduced it first.




Actually they were introduced in Scales of War first... in Dragon, which is general D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking

renau1g said:


> Well, the FR backgrounds are actually quite a bit different in their mechanics than the "core" ones. Also, IIRC, the backgrounds weren't introduced into the "core" material until PHB2, which was 2009 release, whereas the FR books came out in 2008, so they introduced it first.




Heh.

That's a problem with "Everything's core", isn't it?  

You can't really have mechanics that are setting-specific while at the same time having every mechanic be core.

At some point, you have to choose which it is going to be.


RC


----------



## NoWayJose

pemerton said:


> Even more radically - the unconscious PC is slipping further and further into the inviting light - but then remembers the Warlord PC, and how s/he stressed the importance of never giving up until the mission is completed - and then the unconscious PC's eyes flicker open.




If you fluff it that way, why is it that an ultra-charismatic non-warlord can't accomplish the same task using raw natural ability? It's just so completely utterly arbitrary and gamist that only a warlord can do this. Inspiring people from death's door is NOT part of a profession. A father or loved one can do it, a close friend and comrade-in-arms, charismatic priest invoking your faith in a god (without healing magic per se), etc.



> Using a power in 4e is clearly something that the _player_ of the PC does, but it's always an open question whether or not it is something that the PC him/herself has done.




Which is very problematic if you're truly roleplaying and immersed in your character and imagining what your PC is doing, and not "reverse engineering" what the rules say.

To relate this back to the OP, 4E would win me back if the allocation and effects of powers were less arbitrary and more consistent in terms of crunch to fluff simulation. All other potential faults (PDFs, marketing, etc.) would be forgiven as long as I loved the feeling of the game.


----------



## MrMyth

NoWayJose said:


> If you fluff it that way, why is it that an ultra-charismatic non-warlord can't accomplish the same task using raw natural ability? It's just so completely utterly arbitrary and gamist that only a warlord can do this. Inspiring people from death's door is NOT part of a profession. A father or loved one can do it, a close friend and comrade-in-arms, charismatic priest invoking your faith in a god (without healing magic per se), etc.




Well, anyone can activate a downed character's second wind, representing, as I see it, physically trying to get them on their feet and back in the fight. Outside of that... I'm sure there are skill and utility powers scattered across the place that would represent this. Outside of that... the Warlord is a natural born leader, the type that others follow into hell itself, and not everyone can lay claim to that sort of thing. 

Sometimes the fallen will still find themselves able to get back in the fight (rolling a natural 20 on a death save and getting back up), and this can easily represent them finding something to inspire them back into the fight.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Heh.
> 
> That's a problem with "Everything's core", isn't it?
> 
> You can't really have mechanics that are setting-specific while at the same time having every mechanic be core.
> 
> At some point, you have to choose which it is going to be.
> 
> 
> RC




In my personal thoughts- mechanics don't need to be added to make a setting feel unique. The flavor of the setting should do that. Flavor is what drives ME to a particular world (can't speak for anyone else.)

I'm not sure I would even agree that any rules were added in the past to make the setting feel unique, as opposed to they had a cool idea, and it hadn't been thought of in the game as a whole yet, so it was added.

I feel that base mechanics should only be modified or added if there is a real NEED to do so (such as the core rules not having anything that can be used for whatever it is that is being done.) 

If that rule addition is popular or really does modify the game in an overall positive way, then add it to the game as a whole. Don't squirrel it away in a setting specific book.

When 4e was created, the mechanics the old versions of the different campaign worlds added to the game were already a part of the game, so there was no longer a need to "add" them to that setting.   All that needs doing is some re-skinning.  Leave the base mechanic alone, just skin it to fit the flavor of your setting. (IE the base mechanics pf backgrounds should be part of the game as a whole, just re-skinned to be FR appropriate in FR.)

Dark Sun seems to be adding new mechanics because it has elements that just weren't thought of at the onset of the edition. If the new rules it adds to the game are fun- they should be added to the game as a whole (like a weird game creation mobius strip.)

Themes for instance... So far they seem really cool. I hope they are added to the game as a whole after the release of DS.


----------



## Herschel

BryonD said:


> Heh, so let me get this right, you are arguing that you can't compare one real but unquantified group with another real but unquantified group, and you are doing that by referencing a questionable and completely unquantified group?




No, what I'm saying is that certain people who admittedly have never read or played a system continuosly rant about how bad said system is ad nauseum and that it's an UNQUALIFIED troll instead of an actual, "informed" criticism, which the person I quoted has admitted.


----------



## carmachu

MerricB said:


> Indeed they do... and note how Wizards are now producing books which have a lot of material that _isn't_ in the Compendium. Yes, the mechanics are - but the additional "fluff" isn't, and that's a significant part of their recent releases.




But considering that early books didnt have alot of fluff, I'm not sure thats going to be a good selling point to buy instead of a DDI subscription for the compendium. Heck I know a couple guys that split the yearly cost and use an account.....teh one could care less about the fluff, just the mechnics.


----------



## WheresMyD20

pemerton said:


> And Rolemaster - the move to RMSS in the early/mid-90s was not as big a change as that between AD&D and 3E. On the other hand, ICE is no longer an example of a flourishing RPG publisher.




My friends and I played a lot of RoleMaster.  Back in the late 80s/early 90s RoleMaster was our system of choice.  None of us liked the RMSS.  ICE took an already complicated system and made it significantly more complicated.  They made the mistake of thinking that just because fans liked RoleMaster's complexity that they would want even more complexity in a new version.


----------



## Mallus

NoWayJose said:


> If you fluff it that way, why is it that an ultra-charismatic non-warlord can't accomplish the same task using raw natural ability?



Why can't an AD&D wizard teach his buddy the fighter, who he's spent years looting and camping with, _one_ single 1st level spell? 



> It's just so completely utterly arbitrary and gamist that only a warlord can do this. Inspiring people from death's door is NOT part of a profession.



See above. Also, of course it's gamist. D&D is a game. 



> A father or loved one can do it, a close friend and comrade-in-arms, charismatic priest invoking your faith in a god (without healing magic per se), etc.



This is covered in 4e. It would be a stunt (page 42). 



> Which is very problematic if you're truly roleplaying and immersed in your character and imagining what your PC is doing, and not "reverse engineering" what the rules say.



The funny thing is, people arrive at (and define) immersion quite differently. My group has no problem immersing themselves in their characters or the fictional world of our 4e campaign. The PC's are, if I do say so myself, with obvious bias, etc., brilliant and thoroughly entertaining. Including the warlord, who can verbally harangue the injured back to tip-top shape. I defy anyone to demonstrate why we aren't 'truly role-playing'.

(failed my will save against this one...).


----------



## NoWayJose

MrMyth said:


> Well, anyone can activate a downed character's second wind, representing, as I see it, physically trying to get them on their feet and back in the fight. Outside of that... I'm sure there are skill and utility powers scattered across the place that would represent this. Outside of that... the Warlord is a natural born leader, the type that others follow into hell itself, and not everyone can lay claim to that sort of thing.




But that exactly supports my point. Any natural born leader can theoretically inspire someone from death's door. But not every natural born leader is a warlord. But in 4E only a warlord can inspire from death's door. It doesn't make any sense.

A father or loved one or whatever can inspire a son from death's door with the right words or emotion. But such a person doesn't necessarily have a skill or utility power. So tough luck for their 4E incarnation -- a warlord's career ability trumps a loving father's unskilled untrained pure raw natural inspiration.



> Sometimes the fallen will still find themselves able to get back in the fight (rolling a natural 20 on a death save and getting back up), and this can easily represent them finding something to inspire them back into the fight.




That would represent the will of the PC, not the inspiration from a 3rd party.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> In my personal thoughts- mechanics don't need to be added to make a setting feel unique. The flavor of the setting should do that. Flavor is what drives ME to a particular world (can't speak for anyone else.)





Runecasting in a Norse setting, specific incredible physical feats in a Celtic setting, primitive argriculture and merely keeping a village alive in a Biblical setting, complex social standing within a Victorian setting, Honor in an Oriental setting, fear effects and social isolation within a Gothic horror setting -- these have all been done in various previous editions (in some cases by 3pp).

If the flavour determines the mechanics, then mechanics must exist to support the flavour.  If the mechanics come first, then you can describe what the mechanics decide however you like.

The first supports role-playing (in that the choices of the players correspond to the actions of the characters), the second story-creation (in that a story is created, but not necessarily because the choices of the players pertain to the characters).   

How did pemerton phrase it?  Oh yes:  "Using a power in 4e is clearly something that the player of the PC does, but it's always an open question whether or not it is something that the PC him/herself has done."

Both can be interesting types of games.  Once Upon A Time is my personal fav story-creation game, though.  I would rather play a role-playing game that is more focused on the player making choices that correspond to the actions of the character......to me, that is what role-playing _*is*_.

YMMV, and it is cool if it does.

But there is a difference in approach, and it leaves me cold.


RC

.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Comparatively, in 4e, I can't even roll for random magic items.




Uh oh! I've been rolling for random magic items. Please don't turn me into the WotC Police!


----------



## carmachu

El Mahdi said:


> I agree with (almost) all of this. The problem is that when you extend this reasoning, WotC's actions seem illogical.
> 
> 
> Basically: What's the point of targeting teens with the goal of growing a long-term customer* pool, if you treat your long term customers in a manner which says: _"only the new customers matter"_?
> 
> It seems to me that working at _keeping_ customers is just as important...




Their taking apage from Games Workshop- pump and dump, the new customer matters and will put more money in short term. The long term guys will eitehr be there or not so why bother to cater to them. If they stick around great, if not, they'll find some new guy.


----------



## MrMyth

Raven Crowking said:


> That's a problem with "Everything's core", isn't it?
> 
> You can't really have mechanics that are setting-specific while at the same time having every mechanic be core.
> 
> At some point, you have to choose which it is going to be.




I see it as a question of 'default' vs 'allowed'. I expect to see Dragonmarks in an Eberron game - that doesn't mean a DM can't _allow_ them in another setting, but it isn't necessarily the default. Similarly, Themes in Dark Sun will help put the starting PCs at a slightly stronger power level, just like in previous editions they might start at 3rd Level. 

Does that mean, in previous editions, that you weren't _allowed_ to run a game that started at 3rd Level without setting it in Dark Sun? Well, no - but it helped make the setting distinct. 

Similarly, we might see optional theme rules show up for use outside of Dark Sun - but by having a stronger emphasis on them and having them default from the start, they become a part of the setting, and help it feel distinct. 

Which is really how I like it. I want the settings to feel unique without being so different that they aren't compatible - the fact that my current game has both featured planar exploration, astral sea sailing, and a trip into a Domain of Dread _has been a good thing_. 

That's not to say there isn't room for unique setting properties - but I think a level of balance can be found. I don't think anything about 4E inherently prevents unique campaign elements. We just haven't seen any settings that really needed it. The ones that got incorporated into the basic setting still have elements of it - travel among the different planes ala Planescape, and you'll run into different planar properties and mutability, have to deal with portal mechanics and so forth. Find yourself trapped in a Domain of Dread, and you have to figure out its rules and what conditions might let you escape - if you can. 

Is that the same as having Fear/Insanity points? Maybe not. But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw something along those lines when we get a full Ravenloft setting - for now, we get a taste of it that make it more available to a general game, and I'm ok with that. Eberron and FR, our only actual setting releases, feel as distinct as they ever have. Dark Sun is looking likely to be even more so - not just with themes, but with the standard emphasis on survival and brutality and what sounds like more intense rules for staying alive in the harsh heat of the world. 

I'm just not seeing that having rules portable across setting inherently undercuts the uniqueness of each setting itself.


----------



## Scribble

NoWayJose said:


> But that exactly supports my point. Any natural born leader can theoretically inspire someone from death's door. But not every natural born leader is a warlord. But in 4E only a warlord can inspire from death's door. It doesn't make any sense.




Makes sense to me. Warlord is good at reading people and knowing what will really rile them up, and get them back on their feet.

If I were knocked out, and someone was yelling "Dude get up- you have to get up- the finale of The OC is on in a few minutes if you don't get up you'e gonna miss it!!! Now FIIIIGHT"

It's going to have much less of an effect on me then if someone were yelling "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!"

Addmitedly this is an over the top scenario (I like to go for the funny) but my point is simply that the Warlord is just better then most at knowing what will inspire you, without having to really have been a part of your life for a long time.



> A father or loved one or whatever can inspire a son from death's door with the right words or emotion. But such a person doesn't necessarily have a skill or utility power. So tough luck for their 4E incarnation -- a warlord's career ability trumps a loving father's unskilled untrained pure raw natural inspiration.




And this is where we go back to what we were talking about earlier I think...  That this is where RPGs shine. The ability of the DM to take a good framework and bend it to whatever fits best for the campaign.

Sure there isn't a rule for every corner case imaginary, and I applaud that. Basing how a warlord could be part of the world on the corner case of someone's father not being able to do the healing trick by raw is a recipe for disastrous minutia in my opinion.

Give me the basic rules of how the warlord does it.  If at some point down the line, we role-play an emotional "Goddammit, you bitch! You never backed away from anything in your life! Now fight! Fight! Fight! Right now! Do it!" scene ala the Abyss, as the DM I can use the basic framework to let it happen.


----------



## MrMyth

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Uh oh! I've been rolling for random magic items. Please don't turn me into the WotC Police!




I might disagree with most of RC's points, but I've absolutely got to back him here - there is a definite difference between 'allowed' and 'supported'. Sure, you can work out rules for rolling for random magic items, but there aren't any in the books nor is there an especially easy method to figure it out.

Now, I'm a fan of not having random rolling being the default, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see the option. Whenever DMG3 or the equivalent comes along, I'd love to see a big section of optional rules that includes things like this.


----------



## NoWayJose

Mallus said:


> Why can't an AD&D wizard teach his buddy the fighter, who he's spent years looting and camping with, _one_ single 1st level spell?



Why can't a computer programmer or digital artist teach his buddy the plumber, who he's spent years looting and camping with, one single Perl\CGI script or Photoshop faux-Impressionist image.


> See above. Also, of course it's gamist. D&D is a game.



You're gaming me on the semantics. I think you know the definitions of verisimilitude, gamist, simulationist, etc. so let's not waste our time on this. 


> This is covered in 4e. It would be a stunt (page 42).



Ah, page 42. Who needs rules about anything, where every possibility is covered under page 42.


----------



## MrMyth

NoWayJose said:


> But that exactly supports my point. Any natural born leader can theoretically inspire someone from death's door. But not every natural born leader is a warlord. But in 4E only a warlord can inspire from death's door. It doesn't make any sense.
> 
> A father or loved one or whatever can inspire a son from death's door with the right words or emotion. But such a person doesn't necessarily have a skill or utility power. So tough luck for their 4E incarnation -- a warlord's career ability trumps a loving father's unskilled untrained pure raw natural inspiration.




Anyone can swing a sword, but not every can master it - if you truly want your character to be a natural born leader, you'll need to be a Warlord, or multiclass Warlord, or take a feat or utility power or skill power that lets you perform similar actions. 

Or, if you are in a rare situation where there truly is a vital emotional connection on the line - that is absolutely the situation that 'page 42' is for, to cover a scenario the rules don't address. I'd certainly allow a son to try and rouse his father to save the family. 

But I wouldn't want to see a specific _feat_ for that, because it _isn't_ a common enough scenario to need to represent in the codified rules.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

MrMyth said:


> nor is there an especially easy method to figure it out.




I learned to count before kindergarten, so to each their own on what counts as "especially easy."

How did you roll for magic items in previous editions once new material was released beyond the core? 1E AD&D helped you with the release of Unearthed Arcana, but after that if you wanted to add additional materials you were on your own. The same is true for every other edition past the core book. So maybe it's my 27 years of practice rolling when the system doesn't support it that makes it easier for me.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Runecasting in a Norse setting, specific incredible physical feats in a Celtic setting, primitive argriculture and merely keeping a village alive in a Biblical setting, complex social standing within a Victorian setting, Honor in an Oriental setting, fear effects and social isolation within a Gothic horror setting -- these have all been done in various previous editions (in some cases by 3pp).
> 
> If the flavour determines the mechanics, then mechanics must exist to support the flavour.  If the mechanics come first, then you can describe what the mechanics decide however you like.




I'm not really advocating one thing comes first here though.

I'm advocating that rules shouldn't be added to the game to make the setting feel unique, as that's the flavor's job, and I'm also saying that if rules are created for one setting, and they are good for the game they should be added to the game as a whole.

Like the rune-casting you mentioned. Ok, sure, it's expected in a Norse setting, but why separate that from other areas? It seems like a useful thing for any game setting.

If while creating your Norse setting you suddenly found there wasn't anything in the game to support rune-casting then sure, add it to the game, but then why not add rune-casting to the game as a whole? 

Or better yet just a base mechanic of fortune telling of some type that can be re-skinned for the other areas. (IE in ravenloft we use tarrot cards or tea leaves. In darksun we use entrails...)


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> First, that is why I referenced 2e and 3e... not 1e. Second... so what, for more of D&D's history it has had specific rules for different campaign settings, including Hollow World for BECMI. (which if I recall correctly, and I may not be, there were only two major settings for... yet rules were used to bring out the uniqueness in different regions with the gazetteer series as well.)




The number of settings tends to increase as the edition gets older.  In general, you don't come out of the gate with a dozen of the things - they build up over time.  

When it was two years old (1980) 1e had just Greyhawk in print, iirc.  At the analogous time in its history (1991) I think 2e had Greyhawk, FR, and Dragonlance (all carried over from the previous editions, none of which call for notable mechanical changes outside of classes and races), and Dark Sun had just come out.  Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Al Qadim - all were later in 2e's history.

And now, two years out, 4e has?  A couple of settings close to the core rule set that were carried over from the previous edition... and now Dark Sun?  Interesting, and I expect the analogy may well be intentional on their part.  

There seems to me to be a whole lot of sense to allowing a game to run along with its core rules for a while before offering up lots of variations.



> Personally for me the problem is that they have chosen not to differentiate any of the settings listed above through unique rules to enhance their flavor.




Okay.  Is this more about how WotC doesn't produce mechanical changes to back up setting flavor, or is it just that the settings they've produced so far are bland in flavor?



> ...as I was very specific about what era/editions of D&D I was speaking of and what characterictics I was talking about... again, not once did I mention 1e or races and classes.




You were clear about era (2e and 3e).  You were not clear about the characteristics - you didn't mention any specific ones at all!  So I chose some characteristics to start with, as they'd gotten mentioned elsewhere in the thread, and seemed relevant.


----------



## MrMyth

NoWayJose said:


> Ah, page 42. Who needs rules about anything, where every possibility is covered under page 42.




Are you really saying we need, somewhere in the rules, an actual power or feat to represent a family member's ability to call back a loved one from the brink of death in a moment of epic inspiration? Isn't that _absolutely_ the sort of corner-case - informed by character motivations and not any mechanics - that it is useful to have some guidelines for the DM to use, rather than just having to make a decision and say 'yes' or 'no'?


----------



## pemerton

NoWayJose said:


> If you fluff it that way, why is it that an ultra-charismatic non-warlord can't accomplish the same task using raw natural ability? It's just so completely utterly arbitrary and gamist that only a warlord can do this. Inspiring people from death's door is NOT part of a profession. A father or loved one can do it, a close friend and comrade-in-arms, charismatic priest invoking your faith in a god (without healing magic per se), etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is very problematic if you're truly roleplaying and immersed in your character and imagining what your PC is doing, and not "reverse engineering" what the rules say.



Well, I did say upthread that the 4e-style approach may not be appealing to those who dislike it's strong metagame element. But once you accept that element, it answers your question - the reason non-Warords can't do the same is because the player of a non-Warlord doesn't get the "fate points"/"metagame tokens" that let one do this.

(You can see that I see things a bit different from MrMyth, who explains it in ingame terms, about the Warlord being a natural leader. I agree with you that that doesn't entirely make ingame sense - hence the move to the metagame realm to understand what is going on. And I agree with Mallus.)

That said, on the 4e threads LostSoul and I were having a discussion recently about whether a Diplomacy check could be used to heal a PC. And Mallus addresses the same point in his post upthread.

I agree with Mallus that the answer is yes (applying p 42) although it woud have to be handled in such a way that it doesn't mechanically overshadow the Heal skill, second wind and class features. My thought was that the check should be Moderate or Hard based on the relationship, and that a failure should cause psychic damage to the one attempting the check. LostSoul also suggested granting combat advantage when making the check - as a balancing factor, and understood in the game as resulting from the emotional state in response to the injury of the PC being healed.


----------



## NoWayJose

Scribble said:


> Makes sense to me. Warlord is good at reading people and knowing what will really rile them up, and get them back on their feet.
> If I were knocked out, and someone was yelling "Dude get up- you have to get up- the finale of The OC is on in a few minutes if you don't get up you'e gonna miss it!!! Now FIIIIGHT"
> It's going to have much less of an effect on me then if someone were yelling "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!"
> Addmitedly this is an over the top scenario (I like to go for the funny) but my point is simply that the Warlord is just better then most at knowing what will inspire you, without having to really have been a part of your life for a long time.



You still support my point. A natural born leader can yell "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!". Gandalf or Sam can say that, an ultra-charismatic lawyer can say that, your the spouse or child of the wife who is about to die can say that. I can't imagine why ONLY a Warlord can say "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!" and everyone else can only come up with "The OC is on in a few minutes"



> And this is where we go back to what we were talking about earlier I think... That this is where RPGs shine. The ability of the DM to take a good framework and bend it to whatever fits best for the campaign.



I think RPGs shine when the framework is good enough so that the DM doesn't have to refer to page 42 so much.


> Sure there isn't a rule for every corner case imaginary, and I applaud that.



But I wasn't asking for a rule for every case. I was asking for less arbitrariness in the crunch to fluff. There are many other examples of arbitrary allocation and effects of powers, other than just this one specific example, all of which add up for me.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

pemerton said:


> I agree with Mallus that the answer is yes (applying p 42) although it woud have to be handled in such a way that it doesn't mechanically overshadow the Heal skill, second wind and class features. My thought was that the check should be Moderate or Hard based on the relationship, and that a failure should cause psychic damage to the one attempting the check. LostSoul also suggested granting combat advantage when making the check - as a balancing factor, and understood in the game as resulting from the emotional state in response to the injury of the PC being healed.




I would say yes too, but I'd hew closer to existing rules. The Heal skill already allows anyone to revive a dying character, stabilize them if they've used their Second Wind, or give them a +2 bonus on their next death save. As DM I have some leeway in providing a circumstance bonus. Emotional family ties? +2 circumstance bonus. Stirring speech using Diplomacy? +2 circumstance bonus. The rules are there to support non-Warlords, Warlords are just better at it.


----------



## pemerton

Raven Crowking said:


> The first supports role-playing (in that the choices of the players correspond to the actions of the characters), the second story-creation (in that a story is created, but not necessarily because the choices of the players pertain to the characters).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Both can be interesting types of games.  Once Upon A Time is my personal fav story-creation game, though.  I would rather play a role-playing game that is more focused on the player making choices that correspond to the actions of the character......to me, that is what role-playing _*is*_.



I think there's an intermediate position - but maybe it's just a species of your "non-roleplaying" option - where the player is not always choosing for his/her PC, but the PC is still the overwhelming focus of the player's choices and the pivot about which those choices turn. Even when using a power is more like spending a metagame token, the way that the player spends it is still directed overwhemingly by the player's interest in promoting or advancing the position of his/he PC. So it's still very much like playing one's PC.

I think this is the sort of game that 4e is - and feel that it's still pretty close to roleplaying, maybe even close enough to enjoy the same label.

But that's not to deny that it's different from playing a game where the player is the PC and the player's choices are the PC's choices, end of story.


----------



## NoWayJose

MrMyth said:


> Are you really saying we need, somewhere in the rules, an actual power or feat to represent a family member's ability to call back a loved one from the brink of death in a moment of epic inspiration? Isn't that _absolutely_ the sort of corner-case - informed by character motivations and not any mechanics - that it is useful to have some guidelines for the DM to use, rather than just having to make a decision and say 'yes' or 'no'?




Of course not. I think it is clear from my posts that what I am saying is that it doesn't make sense that a warlord and only a warlord has a monopoly on bringing everyone back from death's door.



pemerton said:


> Well, I did say upthread that the 4e-style approach may not be appealing to those who dislike it's strong metagame element. But once you accept that element, it answers your question - the reason non-Warords can't do the same is because the player of a non-Warlord doesn't get the "fate points"/"metagame tokens" that let one do this.




Agreed, 4E is perfectly reasonable to those who accept the metagame element as you say.

But going back to the OP, WoTC would win back some of the disenfranchised if more conscious effort was made to reduce or at least smooth over the "metagame-ness".


----------



## Scribble

NoWayJose said:


> You still support my point. A natural born leader can yell "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!". Gandalf or Sam can say that, an ultra-charismatic lawyer can say that, your the spouse or child of the wife who is about to die can say that. I can't imagine why ONLY a Warlord can say "Get up! Get up now, if you don't get up they're going to kill your wife! She needs you now don't you dare give in- you get up and FIIIIGHTTT!!!" and everyone else can only come up with "The OC is on in a few minutes"




To me it sounds like your issue really isn't  with the warlord, but with class based games in general.

As others have asked, why can't a fighter cast a spell?

That's fine... Classes aren't your thing.

I happen to like class based games. I find games like GURPS with  no class structure, inevitably have less of a "WOOHOO" moment when I level up. 

To each his own.




> I think RPGs shine when the framework is good enough so that the DM doesn't have to refer to page 42 so much.




I guess we disagree on this... I find it to be a great framework.  (Maybe I don't have as many fathers following the party to heal sons? )

It handles just about everything I need it to, in a quick and efficient way whenevr I run the game. In the odd corner cases "42" ends up giving me great guidelines on how to apply the framework to my unique situation.



> But I wasn't asking for a rule for every case. I was asking for less arbitrariness in the crunch to fluff. There are many other examples of arbitrary allocation and effects of powers, other than just this one specific example, all of which add up for me.




You were pointing out a random corner case to argue against a mechanic as a whole.  It only seems to be arbitrary when you base the whole thing on that corner case. (Or so it feels from your posts...)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

NoWayJose said:


> Of course not. I think it is clear from my posts that what I am saying is that it doesn't make sense that a warlord and only a warlord has a monopoly on bringing everyone back from death's door.




He doesn't. A Warlord has a 100% chance. The little boy with an 8 Wis appealing emotionally to his father to get up has a 60% chance (presented in the rules as a DC 10 Heal check with a +2 circumstance bonus). His chances only drop to 50% if you discount the circumstance bonus. The Warlord is just better at it, he doesn't have a monopoly.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> I'm advocating that rules shouldn't be added to the game to make the setting feel unique, as that's the flavor's job, and I'm also saying that if rules are created for one setting, and they are good for the game they should be added to the game as a whole.
> 
> Like the rune-casting you mentioned. Ok, sure, it's expected in a Norse setting, but why separate that from other areas? It seems like a useful thing for any game setting.




I think, at some point, it is better to have an actual Core, and a series of additions that can be added to the Core.  If everything is Core, then one presumably has to master everything to run the game.  As the game evolves, the amount of Core material becomes staggering, and people who don't have the time to read thousands of pages of material are going to find something else to play.

The philosophy I am describing -- that which was foundational to previous editions -- is that flavour defines setting, and the mechanics are intended to support the flavour.  I.e., setting-first design.

In the case of Runecasting, I did use that in non-Norse settings.  I also used several other setting-specific rules in order to craft my own setting.  And I would agree that it would be useful to have compendiums of options, which a prospective GM can use to craft a setting....or to inspire his/her own house rules to craft a setting.

"Everything is Core" seems, to me, to exist only to ensure that most players will either get a DDI subscription, or will buy (almost) everything.  Options are things you don't necessarily need to buy.  This might be a good business decision (if players buy into it, it is a good business decision), but it is a poor game design decision IMHO.

Frankly, not every setting needs rules for casting spells through djinn, for three moons of magic, or for Gothic horror.  


RC


----------



## NoWayJose

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> He doesn't. A Warlord has a 100% chance. The little boy with an 8 Wis appealing emotionally to his father to get up has a 60% chance (presented in the rules as a DC 10 Heal check with a +2 circumstance bonus). His chances only drop to 50% if you discount the circumstance bonus. The Warlord is just better at it, he doesn't have a monopoly.




I''l rephrase. It doesn't make sense to me a warlord has a monopoly on bringing EVERYONE AND ANYONE back from death's door ALL OF THE TIME (in-game, assuming versimilitude, simulation, and all other applicable disclaimers for the semantically nitpicky)


----------



## TheYeti1775

Mallus said:


> Why can't an AD&D wizard teach his buddy the fighter, who he's spent years looting and camping with, _one_ single 1st level spell?



He can.

See rules on Dual Classing if he is Human.


----------



## Mallus

NoWayJose said:


> Why can't a computer programmer or digital artist teach his buddy the plumber, who he's spent years looting and camping with, one single PerlCGI script or Photoshop faux-Impressionist image.



No reason. They surely can. But the last time I checked, the real world didn't operate under D&D rules (any edition). I though we we're talking about imagery worlds, constructed wholly or in part, using various D&D rule sets. 

And you'll note the worlds constructed using the various editions of the D&D rule set don't closely resemble our would of computer programmers and plumbers. For example, I (a computer programmer, in fact) would almost certainly die if I jumped of a tall cliff, and aging certainly hasn't made me smarter nor, sadly, wiser (also, much to my chagrin, I can suffer from limb-loss and cancer). 



> I think you know the definitions of verisimilitude, gamist, simulationist, etc. so let's not waste our time on this.



Sure. But I think they hurt discussion more than help (though I'm guilty of using them myself...). Honestly, I don't really know what people mean by 'simulationist'. No edition of the game, considered from the standpoint of the actual mechanics, prioritizes simulation of a fictional world (and I say this as someone who once wished they did). The needs of the game (ie, playability, goal/reward structures, balance) have always won out. 

Which isn't to say people haven't brought sim-like elements to D&D at their own tables, in their own campaigns. They surely have. But the operative words are 'brought to'. 

Where's the simulation in prior editions of D&D? And what's it _of_?



> Ah, page 42. Who needs rules about anything, where every possibility is covered under page 42.



I was offering a specific and practical suggestion, the long form of which is 'allow the loved one to make a CHR attack against the injured person, if successful, _heal_ an amount of damage a la page 42 damaging stunts'.

It's an example of how to model the situation you described using 4e.


----------



## Kaiyanwang

NoWayJose said:


> But going back to the OP, WoTC would win back some of the disenfranchised if more conscious effort was made to reduce or at least smooth over the "metagame-ness".




I share this sentiment.


----------



## Mallus

TheYeti1775 said:


> He can.
> 
> See rules on Dual Classing if he is Human.



Oh you...

The fighter would need an INT of 17, no? (I speak AD&D, too!). Let's say he's _smart_, INT 14, but not in Mensa territory. He'd also have to stop acting as a fighter until he superseded his fighter level. Ah, the rigorous simulation of AD&D amazes even today!

(fortunately, it's still a fun _game_).


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> I think, at some point, it is better to have an actual Core, and a series of additions that can be added to the Core.  If everything is Core, then one presumably has to master everything to run the game.  As the game evolves, the amount of Core material becomes staggering, and people who don't have the time to read thousands of pages of material are going to find something else to play.




I think that goes back to add something only if you NEED to. 

It's kind of the nature of the beast with RPGs it seems... People like having rules for stuff, so more and more get added.



> "Everything is Core" seems, to me, to exist only to ensure that most players will either get a DDI subscription, or will buy (almost) everything.  Options are things you don't necessarily need to buy.  This might be a good business decision (if players buy into it, it is a good business decision), but it is a poor game design decision IMHO.




Eh... I guess I have less of a pessimistic suspicious view of it. 

For my own part, it makes me really happy... I don't have to buy all the FR Realms books for instance because I like a certain mechanic.

I can get the mechanics and use the settings as a place to park them. 

I like that. 

Shrug.


----------



## NoWayJose

Scribble said:


> To me it sounds like your issue really isn't with the warlord, but with class based games in general.
> 
> As others have asked, why can't a fighter cast a spell?




Well, not really. I don't mind classes per se. A figher can't cast a spell, in-game, for the same reason that most plumbers don't do rocket science.



> I guess we disagree on this... I find it to be a great framework.




Please don't get me wrong, I don't resent or dispute your love for 4E's framework. But that's not what the OP is about...



> You were pointing out a random corner case to argue against a mechanic as a whole. It only seems to be arbitrary when you base the whole thing on that corner case. (Or so it feels from your posts...)




I just jumped into this thread rolling with the example that someone else brought up. I can bring up more examples to illustrate my point. Should I? I already one that's half baked in my word processor.


----------



## Mallus

NoWayJose said:


> But that's not what the OP is about...



Hasn't the thread moved on to RPG design, with an interesting late diversion into branding?


----------



## Umbran

Scribble said:


> I'm not really advocating one thing comes first here though.
> 
> I'm advocating that rules shouldn't be added to the game to make the setting feel unique, as that's the flavor's job, and I'm also saying that if rules are created for one setting, and they are good for the game they should be added to the game as a whole.




I might modify that slightly to: rules shouldn't be added to the game merely to make the setting feel unique.

If you have a setting, and it doesn't need rules to back its uniqueness (say, the uniqueness is in your socio-political structures, cultures, and history), then don't add rules just for the purpose of making it feel like it has different rules.  

Go ahead, and choose your flavor/setting first.  If that doesn't need rules changes, then don't make rules changes!  If it requires whole boatloads of rules changes, consider using another system entirely that doesn't need so many changes to support your flavor.

It seems to me that this is the philosophy that WotC is currently following - it isn't that they don't support setting uniqueness with rules changes, so much as the current 4e settings don't call for rules changes.  Now, you're perfectly welcome to critique their settings based on the idea that you find their flavor bland....


----------



## NoWayJose

> Why can't an AD&D wizard teach his buddy the fighter, who he's spent years looting and camping with, _one_ single 1st level spell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't a computer programmer or digital artist teach his buddy the plumber, who he's spent years looting and camping with, one single Perl\CGI script or Photoshop faux-Impressionist image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No reason. They surely can. But the last time I checked, the real world didn't operate under D&D rules (any edition). I though we we're talking about imagery worlds, constructed wholly or in part, using various D&D rule sets.
Click to expand...


Oh c'mon, don't pretend to be so obtuse -- you know exactly what I meant, and if you didn't, I don't have the time to spell it out. I don't meant to be rude, I just don't have the patience for this. Sorry, it's not you, it's me.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Eh... I guess I have less of a pessimistic suspicious view of it.




Probably......Although I would generally classify myself as optomistic.  My partner claims that I am *very* optomistic.  Perhaps she is wrong?  

In any event:

*  Better modules.
*  Less meta-gamey.
*  Flavour determines mechanics, rather than mechanics-first.
*  Core + Options.

That's what I'd like in 5e.

EDIT:  Oh, and faster, less minicentric combat.  That's a big one, for me!



RC

.


----------



## Scribble

NoWayJose said:


> Well, not really. I don't mind classes per se. A figher can't cast a spell, in-game, for the same reason that most plumbers don't do rocket science.




I guess we see the warlord thing the same way? 




> Please don't get me wrong, I don't resent or dispute your love for 4E's framework. But that's not what the OP is about...




True, I was probably veering too far off topic on that case- I get excited talking about stuff I like. 

Wasn't intending to present my excitement as trying to invalidate your own opinions either though. 




> I just jumped into this thread rolling with the example that someone else brought up. I can bring up more examples to illustrate my point. Should I? I already one that's half baked in my word processor.




If you want... I was just responding to the one you were talking about.


----------



## Imaro

Umbran said:


> The number of settings tends to increase as the edition gets older. In general, you don't come out of the gate with a dozen of the things - they build up over time.
> 
> When it was two years old (1980) 1e had just Greyhawk in print, iirc. At the analogous time in its history (1991) I think 2e had Greyhawk, FR, and Dragonlance (all carried over from the previous editions, none of which call for notable mechanical changes outside of classes and races), and Dark Sun had just come out. Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Al Qadim - all were later in 2e's history.
> 
> And now, two years out, 4e has? A couple of settings close to the core rule set that were carried over from the previous edition... and now Dark Sun? Interesting, and I expect the analogy may well be intentional on their part.
> 
> There seems to me to be a whole lot of sense to allowing a game to run along with its core rules for a while before offering up lots of variations.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Is this more about how WotC doesn't produce mechanical changes to back up setting flavor, or is it just that the settings they've produced so far are bland in flavor?
> 
> 
> 
> You were clear about era (2e and 3e). You were not clear about the characteristics - you didn't mention any specific ones at all! So I chose some characteristics to start with, as they'd gotten mentioned elsewhere in the thread, and seemed relevant.




You know what Umbran, you can defend the way WotC has proceeded with alternate rules for settings and I can keep telling you how dissapointed I am in the approach they took but really this discussion has gotten a little pointless... 

Let me tie it back into the OP... after coming from the land of milk and honey in alternate mechanics for settings in 2e and 3e (especially with the OGL), providing some form of different mechanics for flavor and variety when it comes to the different 4e settings would be one of the things WotC could do to get me interested in buying their stuff again


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Probably......Although I would generally classify myself as optomistic.  My partner claims that I am *very* optomistic.  Perhaps she is wrong?
> 
> In any event:
> 
> *  Better modules.
> *  Less meta-gamey.
> *  Flavour determines mechanics, rather than mechanics-first.
> *  Core + Options.
> 
> That's what I'd like in 5e.
> 
> 
> 
> RC
> 
> .




Actually Raven, forgive me... I wasn't clear. I have no idea how you are as a whole, so calling you pessimistic/suspicious as a whole was, I realize, kind of rude. 

But you DO seem to me to have more of a pessimistic suspicious attitude towards corporations at least.


----------



## Mallus

NoWayJose said:


> Oh c'mon, don't pretend to be so obtuse -- you know exactly what I meant, and if you didn't, I don't have the time to spell it out. I don't meant to be rude, I just don't have the patience for this.



I'm not trying to be obtuse... (I'm trying to cut through unstated assumptions, my own included, that muck up this particular subject). Let me try this again.

Why are class-based (and strictly restricted) abilities problematic in 4e (ie Inspiring Word) and not in 1e (ie casting a 1st level spell)? 

If you're advocating D&D move toward HERO or even Runequest, cool. If you're making an essentially aesthetic argument, and not a logical one, equally cool. I'm not trying to argue taste.


----------



## NoWayJose

Mallus said:


> I'm not trying to be obtuse... (I'm trying to cut through unstated assumptions, my own included, that muck up this particular subject). Let me try this again.
> 
> Why are class-based (and strictly restricted) abilities problematic in 4e (ie Inspiring Word) and not in 1e (ie casting a 1st level spell)?
> 
> If you're advocating D&D move toward HERO or even Runequest, cool. If you're making an essentially aesthetic argument, and not a logical one, equally cool. I'm not trying to argue taste.




Let's make the basic assumptions (for example, including but not limited to, that even if I don't define a word like 'in-game' or 'versimilitude' exactly, assume the generally understood definition as has been discussed ad nauseum by RPG geeks for years) and cut through the wrong assumptions -- I am not saying that 1e trumps 4e in the case you described or even in general. I have never played HERO or Runequest, and have not advocated any specific alternative ruleset. I was contributing one possible response to the title of this thread which is "What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?". After removing all your wrong assumptions about me, please feel free to re-read my previous posts


----------



## Umbran

Imaro said:


> Let me tie it back into the OP... after coming from the land of milk and honey in alternate mechanics for settings in 2e and 3e (especially with the OGL), providing some form of different mechanics for flavor and variety when it comes to the different 4e settings would be one of the things WotC could do to get me interested in buying their stuff again




That's fair.  

It looks like you're saying, in essence, "I want to see what I've seen before from WotC in this aspect of the game".

All I'm saying is that WotC is doing the same things they've done before - the process simply takes time.  You should expect similar results... eventually.

Which really brings me to a thought I'd not had before in this particular form (and I thank you for the inspiration), that I want to go mull on, about how games have a pattern of growth to maturity, and how we gamers often neglect that....


----------



## Stormonu

Raven Crowking said:


> I think, at some point, it is better to have an actual Core, and a series of additions that can be added to the Core.  If everything is Core, then one presumably has to master everything to run the game.  As the game evolves, the amount of Core material becomes staggering, and people who don't have the time to read thousands of pages of material are going to find something else to play.
> 
> The philosophy I am describing -- that which was foundational to previous editions -- is that flavour defines setting, and the mechanics are intended to support the flavour.  I.e., setting-first design.
> 
> In the case of Runecasting, I did use that in non-Norse settings.  I also used several other setting-specific rules in order to craft my own setting.  And I would agree that it would be useful to have compendiums of options, which a prospective GM can use to craft a setting....or to inspire his/her own house rules to craft a setting.
> 
> "Everything is Core" seems, to me, to exist only to ensure that most players will either get a DDI subscription, or will buy (almost) everything.  Options are things you don't necessarily need to buy.  This might be a good business decision (if players buy into it, it is a good business decision), but it is a poor game design decision IMHO.
> 
> Frankly, not every setting needs rules for casting spells through djinn, for three moons of magic, or for Gothic horror.
> 
> 
> RC




Another reason to make so many things Core is that many of the future books will incorporate items from other books into future supplements.  2E (and some of 3E) often got slammed by players and GMs for printing new feats, classes and whatnot, but never incorporating them into adventures, monster stat blocks or other supplements.  Or perhaps worst of all, future material never accounted for their existence - which could dramatically shift the power level of the game if additional, "non-core" material were being used.


----------



## renau1g

ignore...


----------



## NoWayJose

Scribble said:


> I guess we see the warlord thing the same way?




I guess not so much. I personally dislike the warlord as is. For me, a warlord would ideally be a theme or template or whatever -- much like where someone argued on this thread (or maybe another thread) that a gladiator should not be a class but a theme, because anyone (fighter, knight, rogue, etc.) who is thrown into a pit and survives for weeks/months can be a gladiator.

The warlord doesn't make sense to me as a class, if you exclude metagame motivations of creating classes for the predefined roles (rather than vice versa) as the primary goal -- which clearly I don't personally agree with. Whenever possible, I would make some attempt to create class powers that would be based primarily on the results of professional training or unique natural abilities vs creating powers that anyone with raw talent can potentially do. I would not create powers which feel limited arbitrarily to a certain class, and I feel that the warlord fails in that regard more than most other class powers (as I attempted to illustrated in my previous post about a warlord having a nonsensical monopoly on bringing back EVERYONE from the dead ALL THE TIME)

Whereas it makes sense to me that a fighter can swing a two handed sword better than a wizard almost ALL THE TIME (except in the most extreme lopsided circumstances) and that this ability is based on real in-game logic (that he's trained to do it, and most wizards don't).

For me, a fighter class as a concept strikes the right balance between the metagame vs in-game logic, whereas the warlord -- not so much, for me. That's why I agree with a fighter class but not a warlord, and that's why all of my posts are NOT about classes or whatnot, but about "metagame-ness"


----------



## Stormonu

I'm not sure how to get a mod involved in this, but it sure seems like this conversation has gotten off the beaten track.  I'd like to suggest some of the conversations going here should be forked off to their own threads so the original question - "What would WotC need to do to win you back" can be addressed.  I'm not saying the other conversations going on here don't have merit, but I personally feel they shouldn't be continuing in this thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Actually Raven, forgive me... I wasn't clear. I have no idea how you are as a whole, so calling you pessimistic/suspicious as a whole was, I realize, kind of rude.




Not at all.  You made a judgement based on observation, which is limited in this context.  That's hardly rude.  It would also be difficult (as well as counter-productive) to avoid doing so.



> But you DO seem to me to have more of a pessimistic suspicious attitude towards corporations at least.




I wouldn't say either "pessimistic" or "suspicious" per se.

I assume that corps are out to make money, to increase the bottom line.  I am well aware that corps who place ethics before the bottom line can face legal action from their shareholders.  I therefore assume that, whatever it is we are presented with, it has to do with the bottom line.  And then I try to figure out how.

I make a judgement based on observation, which is limited in this context.  It would be difficult (as well as counter-productive) to avoid doing so.

My guesses are sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and often a little of each, because my information is limited, and because people do not all think alike, so that my guesses as to how something ties into that bottom line are just that.....guesses.

However, I do know that the bottom line doesn't always produce the best product, and as a consumer it is the product, not the bottom line, that interests me.  It is therefore in my interests to attempt to use the bottom line (corp goal) to adjust the product (my goal) to the best of my (extremely) limited ability.

That I think this is even possible speaks to my unreasonably boundless optimism!



Stormonu said:


> Another reason to make so many things Core is that many of the future books will incorporate items from other books into future supplements.  2E (and some of 3E) often got slammed by players and GMs for printing new feats, classes and whatnot, but never incorporating them into adventures, monster stat blocks or other supplements.  Or perhaps worst of all, future material never accounted for their existence - which could dramatically shift the power level of the game if additional, "non-core" material were being used.




Good point.

I suppose the needs of people who can design/adjust on their own are very different than the needs of people who want everything (rules + setting + adventures) pre-packaged (or mostly so).


RC

.


----------



## NoWayJose

NoWayJose said:


> I guess not so much. I personally dislike the warlord as is. For me, a warlord would ideally be a theme or template or whatever -- much like where someone argued on this thread (or maybe another thread) that a gladiator should not be a class but a theme, because anyone (fighter, knight, rogue, etc.) who is thrown into a pit and survives for weeks/months can be a gladiator.
> 
> The warlord doesn't make sense to me as a class, if you exclude metagame motivations of creating classes for the predefined roles (rather than vice versa) as the primary goal -- which clearly I don't personally agree with. Whenever possible, I would make some attempt to create class powers that would be based primarily on the results of professional training or unique natural abilities vs creating powers that anyone with raw talent can potentially do. I would not create powers which feel limited arbitrarily to a certain class, and I feel that the warlord fails in that regard more than most other class powers (as I attempted to illustrated in my previous post about a warlord having a nonsensical monopoly on bringing back EVERYONE from the dead ALL THE TIME)
> 
> Whereas it makes sense to me that a fighter can swing a two handed sword better than a wizard almost ALL THE TIME (except in the most extreme lopsided circumstances) and that this ability is based on real in-game logic (that he's trained to do it, and most wizards don't).
> 
> For me, a fighter class as a concept strikes the right balance between the metagame vs in-game logic, whereas the warlord -- not so much, for me. That's why I agree with a fighter class but not a warlord, and that's why all of my posts are NOT about classes or whatnot, but about "metagame-ness"




...also, to follow up on a discussion with Scribble, I don't meant to appear fixated on one warlord power. I would like WoTC to reduce metagame-ness in general in order to win back people like me.

For example, with the Essential Wizards preview, the crunch to fluff simulation for Beguiling Strands is horrible and lazy thinking IMO. I don't get why a bunch of lights push you back *all the time* (whereas Arc Lightning *never* pushes or stuns or makes you prone). If you look at it exclusively from an in-game, fantasy logic, versimilitude point of view, then why doesn't Beguiling Strands sometimes stun you with confusing colors, or temporarily blind you with bright lights, or sometimes shift you in any direction as you try to evade it? What does 'Beguilling' have to do with colored lights anyway? Why isn't it called 'Beguiling Hypnotic Suggestion: Go away' or 'Force push' or just 'Magic Push' and let the player decide the spell's manifestation based on a theme chosen for the PC? I just don't understand why 4E doesn't seem to care about these kinds of questions.

Disclaimer: Whatever you are assuming about me right now (that I want to increase the quantity and/or complexity of 4E rules, that I prefer 1e or 2e or 3e over 4e, that I advocate a move to [insert RPG here], that I want a gritty realistic game instead of a fun game, etc) Please dispel all of those notions. Please only understand is that I just want WoTC to pay more attention to how the fluff fits the crunch (or vice versa or whatever direction), including but not limited to some attention to consistency and fantasy logic (despite the oxymoron, I hope you know what I mean) and this can be done in greater measure without sacrificing fun, you know, just so that it balances a bit more away from "metagame-ness", because for me, a certain level of versimilitude (nothing I have predefined, just something more than what currently exists in 4E) = more immersion = fun too. This is my personal opinion and my response to the question in the title of this thread, and therefore is valid to this thread.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> If everything is Core, then one presumably has to master everything to run the game.




With exception-based design I don't presume this at all. My players have my trust that they will "master" the elements of the game pertinent to their character. They have mastery over the feats and powers they have chosen. I get involved in mastering the power only if the player feels he needs clarification or the effects of a power seem out of whack to me. There is a solid core of rules in 4E that rarely changes and to run the game I feel that is the only part I have to master. Even monster powers are generally in thei own microcosm. Unlike previous editions where I presumably had to master much more of the rules as monsters and NPCs took their powers directly from class and spell lists more often than in 4E.



NoWayJose said:


> I''l rephrase. It doesn't make sense to me a warlord has a monopoly on bringing EVERYONE AND ANYONE back from death's door ALL OF THE TIME (in-game, assuming versimilitude, simulation, and all other applicable disclaimers for the semantically nitpicky)




He can't do it all of the time either. His resources are limited. The way I view the Warlord is actually alot closer to something that would probably sit better with you. I see him as a closer kin to an Earthdawn class. All classes in Earthdawn tapped into magic. In 4E terms, some would tap into the arcane nature of magic, others into the divine, while Warlords are tapping into Martial magic. This doesn't break from my view of previous editions either. Even the "lowly" Fighter in all editions of the game to date have been able to achieve the superhuman. To me, you can either view these superhuman feats as if they are Marvel Superheroes (which breaks genre for me) or as tapping into the inherent magic of the world, just not as directly as a Magic-User does.


----------



## Umbran

Stormonu said:


> I'm not sure how to get a mod involved in this, but it sure seems like this conversation has gotten off the beaten track.





You need but to ask.

Sorry about the diversions - topic drift and thread fragmentation does happen, and we don't usually make a habit of preventing it.

*Folks!  Can we steer back to the original topic, please?  Feel free to fork the side-discussions off, but let's do a favor and refocus in here. Thank you.*


----------



## Shazman

I think NoWayJose has hit the nail on the head.  Many of us want less "This guy has this ability just because he is a defender, leader, etc. or just to be balanced." and more "This guy has this ability because it makes sense for him to have this ability given his training, background, natural abilities, etc."
A move in that direction could go a long way towards winning some of the disenchanted back.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

NoWayJose said:


> Let the player decide the spell's manifestation based on a theme chosen for the PC? I just don't understand why 4E doesn't seem to care about these kinds of questions.




Then you haven't read what I have. WotC has given alot of advice about reskinning your character. Not only CAN you decide the manifestation based on your PCs theme of any given power, WotC has openly encouraged it from the get-go.


----------



## NoWayJose

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Then you haven't read what I have. WotC has given alot of advice about reskinning your character. Not only CAN you decide the manifestation based on your PCs theme of any given power, WotC has openly encouraged it from the get-go.




I do know about that. But, and this is the big 'but' -- I feel that WoTC's default description for powers (and some other rules) can be so lame and so weak in its logic, it's as if they are so fixated on metagame issues and lack the time and/or imagination and/or caring to address the issue I described above. And since they are so lazy or uncaring or whatnot, me and every other player and DM who cares about such things has a LOT of work to do reskinning everything, and that's not fun either.

Look, the point is that WoTC could have set a better precedent or baseline, they could have raised the bar a bit, but they didn't, and I do fault them for that.

Reskinning a power description should mean making it sound "different", not making it sound "better" or "more logical" or "more immersive" because it reads to some people as tepid or wrong or silly by default.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Mallus said:


> Oh you...
> 
> The fighter would need an INT of 17, no? (I speak AD&D, too!). Let's say he's _smart_, INT 14, but not in Mensa territory. He'd also have to stop acting as a fighter until he superseded his fighter level. Ah, the rigorous simulation of AD&D amazes even today!
> 
> (fortunately, it's still a fun _game_).





Yup multi-classing/dual-classing/level limits didn't make a lot of sense in AD&D on an individual basis.  But due to the way the books were written, it explained their purpose when all together.

I think 3E went the correct step in having ECL adjustments when they did away with those limitations.
It made sense, the Fighter could learn magic from the Wizard and the Wizard could learn to swing a sword from the Fighter later in life.

But going back to the OP, these steps taken in previous jobs were easily transitioned for players and DM's.  Names remained the same, class roles for the most part remained the same.
A few mechanics were tweaked, Non-Weapon Proficiencies of 2E became Skills of 3E.


----------



## Herschel

NoWayJose said:


> But that exactly supports my point. Any natural born leader can theoretically inspire someone from death's door. But not every natural born leader is a warlord. But in 4E only a warlord can inspire from death's door. It doesn't make any sense.




It makes perfect sense because those truly natural born leaders BECOME warlords. That's their gig. Others can train in heal and take a utility power that helps heal when a comrade is down. There are a lot of ways to inspire/heal and all are fine when you remember that HP aren't actual, physical damage but an abstract.

For those who want their characters to be able to do everything, there really isn't anything WotC can do for them because they no longer design that kind of game under the D&D brand.


----------



## fanboy2000

The Little Raven said:


> 3e - Region (area you're from).
> 
> 4e - Background (are you're from). Multi-Class Only Class - Spellscarred. New Class - Swordmage.



Just to point out, the 3e Realms introduced a lot more than rules for what Region you were from. The introduced the Level Adjustment rules (along with their compliments, Character Level and Effective Character Level) and Epic level rules. Those rules later got their own supplements, at the end of 3e's life, and were latter incorporated into 3.5 rule books. It was in the 3e Realms that Tieflings first appeared as a 3e PC race. Quite frankly, the 3e Realms was a 4th core rule book for 3e before 3.5.



> 3e - Dragonmarks. New Class - Artificer.
> 
> 4e - Dragonmarks. New Class - Artificer.



 Don't for get action points and living constructs. Also, IIRC, it's the only 3.5 Campaign setting to introduce a new NPC class. 

Sorry to be nitpicky, but it always amazes me how much people forget. The 3e Realms really shaped the 3e rules landscape in a major way. I didn't play in the Realms, but as a DM who allowed some level adjustment races, I simply can't say it didn't have a profound impact on my game.



Raven Crowking said:


> My partner claims that I am *very* optomistic.  Perhaps she is wrong?



I don't know, does she read your posts? 

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Please don't ban me.


----------



## MrMyth

Imaro said:


> You know what Umbran, you can defend the way WotC has proceeded with alternate rules for settings and I can keep telling you how dissapointed I am in the approach they took but really this discussion has gotten a little pointless...
> 
> Let me tie it back into the OP... after coming from the land of milk and honey in alternate mechanics for settings in 2e and 3e (especially with the OGL), providing some form of different mechanics for flavor and variety when it comes to the different 4e settings would be one of the things WotC could do to get me interested in buying their stuff again




Ok, fair enough. So here is a question - how different do the mechanics need to be to count? For example, Dark Sun is coming out soon, and thus far looks to have a number of elements that make it distinct:
-Themes, which both help define characters and give them a slight power boost compared to other settings;
-Arcane Defiling;
-Weapon Breakage rules;
-Some form of more detailed survival/endurance rules;
-No divine characters by default.

Would these be what you are looking for?

I'm asking out of genuine interest here - as I mentioned before, I think there is a solid point of balance where you have mechanics that will make a setting unique while still keeping it accessible, and I'm just trying to figure out where that point might be.


----------



## MrMyth

Herschel said:


> It makes perfect sense because those truly natural born leaders BECOME warlords. That's their gig. Others can train in heal and take a utility power that helps heal when a comrade is down. There are a lot of ways to inspire/heal and all are fine when you remember that HP aren't actual, physical damage but an abstract.
> 
> For those who want their characters to be able to do everything, there really isn't anything WotC can do for them because they no longer design that kind of game under the D&D brand.




I am actually starting to get what he is looking for here. Basically, he doesn't want a character to have to give up their other capabilities to be defined as a natural born leader - perhaps in one party, Gandalf is the inspirational glue that holds everyone together, while in another it is Aragorn, and in yet another it is Frodo. Whether Wizard, Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, whatever - having that role of 'inspirational heart of the party' doesn't need to be tied to class.

Which I can understand. But at the same time... I sorta feel like you could make that same argument for Fighter, or Bard, or any number of other capabilities. Once you go down that road, you truly are looking at designing an entirely class-less system. 

As it is, D&D somewhat assumes that if you really want to have those exceptional abilities, you need to represent it within the character's stats. In 4E, it presents the Warlord as one way of doing so - the most prominent way. Basically, they decided that 'inspirational leader of men' was a valid enough fantasy archetype to merit its own class. I don't think there is anything wrong with them doing so, or unrealistic about that (any more than the concept of _any_ class.) 

Could they have pursued a different approach, and made it some sort of template option (as seems to be showing up with Dark Sun themes?) Sure, probably. 

But as has been noted - there _are_ other options. As mentioned, every has this to some extent via Heal and Second Wind. Investing in Diplomacy, hunting down the right utility and skill powers, multiclassing - all these can help a character gain some of those talents. 

Without that - you might be a naturally charismatic fellow, but you just haven't mastered the art of truly inspirational speeches, because you've spent more time learning to swing your sword and other tricks. Haven't we seen things like this before, as well? Rogues being the only ones able to find magic traps, for example - even a bard who is incredibly skilled with traps, natural dextrous and perceptive and such, can't ever be as good with traps as someone with the 'trapfinding' class feature? 

In this case, there _are_ options to help others represent that ability if they have it - but they'll never be as good at it as the Warlord, because that _is_ the archetype he represents. 

I can see someone preferring that they handled it _differently_ - but I can't really get someone saying this approach _doesn't make sense_, when it is simply the same natural approach of the class system that has been part of D&D from the start.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Mallus said:


> Oh you...
> 
> The fighter would need an INT of 17, no? (I speak AD&D, too!). Let's say he's _smart_, INT 14, but not in Mensa territory. He'd also have to stop acting as a fighter until he superseded his fighter level. Ah, the rigorous simulation of AD&D amazes even today!
> 
> (fortunately, it's still a fun _game_).




And if Joe the plumber decides he wants to be a computer programmer, he's gonna have to get out from under the sink and sit in front of a computer for a while too.


----------



## Remathilis

fanboy2000 said:


> Just to point out, the 3e Realms introduced a lot more than rules for what Region you were from. The introduced the Level Adjustment rules (along with their compliments, Character Level and Effective Character Level) and Epic level rules. Those rules later got their own supplements, at the end of 3e's life, and were latter incorporated into 3.5 rule books. It was in the 3e Realms that Tieflings first appeared as a 3e PC race. Quite frankly, the 3e Realms was a 4th core rule book for 3e before 3.5.




It also tried to fix XP distribution for uneven leveled PCs by adjusting CRs for each PC rather than average party level (which often screwed those of lower level by giving them LESS XP than if they were people they're own level!). It was brought over as the "standard" form of XP distribution in 3.5.


----------



## Remathilis

JRRNeiklot said:


> And if Joe the plumber decides he wants to be a computer programmer, he's gonna have to get out from under the sink and sit in front of a computer for a while too.




Bob, the 5th level fighter, becomes a 1st level cleric. Fortunately, he thought ahead and bought weapon specialization in mace. However, now that he's a cleric, he can no longer gain any of the benefits of being skilled in a mace. In fact, he's so poor at it, his Thac0 has reset to 20!

Its like becoming a Math major, switching over to learn chemistry, and forgetting how to do Calculus!


----------



## Imaro

MrMyth said:


> Ok, fair enough. So here is a question - how different do the mechanics need to be to count? For example, Dark Sun is coming out soon, and thus far looks to have a number of elements that make it distinct:
> -Themes, which both help define characters and give them a slight power boost compared to other settings;
> -Arcane Defiling;
> -Weapon Breakage rules;
> -Some form of more detailed survival/endurance rules;
> -No divine characters by default.
> 
> Would these be what you are looking for?
> 
> I'm asking out of genuine interest here - as I mentioned before, I think there is a solid point of balance where you have mechanics that will make a setting unique while still keeping it accessible, and I'm just trying to figure out where that point might be.




Yes, this is what I'm talking about, though I don't think there is a hard answer to your question of how much... though I can tell you when I feel there's to little.  If I'm playing Ravenloft and it plays no differently than Forgotten Realms... something is wrong.  My point is that there should be enough mechanical tweaks and changes that the feel of the setting comes across in play to both the players and DM's. I honestly wish they had included some mechanics that would make Eberron feel more noir (since I think 4e core covers pulp pretty good.).  As for DS, I am not currently playing 4e and am not sure I am going to pick it up, unless it just gets all around rave reviews... otherwise I would probably use my original boxed set + the Dragon article for 3e to play in DS with Pathfinder.


----------



## NoWayJose

MrMyth said:


> I am actually starting to get what he is looking for here. Basically, he doesn't want a character to have to give up their other capabilities to be defined as a natural born leader - perhaps in one party, Gandalf is the inspirational glue that holds everyone together, while in another it is Aragorn, and in yet another it is Frodo. Whether Wizard, Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, whatever - having that role of 'inspirational heart of the party' doesn't need to be tied to class.
> 
> Which I can understand. But at the same time... I sorta feel like you could make that same argument for Fighter, or Bard, or any number of other capabilities. Once you go down that road, you truly are looking at designing an entirely class-less system.
> 
> As it is, D&D somewhat assumes that if you really want to have those exceptional abilities, you need to represent it within the character's stats. In 4E, it presents the Warlord as one way of doing so - the most prominent way. Basically, they decided that 'inspirational leader of men' was a valid enough fantasy archetype to merit its own class. I don't think there is anything wrong with them doing so, or unrealistic about that (any more than the concept of _any_ class.)
> 
> Could they have pursued a different approach, and made it some sort of template option (as seems to be showing up with Dark Sun themes?) Sure, probably.
> 
> But as has been noted - there _are_ other options. As mentioned, every has this to some extent via Heal and Second Wind. Investing in Diplomacy, hunting down the right utility and skill powers, multiclassing - all these can help a character gain some of those talents.
> 
> Without that - you might be a naturally charismatic fellow, but you just haven't mastered the art of truly inspirational speeches, because you've spent more time learning to swing your sword and other tricks. Haven't we seen things like this before, as well? Rogues being the only ones able to find magic traps, for example - even a bard who is incredibly skilled with traps, natural dextrous and perceptive and such, can't ever be as good with traps as someone with the 'trapfinding' class feature?
> 
> In this case, there _are_ options to help others represent that ability if they have it - but they'll never be as good at it as the Warlord, because that _is_ the archetype he represents.
> 
> I can see someone preferring that they handled it _differently_ - but I can't really get someone saying this approach _doesn't make sense_, when it is simply the same natural approach of the class system that has been part of D&D from the start.




Almost anything can make sense if you argue enough, but some things will subjectively make more intuitive sense than others.

For me, the classic warlord archetype (Gengis Khan, viking leader, Nigerian warlord, Conan the king, etc.) are fighters, knights, barbarians, etc. that became warlords due to the right mix of natural talent, career path, life choices, and good fortune. A typical/average 4E PC who is a warlord at 18 (or average starting age) with no minions and no significant political or military rank (meaning in-game, with real tangible fluff and crunch implications in the campaign) just doesn't model this archetype at all (again, I'm talking about the average case, don't bother me with odd exceptions).

WoTC could have easily made archetypes like warlord, knight, gladiator, etc. as a theme or template or prestige class or whatever, but they didn't -- NOT because it didn't make sense, but because it didn't match their metagame ideas, and (as per previous posts) with 4E, there are certain metagame principles which are sacred cows (that replaced the old ones) that almost always trump immersive versimilitude. That's not quite the ideal balance of game development priorities that many "disenchanted" would ideally like in an RPG.

Alternatively, instead of changing the warlord class and warlord class powers, it's sometimes possible to reskin the fluff to better fit the crunch. For example, make the warlord very specific -- a type of paladin or cleric of a war god whose inspiration-based powers are a synergistic blend of natural charisma and divine augmentation. Then I'd be sold in an instant in terms of versmilitude. Then the warlord class powers don't feel so arbitrary and gamist anymore.

Unfortunately, I don't feel WoTC cares about this set of priorities, and I don't care to reskin everything to my liking either -- too much work, not enough time. Plus reskinning the fluff doesn't fix any perceived gamist issues with the rules mechanics themselves.


----------



## Imaro

Remathilis said:


> Bob, the 5th level fighter, becomes a 1st level cleric. Fortunately, he thought ahead and bought weapon specialization in mace. However, now that he's a cleric, he can no longer gain any of the benefits of being skilled in a mace. In fact, he's so poor at it, his Thac0 has reset to 20!
> 
> Its like becoming a Math major, switching over to learn chemistry, and forgetting how to do Calculus!




That's because instead of practicing weapon techniques and keeping his edge... he'sbeen playing catch up on all that theology he never learned...


----------



## billd91

Remathilis said:


> Bob, the 5th level fighter, becomes a 1st level cleric. Fortunately, he thought ahead and bought weapon specialization in mace. However, now that he's a cleric, he can no longer gain any of the benefits of being skilled in a mace. In fact, he's so poor at it, his Thac0 has reset to 20!
> 
> Its like becoming a Math major, switching over to learn chemistry, and forgetting how to do Calculus!




One quibble. He actually doesn't forget. He just can't advance as a cleric if he doesn't really live the life of a cleric. Relying on the old abilities is backsliding and hurts cleric advancement (loses XPs from current adventure). He gives it 100% or he gets no chance to advance.

That may not be quite realistic either, but it's not as stark as forgetting calculus when switching over to chemistry.


----------



## Umbran

Folks, focus, please.  The exact rules of how to pick up a new class in 1e are a bit far from the topic at hand. 

Return to the original point - this is supposed to be about how to win back disenchanted customers.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Remathilis said:


> Bob, the 5th level fighter, becomes a 1st level cleric. Fortunately, he thought ahead and bought weapon specialization in mace. However, now that he's a cleric, he can no longer gain any of the benefits of being skilled in a mace. In fact, he's so poor at it, his Thac0 has reset to 20!
> 
> Its like becoming a Math major, switching over to learn chemistry, and forgetting how to do Calculus!




Except that he hasn't forgotten.  He can attack with his 5th level fighter thac0 and use weapon specialization any time he likes.  Much like Joe the computer programmer can skip class and moonlight by fixing clogged sinks.  He can do this, but he's gonna miss out on learning C+ that week.

Edit:  Sorry, didn't see the warning, I type slow.


----------



## fanboy2000

Remathilis said:


> It also tried to fix XP distribution for uneven leveled PCs by adjusting CRs for each PC rather than average party level (which often screwed those of lower level by giving them LESS XP than if they were people they're own level!). It was brought over as the "standard" form of XP distribution in 3.5.



Good catch! I never (even when we switched over from 3.5) used that XP system. However, I did switch over the to the level independent xp system in Unearthed Arcana.

I think it's easy to miss something when talking about 4e disenchantment. 4e is Wizards' attempt to get back the people who were disenchanted by 3.5. I remember all the posts about during the 3.x era about the game was cramping their style. And the early retro clone years. Every so often posters would pop in and say how awesome some d20 based game was and how Wizard's d20 game sucked in comparison.

You know what I think Wizards can do to bring back the disenchanted? Keep making a game they like to play. If they do that, some of the disenchanted will come back, and some people who were fine with the system will leave, only to come back latter when the game changes again.

_Cue Circle of Life from The Lion King._


----------



## Lanefan

Remathilis said:


> Bob, the 5th level fighter, becomes a 1st level cleric. Fortunately, he thought ahead and bought weapon specialization in mace. However, now that he's a cleric, he can no longer gain any of the benefits of being skilled in a mace. In fact, he's so poor at it, his Thac0 has reset to 20!
> 
> Its like becoming a Math major, switching over to learn chemistry, and forgetting how to do Calculus!



Exactly the rationale used when we did away with that rule and made multiclassing work pretty much the same for everyone.  Such restrictions as we still have are based on class rather than race, with the proviso that some races still cannot be some classes at all.

On a broader scale - and not really related to the previous paragraph - one thing that's slowly becoming clear out of the murk is that designing a system with solid internal logic all around (rules to fluff to gameplay to believability; no edition has yet hit all four) would go a long way to bringing back the disenchanted.

Lanefan


----------



## MrMyth

Imaro said:


> Yes, this is what I'm talking about, though I don't think there is a hard answer to your question of how much... though I can tell you when I feel there's to little. If I'm playing Ravenloft and it plays no differently than Forgotten Realms... something is wrong. My point is that there should be enough mechanical tweaks and changes that the feel of the setting comes across in play to both the players and DM's. I honestly wish they had included some mechanics that would make Eberron feel more noir (since I think 4e core covers pulp pretty good.). As for DS, I am not currently playing 4e and am not sure I am going to pick it up, unless it just gets all around rave reviews... otherwise I would probably use my original boxed set + the Dragon article for 3e to play in DS with Pathfinder.




Oh yeah, and I think that is a very good point - even if WotC does fix some of the possible 'issues' that the disenchanted have with it, fixing any one thing alone isn't necessarily going to bring people back. Enough small changes, over the course of time, might do the trick - and hopefully without driving away any existing customers, at that! 

Anyway, much appreciated for answering the question - I was just trying to get a sense if this _was_ what you were talking about. I do hear you about Eberron, and honestly... I suspect part of the problem might come from them having adapted elements of Eberron's outlook into core 4E itself. Eberron's Action Points - and other elements in general - seemed to present that style of player narrative and cinematic action that 4E then embraced completely. Making it all the harder to make Eberron itself distinct mechanically from the rest of the game, I suppose...


----------



## Herschel

NoWayJose said:


> _*For me,*_ the classic warlord archetype (Gengis Khan, viking leader, Nigerian warlord, Conan the king, etc.) are fighters, knights, barbarians, etc. that became warlords due to the right mix of natural talent, career path, life choices, and good fortune. A typical/average 4E PC who is a warlord at 18 (or average starting age) with no minions and no significant political or military rank (meaning in-game, with real tangible fluff and crunch implications in the campaign) just doesn't model this archetype at all (again, I'm talking about the average case, don't bother me with odd exceptions).
> 
> WoTC could have easily made archetypes like warlord, knight, gladiator, etc. as a theme or template or prestige class or whatever, but they didn't -- NOT because it didn't make sense, but because it didn't match their metagame ideas...




A couple of things: first is that for you descriptor where "Warlord" is more of a title, not a lifelong profession/class. And that's one thing and a personal perspective, fine. But the archtype argument? There are scads of archtypes of young leaders either showing their tactical prowess or abilities beyond their years. From Luke Skywalker to Iron Eagle my youth was filled with them. (Doug Masters and pals for the win! And with extra cheese!) 

Kind of like some RL ROTC types, some people train to be military (martial) leaders their whole life. In the game they gain experience and become better at it, but they're always working ON it instead of the old "I now have a +8 BaB and 13 Charisma, I can be a Warlord" towards it. The latter strikes me as more ludicrous. 

But prestige classes are gone. You build within your class instead of having to essentially glom on to a new one. Paragon Paths are something I've experienced as a better, more streamlined progression for a character (outside of char-op cheesing Daggermasters and Radiant Servants, etc.) than the old one. It's not entirely different, so it shouldn't shock too many people, but it cleans them up some which is what many (most?) want a new edition to do. 

A lot of the elements people say they want are there, just presented in an unfamiliar way. And that's disconcerting to many but that's a human issue, not a system issue.


----------



## WizarDru

In the hypothetical, very specific ideas will bring players back.  In the actual, I suspect very little will.  Because many of the specific actions already mentioned are either short-term fixes for a specific goal (PDFs) or long-term fixes which just don't appear to be fiscally well-grounded or actionable for WotC (parallel D&D lines, new material for old systems, online support for out-of-print editions, etc.).

I think it's also important to ask the question: who are the 'they' to be brought back?  A large part of the discussion makes broad assumptions about 'they', but I'm thinking that many folks aren't actually speaking of the same group.  I believe that the OP meant (and I think most folks mean) 'people who stopped being WotC customers are 4e disenfranchised them'.  That is, current players of 3.5e who chose to stop buying D&D when 4e came out and they found it not something they wanted.

However, I'm also seeing some posters here indicate that they'd already been lost by 3.5e.  I think Pathfinder or 3.75e would not address the issues of that group, as the fixes they wanted generally would have required a 4e-level adjustment to the rules...just not the direction that the 4e team took.

Comparisons have been drawn to the 2e diaspora..but honestly, I don't think the two are the same.  2e's biggest problem, for me, is that it _wasn't enough_.  It was different, but I couldn't say that it changed the game in huge ways, but small ones.  LOTS of small ones, but that wasn't what drove me from the game.  What drove me from it was a combination of cost and dissatisfaction with the core system.  I had played Basic and then AD&D for years by that point...and 2e didn't feel like it addressed my problems with the system.  I left for GURPS and other systems and didn't look back.  3E arrived and was a game-changer.  It improved the system in tons of ways, kept some of the tenets that were 'D&D' to me but incorporated fixes to design that had appeared in the previous 20 years of RPG development.

To me, 3.5 was 3e's answer to 2e...an incremental change that some did not like and derail system mastery with it's changes (magic missle is level 1 or 2?) but maintaining it's core design.  4e is a much broader change that completely changes major system components.  People who were looking for 4e to be like 2e...that is, improvements and corrections on 3e/3.5....were destined for disappointment in the same way that many 2e advocates found 3e to be a serious misstep.

2e's base of customers, however, were either not supporting D&D in strength or the model was too fragile.  So much so that when WotC did market research and rebuilt the game for that market segment, many of them felt abandoned.  But clearly it worked, as the D&D brand came back stronger than any time except the early 1980s.  The question then becomes, which is more beneficial to WotC; bringing back all the 3.x people who left or adopting new players?  I don't honestly know the answer...and since WotC's not releasing sales numbers, we can only speculate.

I DO know that on the one hand, I have bought 4e books and play 4e...and my purchasing of 3.5 products had petered out dramatically.  On the other hand, I'm not buying nearly as much D&D product as I did 5 years ago.  Whether that's a problem for WotC or not, I don't know.


----------



## Mallus

Okay, let me try for something on-topic, even though I still have plenty to say about 1e dual-classing, simulationism, and brand-identity politics...

WotC has me as a customer right now. What they could do to lose me would be _not_ making bold changes to D&D going forward. 

I _liked_ 3e --like 2e before it-- but I don't feel the need to buy it again. What I've liked about 4e --and 3e before it-- were the ways they were significantly different from their predecessors. They attempted to do roughly similar things --transport players to violent worlds of fantastic and violent adventure-- using different tools/techniques/methodologies. 

Let me repeat, I _like_ that. I enjoy the way new mechanics inform my old playstyle(s), assumptions, and preferences. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something, err, hmmm, look out, a Beholder!


----------



## NoWayJose

> But the archtype argument? There are scads of archtypes of young leaders either showing their tactical prowess or abilities beyond their years. From Luke Skywalker to Iron Eagle my youth was filled with them. (Doug Masters and pals for the win! And with extra cheese!)
> 
> Kind of like some RL ROTC types, some people train to be military (martial) leaders their whole life...




MrMyth referred to warlord archetypes to help justify 4E warlord class, so I contrasted the 4e warlord class with the actual common warlord archetype.

I never said a young warlord is never possible, I implied it would be rare exception compared to the commonly understood archetype.

In fantasy genres, most young 'warlords' are arguably not Warlords at that stage of their life -- they are infantry soldiers, barbarian adventurers, or some other equivalent of a class. They all have different skill sets and professions starting out. They evolve into warlordness = in game terms, class x that gets a warlord theme later on. That is the common fantasy archetype of a warlord, which plainly, 4E does not model. That's it, that was the point of that one post you picked on.


----------



## BryonD

WizarDru said:


> However, I'm also seeing some posters here indicate that they'd already been lost by 3.5e.  I think Pathfinder or 3.75e would not address the issues of that group, as the fixes they wanted generally would have required a 4e-level adjustment to the rules...just not the direction that the 4e team took.



This is true.

When 4E was announced, I was pumped.    For about 3 seconds I was in the minority that was loudly defending 4E.  

I was not done with 3E.  I was still cranking along in a great campaign.  But, the prospect of moving forward was very appealing.  And once I discovered that the driving ideas of 4E were not my idea of moving forward, my first reaction was not to double down on 3E, but instead to start looking at other systems.  It was only conversations with Wulf Ratbane on "3.75" (his contributions of which ultimately lead to his excellent Trailblazer product) that rekindled 3E energy.  And then Paizo came along and improved the rules a little, but mainly, to me, put a huge breath of imagination into the system.  So that got me really going again.

But, it is certainly easy to imagine how I would have moved on.  It has been 10 years.  That is longer than I have ever stayed with one single system before. 

So, while I readily agree that re-doing 3.5 isn't the silver bullet.  I think a new game that maintained the philosophy of 3E would interest a lot of people, whether they still play a 3X game or not.


----------



## renau1g

Mallus said:


> WotC has me as a customer right now. What they could do to lose me would be _not_ making bold changes to D&D going forward.
> 
> I _liked_ 3e --like 2e before it-- but I don't feel the need to buy it again. What I've liked about 4e --and 3e before it-- were the ways they were significantly different from their predecessors. They attempted to do roughly similar things --transport players to violent worlds of fantastic and violent adventure-- using different tools/techniques/methodologies.
> 
> Let me repeat, I _like_ that. I enjoy the way new mechanics inform my old playstyle(s), assumptions, and preferences. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something, err, hmmm, look out, a Beholder!




This... I would certainly be bored with playing the same rules for 30 years. Some others are different and still enjoy those rules. I am glad you do (and you're likely wealthier as a result ). I prefer to see changes and therefore attempts to improve the game. They don't always work out perfectly of course, like I dislike rituals and the stealth rules still confuse me, but overall I like the direction they're taking. I loved the switch to 3e, despite having to leave behind all my books, same for 4e. I can't wait to see what 5e has in store as I've really enjoyed every edition of D&D, in fact the only thing I really didn't like was 3.5 as it wasn't enough of a change to justify the cost outlay.


----------



## BryonD

FWIW

Quest for Fun!: Pathfinder Rising


----------



## renau1g

BryonD said:


> And then Paizo came along and improved the rules a little, but mainly, to me, put a huge breath of imagination into the system.  So that got me really going again.




Yes, I agree with this. Paizo has done an amazing job with Golarion and I believe that's a big part of why people are pulled in by the system. The game world is awesome, although I'm not crazy about the anime-art direction, but that's neither here nor there. 

Can't wait for the Advanced Player's Guide...or Essentials  August/September finds me a happy gamer...


----------



## BryonD

renau1g said:


> This... I would certainly be bored with playing the same rules for 30 years.
> 
> ...
> 
> I prefer to see changes and therefore attempts to improve the game. They don't always work out perfectly of course, like I dislike rituals and the stealth rules still confuse me, but overall I like the direction they're taking. I loved the switch to 3e, despite having to leave behind all my books, same for 4e. I can't wait to see what 5e has in store as I've really enjoyed every edition of D&D, in fact the only thing I really didn't like was 3.5 as it wasn't enough of a change to justify the cost outlay.



I strongly agree with the spirit of this.

I found 3.5 to be worth the rather small outlay.  But, that's a trivial distinction.

Obviously, the "I like the direction" is the important point of divergence.

May I presume that if you DON'T like the direction that 5E takes, you won't follow it?  I'd certainly hope you wouldn't.


----------



## renau1g

Of course, but I will more than likely buy the core books (presuming they follow that distribution method) and give it a chance in play. If I hate it I certainly won't just hand over my money blindly to WotC. Oh, I was fine with 3.5 after the fact, but it was the only edition that I played that I (and my group) bitched about having to buy... it was still worth it in the end.


----------



## BryonD

renau1g said:


> Of course, but I will more than likely buy the core books (presuming they follow that distribution method) and give it a chance in play. If I hate it I certainly won't just hand over my money blindly to WotC.



Yeah, my core 4E are around here somewhere......




> Oh, I was fine with 3.5 after the fact, but it was the only edition that I played that I (and my group) bitched about having to buy... it was still worth it in the end.



 Fair enough


----------



## dmccoy1693

What will it take to get me back? 5th edition. 

I'm not a 4E hater. I've tried it and it doesn't excite me. Its not bad and I am glad it is the perfect game for others. And I may just pick up the dark sun book. But really, the edition wars wore on me, and the game doesn't really inspire me. I'll just wait for 5th edition. Once I've been away from D&D for awhile, once I've played Traveller and Pathfinder and whatever else may come my way to their ends and I have had my fill of them, whenever the new hotness is relaunched, I'll rejoin all my other lapsed brethren and play again.

I missed 2nd ed (and even 3.0) for the same reason. I'll miss 4th as well.


----------



## Wicht

BryonD said:


> FWIW
> 
> Quest for Fun!: Pathfinder Rising




Whats really amazing is when you look at that graph he shows and then it dawns on you that the red line is Pathfinder, not 4e.  

But of course, its silly to think that Pathfinder could ever outstrip 4e in sales. Can't happen we are constantly told.


----------



## renau1g

I would think it's very, very wrong to consider the sales of 1 store to be indicitive of the trends of the industry. Sample size is too small. Also, a comparison should be conducted for a years prior sales as the PHB was out a year or so before the PF book. That would be more apples to apples comparison.


----------



## Wicht

renau1g said:


> I would think it's very, very wrong to consider the sales of 1 store to be indicitive of the trends of the industry. Sample size is too small. Also, a comparison should be conducted for a years prior sales as the PHB was out a year or so before the PF book. That would be more apples to apples comparison.




Of course it is. And the answer to which sold more the year before is of course, 4e. Though, of course, that would be because the owner of the store refused to stock Paizo for a while as he was upset at their distribution model iirc. And it goes without saying, of course, that it is simply inconceivable that a little company like Paizo could compete, nationally, against a behemoth like WotC or that Pathfinder would ever draw more fans in then DnD which has the brand name recognition. WotC, I am sure is laughing at the thought that the sales in one small store would ever indicate trouble for them, especially when the store owner self admittedly prefers to play in Pathfinder himself. 

But still, when I first saw the chart, I didn't bother reading the labels and assumed blue was Paizo, and thought, "Oh look, they are selling pretty good there," and then I read the actual descriptions, reread the blog post and realized that the red line was not the "industry leader" at all, but the "little guy." I was pretty surprised and so commented as such. 

Back to the original topic, having given the matter more thought, if WotC made OGL products to support Pathfinder, I would probably buy every one. Especially if they also had the DnD brand name on them. I recognize of course that is an absurd desire, but then it struck me that what some of the other posters had said before was true: basically, WotC either has to make a better product than Paizo does to win back my business, or they have to in some other way draw me away from Pathfinder. Because, honestly, at the moment, the Pathfinder rules set is meeting all of my gaming needs but one. And that lone thing is the nostalgia factor. But give me a few more years and even that might be met.


----------



## Herschel

NoWayJose said:


> I never said a young warlord is never possible, I implied it would be rare exception compared to the commonly understood archetype.
> 
> In fantasy genres, most young 'warlords' are arguably not Warlords at that stage of their life -- they are infantry soldiers, barbarian adventurers, or some other equivalent of a class. They all have different skill sets and professions starting out. They evolve into warlordness = in game terms, class x that gets a warlord theme later on. That is the common fantasy archetype of a warlord, which plainly, 4E does not model. That's it, that was the point of that one post you picked on.





Again, your view differs not only from the game, but from popular entertainment and fantasy. Your view is your own, not supported by the sources of the class. 

And that's cool, you're obviously entitled to your view on what it means to be a "warlord". You're just incorrect in your assumption of the archtype as it applies to the game. In the game, these are the "people" who are born to or aspire to leadership from a young age. D&D finally adressed that archtype properly. 

The assumption that all the young warlords were something else also didn't hold water in the real world. The nobles were elevated to those positions automatically. They were the ones trained from an early age to be one.


----------



## howandwhy99

ExploderWizard said:


> We already have that. The actual mechanics are not under copyright. That is why we can have S&W, LL, OSRIC, and others. What we _can't _have is the cool unique flavor that is the essence of D&D to go along with it- Mordenkainen, Tenser, Greyhawk, you know, the good stuff.
> All those trappings are tied into the brand name and belong to whoever owns D&D.






pemerton said:


> Those older mechanics already exist in OGL form. See OSRIC and the other retro-clones. What's missing? (And if someone really wants the Players Option point-buy rules to be OGLed, I'll ask How could anyone want that!?)
> 
> Also, this is a bit like saying, what would be really awesome would be for WotC to give away all it's property for free. While true - that would be awesome - I think it's a bit unrealistic to actually hope for.




There are many, many, many rules from Chainmail to pre-THAC0 to Wilderness Survival which are not derivative of the d20 OGL.  Like it or not 3.x's OGL SRD is very different than even 2.5 D&D.  There are many rules and very good ones at that which could never be put into OSRIC or many of the clone systems because of that lack of derivation.  Heck, I would say OSRIC is far from copyright compliant in the States as it stands.

My own preference isn't even for any kind of clone game, but rather a clear explanation of why each of those rules are actually suggestions/guidelines for a code meant to be hidden behind a screen and why each has been designed the way they were.  I'm much more of a toolkit DM, than system purist.  I like the code-breaking aspect of roleplaying as extraordinarily ridiculed as it is.  No code is the one true code, but neither are they the rules of the game.


----------



## diaglo

to get me back.

I would need a hand written letter from the President of Hasbro personally asking me to return as a customer.


----------



## BryonD

renau1g said:


> I would think it's very, very wrong to consider the sales of 1 store to be indicitive of the trends of the industry. Sample size is too small.



I agree.



> Also, a comparison should be conducted for a years prior sales as the PHB was out a year or so before the PF book. That would be more apples to apples comparison.



I also agree.


But, it is still interesting, FWIW.


 

I'd also say it is very very wrong to declare the sales of 1 store as meaningless, and even more wrong to decalre "we don't have any data therefore we assume" to be a *better* position.    I don't think PF is kicking 4E's butt.  But, my personal sphere of associations matches the blog.  And, if everything was right in the universe, this blip alone would be boggling.  If PF is little league and 4E is the bigs, then PF would get creamed anytime, anywhere.

FWIW


----------



## renau1g

diaglo said:


> to get me back.
> 
> I would need a hand written letter from the President of Hasbro personally asking me to return as a customer.




Really? We all know that even if Brian Goldner himself sent you a letter you'd still not come back


----------



## ggroy

Wicht said:


> Back to the original topic, having given the matter more thought, if WotC made OGL products to support Pathfinder, I would probably buy every one. Especially if they also had the DnD brand name on them. I recognize of course that is an absurd desire, but then it struck me that what some of the other posters had said before was true.




This would be like a rock star who was playing huge stadium concerts for many years (or decades), where one day they suddenly find out that people aren't going to their concerts anymore.  So they end up playing smaller concerts at nightclubs.


----------



## renau1g

BryonD said:


> But, it is still interesting, FWIW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd also say it is very very wrong to declare the sales of 1 store as meaningless, and even more wrong to decalre "we don't have any data therefore we assume" to be a *better* position.    I don't think PF is kicking 4E's butt.  But, my personal sphere of associations matches the blog.  And, if everything was right in the universe, this blip alone would be boggling.  If PF is little league and 4E is the bigs, then PF would get creamed anytime, anywhere.
> 
> FWIW




Definitely find it interesting, that's for sure, but I never said it was meaningless or that WoTC is the king of the world or that Paizo is little league. 

I said that it is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions from. When I used to work in automotive there were areas of the world where none of the world's largest automakers held the highest market share position, which was held by a domestic company that didn't operate outside their country.


----------



## BryonD

renau1g said:


> Definitely find it interesting, that's for sure, but I never said it was meaningless or that WoTC is the king of the world or that Paizo is little league.



True, I apologize for implying those words into your mouth.

Others have made pretty much those statements though.  And, honestly, the name itself "D&D" give any system a free kickstart at 800 lb gorilla.



> I said that it is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions from. When I used to work in automotive there were areas of the world where none of the world's largest automakers held the highest market share position, which was held by a domestic company that didn't operate outside their country.



I'm an engineer and know plenty of ways to both use and misuse statistics.  

But, again, when one sees data that is consistent with one's own observations, one doesn't tend to call it "outlier".

Honestly, while I think PF is much closer to 4E than either conventional wisdom or "my dad's game can beat up your dad's game" chatter would presume, I really don't think it is that big a deal.  It is just fun, for me, to throw around.

We are in a really teeny teapot here.  Arguing #1 vs. #2 in this teapot is really just arguing #10,456 vs. #10,457 on the list of "popular hobbies".  And if I wanted my ego stroked I wouldn't claim everyone was playing my game.  I'm be saying "of course your game is more popular.....  *ANYONE* can play that thing. "    My elitist cred is shot to hell.  Damn.

OTOH, maybe I do get a bit of re-assurance from thinking there really are a lot of people who like getting back to "the rules as physics" over "balanced teamwork conflict resolution".


----------



## renau1g

BryonD said:


> I'm an engineer and know plenty of ways to both use and misuse statistics.
> 
> But, again, when one sees data that is consistent with one's own observations, one doesn't tend to call it "outlier".
> 
> Honestly, while I think PF is much closer to 4E than either conventional wisdom or "my dad's game can beat up your dad's game" chatter would presume, I really don't think it is that big a deal.  It is just fun, for me, to throw around.
> 
> We are in a really teeny teapot here.  Arguing #1 vs. #2 in this teapot is really just arguing #10,456 vs. #10,457 on the list of "popular hobbies".  And if I wanted my ego stroked I wouldn't claim everyone was playing my game.  I'm be saying "of course your game is more popular.....  *ANYONE* can play that thing. "    My elitist cred is shot to hell.  Damn.
> 
> OTOH, maybe I do get a bit of re-assurance from thinking there really are a lot of people who like getting back to "the rules as physics" over "balanced teamwork conflict resolution".




I also didn't mean to imply you didn't know about stats or how to use them, hope it didn't come across that way.

Speaking of teapots though, sometimes it feels like this:








Oh... I mean my dad could totally kick your dad's butt


----------



## FireLance

Off topic post removed. This "read to the end of the thread before replying" thing - good advice, you know?


----------



## pemerton

NoWayJose said:


> it doesn't make sense that a warlord and only a warlord has a monopoly on bringing everyone back from death's door.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But going back to the OP, WoTC would win back some of the disenfranchised if more conscious effort was made to reduce or at least smooth over the "metagame-ness".





Shazman said:


> Many of us want less "This guy has this ability just because he is a defender, leader, etc. or just to be balanced." and more "This guy has this ability because it makes sense for him to have this ability given his training, background, natural abilities, etc."
> A move in that direction could go a long way towards winning some of the disenchanted back.



I see this as part of the same divide between setting and ingame logic on the one hand, and metagame on the other.

In AD&D, and even moreseo in 3E (with it's easy multiclassing) class is a reflection and expression of some ingame state of affairs. And on this approach to class, it doesn't make sense to have a class and class features that don't accurately express some feature of the ingame reality. So a 4e warlord class wouldn't make sense.

But in 4e classes are best seen as "metagame packages/bundles" first, which then determine some ingame state of affairs - but they don't themselves express any ingame natural categories. So whereas, in AD&D and 3E, "fighting men" and "magic-users" are part of the ingame reality, in 4e there are only warriors in the gameworld - fighters, warlords and STR-rangers are simply various metagame devices for playing a warrior in mechanically distinct but balanced ways.

With the non-martial classes the game hews closer to the pre-4e approach, and seems to treat wizards, sorcerers and so on as features of the ingame reality as well as elements of the metagame, but I personally don't like it when the game texts push too far this way, because it undermines what is appealing (to me) about the flexibility of the metagame understanding of classes. (I might also be comfortable with the metagame understanding of classes because it is closer to Rolemaster, in which classes are just bundles of skill-costs and not really ingame features - although Rolemaster also hews a bit closer to the ingame interpretation of classes when it comes to spell-using classes.)



MrMyth said:


> Basically, he doesn't want a character to have to give up their other capabilities to be defined as a natural born leader - perhaps in one party, Gandalf is the inspirational glue that holds everyone together, while in another it is Aragorn, and in yet another it is Frodo.





Herschel said:


> It makes perfect sense because those truly natural born leaders BECOME warlords. That's their gig.



I think MrMyth gets closer to the point here. It's true that in 4e natural born leader PCs will be warlords. But this is not an ingame fact, it's a purely metagame fact - if you want to play a natural leader you have to choose warlord as your class. For those who think class is primarily an ingame rather than metagame status, this doesn't make sense because being a natural born leader isn't something you grow into or choose, and being a natural born leader doesn't stop you adopting a non-warrior profession like mage or cleric.

It therefore doesn't surprise me that warlords, along with Come and Get It, are a bit of a lightning rod for those who don't like the metagame-iness of 4e.



Raven Crowking said:


> *  Better modules.
> *  Less meta-gamey.
> *  Flavour determines mechanics, rather than mechanics-first.
> *  Core + Options.



I certainly agree with your first - but I don't think the 3E modules from WotC were very good either. And nor am I a fan of a lot of 2nd ed AD&D modules.

Obviously I don't agree with your second - and I feel this is probably _the_ aspect of 4e that puts off the greatest number of players of earlier editions.

I feel that your third isn't really distinct from your second - because for me 4e does have flavour determining mechanics, but by "flavour" I mean something like "thematic potential" - eg if you want to make a class feel like an undead hunter, give it lots of radiant powers, or if you want to make it feel sneaky give it utilities that enhance the Stealth skill, or whatver. Whereas I feel that by "flavour" you mean something like "gameworld reality". So (if I'm right in my interpretation of you) we read the flavour-mechanics interaction differently _because_ we have different attitudes towards the metagame-iness issue. A different approach to the latter would, I feel, naturally lead to your desired flavour-mechanics relationship.

Your fourth I'm indifferent to. Despite a lot of reference to "everything's core", as far as I know the only books that say, on the cover, "Core Rules" are the various volumes of the core three - the others, like the Power books, the AV books, and the setting books, call themselves "Supplements". And in any event the vast majority of this material consists in new feats, powers, classes and races, which are in their nature very modular and so easily approach in a core/options fashion by those who want to (in this way they remind me of Rolemaster, which has a plethora of classes, races, spell lists, weapons and so on but all as optional modules).



Imaro said:


> If I'm playing Ravenloft and it plays no differently than Forgotten Realms... something is wrong.  My point is that there should be enough mechanical tweaks and changes that the feel of the setting comes across in play to both the players and DM's.





Imaro said:


> providing some form of different mechanics for flavor and variety when it comes to the different 4e settings would be one of the things WotC could do to get me interested in buying their stuff again



I haven't thought very hard about this, but my feeling is that the way you would do this would be by ruling in or out certain classes or races - because these are the main source of mechanics-driven PC flavour - and ruling in or out certain monsters or traps/hazards/terrain - because these are the main source of mechanics-driven encounter flavour.

4e does quite a bit of the second - all the setting books like Underdark, Plane Below etc have lots of setting-specific terrain, hazards and creatures. (For example, in 4e the most obvious way to do Ravenloft horror would be via psychic damage and associated conditions - and Open Grave has examples of this in its discussion of hauntings, and different ways of building and adjudicating them.)

With Dark Sun, 4e seems to be doing the first also - that is, tweaking the PC-build options (but other than adding in themes, not really changing the basic mechanics of PC-building) to yield a bit more setting-specific mechanics-driven flavour. (As someone else posted, 4e FR did this a bit with the spellscarred stuff - but Dark Sun seems to be pushing it a bit further.)


----------



## Lanefan

WizarDru said:


> 2e's base of customers, however, were either not supporting D&D in strength or the model was too fragile.  So much so that when WotC did market research and rebuilt the game for that market segment, many of them felt abandoned.  But clearly it worked, as the D&D brand came back stronger than any time except the early 1980s.



A lot of that rejeuvenation also came from the sense of having a new, deep-pocketed, and gamer-friendly hand at the helm after the rolling disaster that was 1990's-era TSR.  Turn-of-the-century WotC seriously rocked, until the Hasbro buy-out; and though I don't care much for the D+D system they put out I sure appreciate the fact that they did it at all - and re-booted the game and hobby in the process.


> The question then becomes, which is more beneficial to WotC; bringing back all the 3.x people who left or adopting new players?



Both.

Lan-"and bring back the 1e and 2e types as well"-efan


----------



## Clefton Twain

I really haven't followed WotC for a while. But I stopped playing D&D right about the time 4e came out. I started to get the feeling that WoTC didn't really seem to care much about D&D and simply wanted to lure new gamers into the fold. Several of the WotC people I met at Gencon were outright jerks and I just basically moved on.

I'd like to get the feeling that they are about the franchise and they care about gaming. Remake D&D and rename 4e "D&D, the Boardgame".

That's just how I feel. I'm not stating facts or figures, so it can obviously be argued, and I know there are tons of people who feel differently.

Also, clean up all the errata on the first publication or sell me a PDF that can be patched.

I'd love to get back into D&D, but would almost assuredly play 3.5 or Pathfinder. Paizo seems to have more of a passion for the game.

--CT


----------



## NoWayJose

pemerton said:


> In AD&D, and even moreseo in 3E (with it's easy multiclassing) class is a reflection and expression of some ingame state of affairs. And on this approach to class, it doesn't make sense to have a class and class features that don't accurately express some feature of the ingame reality. So a 4e warlord class wouldn't make sense.
> 
> But in 4e classes are best seen as "metagame packages/bundles" first, which then determine some ingame state of affairs - but they don't themselves express any ingame natural categories. So whereas, in AD&D and 3E, "fighting men" and "magic-users" are part of the ingame reality, in 4e there are only warriors in the gameworld - fighters, warlords and STR-rangers are simply various metagame devices for playing a warrior in mechanically distinct but balanced ways.



Yes, children are trained as squires to become knights, sent off to monastery to become clerics, apprenticed to a mage to become wizards, etc. Most classes at level 1 are modelled on the heroic output of in-game professional training + natural talents. The warlord class has no equivalent in-game meaning and feels artificial and arbitrary in-game (outside of the metagame). A child trained as a squire to become a knight may evolve to be a warlord, but a child is not thrown into Warlord Academy. Warlord IS a mantle earned by anyone with the right stripes and experience, and 4E warped the 'warlord' concept to fit into an artificial gamist framework.

In my ideal 4E, you can only build a 'warlord' using any base class and the right abilities and power selection. Take a knight class and add some tactical powers. Take a cleric and add some inspiration powers. But don't fabricate a warlord class out of relatively thin air and call it a 'warlord'. Creating a warlord class to fit the predefined roles is about as arbitrary and gamist as 2nd edition Outer Wheel designed to personify the 9 old alignments. Take away the old 9 alignments and the Outer Wheel collapses on itself, its gamist spine torn out, with no tangible in-game justification left to support itself.

Furthermore, if this was just about the warlord, it wouldn't affect my view of 4E as a whole. But as I described before, I see many, many other failures of internal logic between crunch and fluff.


----------



## Jack99

Clefton Twain said:


> Several of the WotC people I met at Gencon were outright jerks and I just basically moved on.
> --CT




Thats some accusation. But lets hear some names and what happened, because otherwise, I am gonna call _nonsense_ on that story. Bear in mind that alot of them post here, so better have your facts straight.


----------



## pemerton

NoWayJose said:


> 4E warped the 'warlord' concept to fit into an artificial gamist framework.
> 
> In my ideal 4E, you can only build a 'warlord' using any base class and the right abilities and power selection. Take a knight class and add some tactical powers. Take a cleric and add some inspiration powers. But don't fabricate a warlord class out of relatively thin air and call it a 'warlord'. Creating a warlord class to fit the predefined roles is about as arbitrary and gamist as 2nd edition Outer Wheel designed to personify the 9 old alignments.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Furthermore, if this was just about the warlord, it wouldn't affect my view of 4E as a whole. But as I described before, I see many, many other failures of internal logic between crunch and fluff.



What you're saying makes perfect sense to me - including that the warlord is just the tip of a total iceberg of "failures of internal logic". It's the nature of a metagame-heavy ruleset that the logic has to be injected from outside.


----------



## pemerton

*Costs of providing PDFs*

The most recent number of The Monthly - a moderately leftist Australian culture/society magazine - has an article by Malcolm Knox on e-publishing and its effect on the publishing and bookselling industry. Knox writes:

The mindset [that if you're reading it on a screen then it must be free] is quanitatively wrong: the costs of digitisation, file conversion and file management are high . . . One reason e-books were so slow to take hold was that publishers could not make money with the addition of the estimated $400 per title it cost them to digitise.​
Obviously, some of that work has already been done in the case of the WotC and TSR PDFs.


----------



## Neonchameleon

NoWayJose said:


> Furthermore, if this was just about the warlord, it wouldn't affect my view of 4E as a whole. But as I described before, I see many, many other failures of internal logic between crunch and fluff.




If those were my overriding criteria for choosing a ruleset, I would not play _any_ version of D&D at all.  I'd either go for a GURPS or Rolemaster-y simulationist system or something like Dogs in the Vineyard.  (Which come to think of it I sometimes do).


----------



## Bluenose

NoWayJose said:


> Yes, children are trained as squires to become knights, sent off to monastery to become clerics, apprenticed to a mage to become wizards, etc. Most classes at level 1 are modelled on the heroic output of in-game professional training + natural talents. The warlord class has no equivalent in-game meaning and feels artificial and arbitrary in-game (outside of the metagame). A child trained as a squire to become a knight may evolve to be a warlord, but a child is not thrown into Warlord Academy. Warlord IS a mantle earned by anyone with the right stripes and experience, and 4E warped the 'warlord' concept to fit into an artificial gamist framework.
> 
> In my ideal 4E, you can only build a 'warlord' using any base class and the right abilities and power selection. Take a knight class and add some tactical powers. Take a cleric and add some inspiration powers. But don't fabricate a warlord class out of relatively thin air and call it a 'warlord'. Creating a warlord class to fit the predefined roles is about as arbitrary and gamist as 2nd edition Outer Wheel designed to personify the 9 old alignments. Take away the old 9 alignments and the Outer Wheel collapses on itself, its gamist spine torn out, with no tangible in-game justification left to support itself.
> 
> Furthermore, if this was just about the warlord, it wouldn't affect my view of 4E as a whole. But as I described before, I see many, many other failures of internal logic between crunch and fluff.




Children of 'Knights' train to become knights/men-at-arms. Children of 'Lords' train to lead. The historical precedents are many, and they aren't just from medieval Europe. Alexander the Great is a perfectly sensible example. There are people like that in modern day sports teams at all ages. The title may bother you, but the concept 'inspirational leader' is hardly something that requires much experience.


----------



## NoWayJose

Bluenose said:


> Children of 'Knights' train to become knights/men-at-arms. Children of 'Lords' train to lead.



Because of feudal system, prejudice, etc. That doesn't apply to an equal opportunity medieval reimagining that is D&D.


> The title may bother you, but the concept 'inspirational leader'...



It would actually be 'Inspirational Fighter-like Leader'


> ... is hardly something that requires much experience.



Aah, good to know. My cleric, who has better charisma/wisdom/intelligence than your warlord, is easily able to choose warlord class powers with no penalties or restrictions... because, as you state, being an inspirational leader hardly requires much experience.
See, in that way, 4E is like the Soup Nazi. 'No soup for you!' for no logical in-game reason. See previous posts for elaboration.


----------



## Doug McCrae

NoWayJose said:


> 4E is like the Soup Nazi. 'No soup for you!' for no logical in-game reason.



Eh, it's the nature of the class system. Pre-3e D&D was often criticised for its arbitrary restrictions. The term 'options not restrictions' became associated with 3e and its loosening of the bonds of class, but imo it went too far in that direction.


----------



## Bluenose

NoWayJose said:


> Because of feudal system, prejudice, etc. That doesn't apply to an equal opportunity medieval reimagining that is D&D.




Works perfectly well today. See: sports teams, modern militaries, even some businesses.



> Aah, good to know. My cleric, who has better charisma/wisdom/intelligence than your warlord, is easily able to choose warlord class powers with no penalties or restrictions... because, as you state, being an inspirational leader hardly requires much experience.
> See, in that way, 4E is like the Soup Nazi. 'No soup for you!' for no logical in-game reason. See previous posts for elaboration.




Congratulations on not understanding the nature of a class-based game.


----------



## NoWayJose

Bluenose said:


> Works perfectly well today. See: sports teams, modern militaries, even some businesses.



Considering that you pick on certain points while ignoring others in your favor and considering that you're trying to set up a terrible analogy between a fantasy uber-hero and a real-life sports athelete, and considering that the warlord issue is just the tip of the iceberg, I won't be distracted by red herrings.



> Congratulations on not understanding the nature of a class-based game.



Don't be disingenuous. This isn't black and white, everything is a matter of degrees. I suppose the world will crumble around you when Essentials plays with some of your sacred cows. No soup for you.


----------



## Neonchameleon

NoWayJose said:


> Aah, good to know. My cleric, who has better charisma/wisdom/intelligence than your warlord, is easily able to choose warlord class powers with no penalties or restrictions... because, as you state, being an inspirational leader hardly requires much experience.




Yes.  Yes he can.  However what he needs to do in order to do so is to keep his mind focussed in the battle and watching every nuance of it rather than calling on his God for aid.  At that point, for all his clerical investment he ceases to fit the cleric class and instead becomes a Warlord.

If he wants the focus on the battle that being a Warlord demands while remaining a cleric and focussing on his God, he needs serious work and practice at splitting his focus.  This costs either Feats or Hybriding.

Being a Warlord, like being a Fighter is an approach to the world, and one centred on the here and now while in the moment.


----------



## ExploderWizard

NoWayJose said:


> Don't be disingenuous. This isn't black and white, everything is a matter of degrees. I suppose the world will crumble around you when Essentials plays with some of your sacred cows. No soup for you.




I have some verisimilitude issues with 4E but arbitrary rules in the game are nothing new. You can treat the rules of every edition as guidelines as you choose but if an edition has been produced with every rules aspect explicitly presented as a sliding scale of degrees then please point it out because I must have a major gap in my collection that goes back to OD&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pemerton said:


> *Costs of providing PDFs*
> 
> The most recent number of The Monthly - a moderately leftist Australian culture/society magazine - has an article by Malcolm Knox on e-publishing and its effect on the publishing and bookselling industry. Knox writes:
> 
> The mindset [that if you're reading it on a screen then it must be free] is quanitatively wrong: the costs of digitisation, file conversion and file management are high . . . One reason e-books were so slow to take hold was that publishers could not make money with the addition of the estimated $400 per title it cost them to digitise.​
> Obviously, some of that work has already been done in the case of the WotC and TSR PDFs.




Obviously, almost all, if not all, of that has already been done in the case of the WotC and TSR pdfs.  Therefore, since the costs have already been paid, it makes sense to use that spent money to make more money.

If I spend $400 per book to digitalize something, be certain that I am going to sell as many copies of that thing for as long as I can.



RC


----------



## I'm A Banana

Scribble said:
			
		

> In my personal thoughts- mechanics don't need to be added to make a setting feel unique. The flavor of the setting should do that. Flavor is what drives ME to a particular world (can't speak for anyone else.)




In my personal thoughts, mechanics need to arise out of unique flavor. 

If honor is important in your setting, you should have a *mechanical* reason that this is true.

If chivalry is important in your setting, *mechanics* should reinforce this. 

If your setting is about gritty survival in a dying world, you should have interesting *gritty survival mechanics*.

That's what creates a different feel at the table. If we're all playing elves but we're just calling them smerps (everything else is the same), that's not really different flavor. That's like the bagged cereals at the grocery store. Same basic thing, just with a different name. 

Those mechanics should not be universal -- they can not be. Though they can certainly be adopted for other settings that want a similar story, they won't be appropriate in all times and settings. 

IMO, that's part of making mechanics based on story. When the story changes, so do the mechanics (even if only in an additive way).


----------



## Shazman

Bluenose said:


> Works perfectly well today. See: sports teams, modern militaries, even some businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations on not understanding the nature of a class-based game.




It's not that he doesn't understand class based games, he just doesn't think that the "warlord" archetype is strong enough to stand on it's own as a class.  I tend to agree.  Anyone can be a warlord if they amass a group of followers and lead them into battle regardless of what their class is.  Since D&D isn't about leading armies of henchman, but about small parties of PC's working together, a warlord (or at least what most people think of as a warlord) doesn't really fit into the picture.   "Warlord" works well as a prestige class or a paragon path, but it feels artificial as it's own class (especially the 4e version of a warlord).


----------



## renau1g

NoWayJose said:


> Aah, good to know. My cleric, who has better charisma/wisdom/intelligence than your warlord, is easily able to choose warlord class powers with no penalties or restrictions... because, as you state, being an inspirational leader hardly requires much experience.
> See, in that way, 4E is like the Soup Nazi. 'No soup for you!' for no logical in-game reason. See previous posts for elaboration.




Yup. Grab MC warlord feat and then grab a few powers via the associated feats. Not hard. 

In 3e, you had to MC to grab those powers from other classes also. My memory of 2e is a bit hazy, but IIRC wasn't there Dual & multi-classing options? I forget their specifics, but weren't there a lot of limitations around races, classes and level caps?


----------



## Doug McCrae

Shazman said:


> D&D isn't about leading armies of henchman,



In the past it has been. OD&D in particular is still part wargame.


> a warlord (or at least what most people think of as a warlord) doesn't really fit into the picture.



The issue is really that the class name, and indeed the term for the role, 'leader', is not very appropriate. But there's nothing wrong with the class itself. It's really a small unit support role rather than a leader of armies, a facillitator, cheerleader and healer.

There's a guy in my gaming group for whom the warlord could've been specifically written. He loves the support role. He played a marshal, the warlord's precursor, in our last 3e campaign.

I rather like it myself, as I also enjoy the support role but I dislike the religious baggage attached to the cleric.


----------



## Mallus

Doug McCrae said:


> The issue is really that the class name, and indeed the term for the role, 'leader', is not very appropriate.



Well, the 4e designers could have called them 'buffers', but then it sounds like you're talking about someone who works at a car wash, or perhaps on the set of a pornographic movie. Or 'combat supporters', which sounds like the proper term for a military-issue jockstrap.  



> But there's nothing wrong with the class itself.



The warlord in our group is great. He's like Dr. Phil in chain mail. 

I have to admit, this particular strand of the discussion perplexes me. D&D has always been a class-based game. Which means there's always been a significant amount of friction between the mechanics and in-game logic. Why can't single classed (and honor-free) fighters learn to stab people in the back? Why is it only rogues can learn to watch their backs? Why are advantageous fits of _anger_ the sole province of barbarians? These are gamist design choices which, if you're in the mood to be apologetic, can be dressed up with logical-sounding explanations.

It's time for a (barely) appropriate analogy. Complaining about the gamist aspects of D&D 4e --for instance, the warlord-- is a little like a man who's been dating a transvestite for years. One day his transvestite partner buys a new dress, and suddenly the manly-dressing partner says "Wow. You're not really a woman. I'm no longer attracted to you. We should break up". All because of the new dress. 

Now an outside observer might be tempted to say "You never noticed her large hands before? Her Adam's apple? Her _penis_? I though you knew all along and were cool with it."

Now no one can explain the rules of attraction, and heart is a lonely, not to mention blind and insane, hunter. So there's nothing _wrong_ with the guy who dumps his transvestite girlfriend of several years because of her new dress, in the same way there's nothing wrong with gamer who objects to 4e-isms like the warlord, but accepts all the equally gamist design choices which have been part of D&D since the beginning. 

But neither can they be explained logically. There are, after all, matters of taste.


----------



## Mallus

renau1g said:


> Yup. Grab MC warlord feat and then grab a few powers via the associated feats. Not hard.



My 4e paladin heals people divinely via Lay on Hands and by the power of his slam poetry via Majestic Word and the bard multiclass feat.


----------



## MrMyth

NoWayJose said:


> In my ideal 4E, you can only build a 'warlord' using any base class and the right abilities and power selection. Take a knight class and add some tactical powers. Take a cleric and add some inspiration powers. But don't fabricate a warlord class out of relatively thin air and call it a 'warlord'. Creating a warlord class to fit the predefined roles is about as arbitrary and gamist as 2nd edition Outer Wheel designed to personify the 9 old alignments. Take away the old 9 alignments and the Outer Wheel collapses on itself, its gamist spine torn out, with no tangible in-game justification left to support itself.




I think this is an area where different people just see things in different ways. I'm not even saying that 'gamist principles are acceptable to me'; I'm saying that 'warlord' feels just as reasonable as something relying on a character's ability and skill as 'fighter' or 'rogue', and thus I don't see any lack of justification for it existing as its own class. 

I just don't get how require a character to mechanically acquire the ability to inspire people in certain ways, whether they have a high Charisma or not, is somehow worse than require characters to mechanically represent their ability to sneak and handle traps, whether they have a high Dexterity or not, or their ability to hit people in the face, whether they have a high Strength or not. 

But you don't see it that way, and there is no real way around that - different players have always had different views of what seems 'realistic' or 'justifiable' or so forth. There is nothing necessarily wrong with either view - it just demonstrates the challenge WotC faces, providing a game that will be acceptable to millions of different gamers, each with their own different view of the game.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Now that is a good analogy, Mallus. I much prefer it to all the ones about food.


----------



## Umbran

I am not sure that anything done to the game itself is apt to bring back many (perhaps even most) of the disenchanted.  Why not?  Because they probably aren't paying much attention to current D&D.

Folks who tried 4e, and found it lacking, have had a couple years now to move on to something else.  Whatever they found to do instead (have a kid, take up toy trains, or Pathfinder, or whatever) will be their focus now.  It will take big noise to gain their attention back again - release of a new edition could do it, for example.  But just making a few modest changes to the current rules probably won't do the trick.


----------



## TheYeti1775

pemerton said:


> *Costs of providing PDFs*
> 
> The most recent number of The Monthly - a moderately leftist Australian culture/society magazine - has an article by Malcolm Knox on e-publishing and its effect on the publishing and bookselling industry. Knox writes:
> 
> The mindset [that if you're reading it on a screen then it must be free] is quanitatively wrong: the costs of digitisation, file conversion and file management are high . . . One reason e-books were so slow to take hold was that publishers could not make money with the addition of the estimated $400 per title it cost them to digitise.​
> Obviously, some of that work has already been done in the case of the WotC and TSR PDFs.



The cost arguement would make sense if it weren't for two factors.
1. As stated most of the old works are already digitized.
2. The new works are already digitized as well when they are created.  The cost is already eaten into the current price point of the the dead tree copies.



Clefton Twain said:


> I really haven't followed WotC for a while. But I stopped playing D&D right about the time 4e came out. I started to get the feeling that WoTC didn't really seem to care much about D&D and simply wanted to lure new gamers into the fold. *Several of the WotC people I met at Gencon were outright jerks* and I just basically moved on.
> 
> I'd like to get the feeling that they are about the franchise and they care about gaming. Remake D&D and rename 4e "D&D, the Boardgame".
> 
> That's just how I feel. I'm not stating facts or figures, so it can obviously be argued, and I know there are tons of people who feel differently.
> 
> Also, clean up all the errata on the first publication or sell me a PDF that can be patched.
> 
> I'd love to get back into D&D, but would almost assuredly play 3.5 or Pathfinder. Paizo seems to have more of a passion for the game.
> 
> --CT




I would like to know the who's and circumstances as well.  
Short of when I've been an a-hole on the boards and even than, I've yet to have any WotC employee be an outright jerk to me.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran said:


> I am not sure that anything done to the game itself is apt to bring back many (perhaps even most) of the disenchanted.  Why not?  Because they probably aren't paying much attention to current D&D.
> 
> Folks who tried 4e, and found it lacking, have had a couple years now to move on to something else.  Whatever they found to do instead (have a kid, take up toy trains, or Pathfinder, or whatever) will be their focus now.  It will take big noise to gain their attention back again - release of a new edition could do it, for example.  But just making a few modest changes to the current rules probably won't do the trick.




I believe Umbran is 100% correct here.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Jack99 said:


> Thats some accusation. But lets hear some names and what happened, because otherwise, I am gonna call _nonsense_ on that story.



Let me get this straight.  You're calling him a liar if he can't give you specific names?  Really?

This happened to me, too.  GenCon, two years ago, my buddy and I sat down for a demo of 4E, wanting to play it before passing judgment on it.  The two guys running the demo were disengaged, dismissive, and rude, and clearly wanted to be doing anything but what they were doing.  They were wearing WotC badges, but not volunteer badges, but I didn't get their names.

Now please, call me a liar and let's see if you can get a vacation from the thread.


----------



## Umbran

*All* you folks engaged in an internet testosterone contest are apt to get vacations if you aren't careful.


----------



## ggroy

Umbran said:


> It will take big noise to gain their attention back again - release of a new edition could do it, for example.  But just making a few modest changes to the current rules probably won't do the trick.




At this point in time, I doubt a new edition will do much to gain back their attention, considering 4E has only been around for two years.


----------



## DaveMage

ggroy said:


> At this point in time, I doubt a new edition will do much to gain back their attention, considering 4E has only been around for two years.




Should a "5E" ever come out, I will certainly be interested in seeing what it offers.

It would likely have to be very different from 4E and more similar to the other editions to be worthy of my purchasing it.

I still think, though, that the next "edition" might be a board game with expansions.  I'll be interested to hear how the Ravenloft board game and the other one (which I don't remember the name) play and if people that do not like 4E like them or not....


----------



## TheYeti1775

Umbran said:


> I am not sure that anything done to the game itself is apt to bring back many (perhaps even most) of the disenchanted.  Why not?  Because they probably aren't paying much attention to current D&D.
> 
> Folks who tried 4e, and found it lacking, have had a couple years now to move on to something else.  Whatever they found to do instead (have a kid, take up toy trains, or Pathfinder, or whatever) will be their focus now.  It will take big noise to gain their attention back again - release of a new edition could do it, for example.  But just making a few modest changes to the current rules probably won't do the trick.




Yes a 5th edition would bring many back for a try at least for the initial release.  Just to see if things changed for the better (in their opinion) or not.

The problem with a new edition release is the risking of disenchanting the current base they do have now with 4E.  If they step too far back than they lose all those who are in love with the current edition.  If they step too far forward, you run the same risk and take yourself even further from the ones who stopped with 3.5E.

The one theme outside of the arguing over edition changes that has reoccurred throughout the thread is ELECTRONIC SUPPORT for all editions.
Weather this is in selling PDF's or putting old editions into the DDI/Builders.  It keeps cropping up within the thread.
I believe WotC could really seize the initiative on this and run with it.  The biggiest worry is their ROI on it, it has to be break even or better to get them to consider it.  The reason I say break even is because if even 25% of the disenchanted come back into the fold, that is that much more you can advertise your new releases too.  That is that many more that will subscribe to your DDI.
Heck even Diaglo has chimed in with how to get him back.  Personally if I was a WotC employee I would take the initiative on that one and get that letter.  

While many of the requests will be thrown out just on silliness or out of hand.  There are quite a few gems within this twenty some pages, even if half of it is dribble and triades.

I could honestly say the electronic measures (PDF/Builders) will not anger a single WotC customer, weather previous current or future one.  It only creates more.  No one can dispute that.  It's a question of what does it cost?
The Builder additions are a one time cost, the previous editions are set in stone and are never changing again.  Short of me hitting the Powerball and MegaMillions on the same day and having a wild monkeyhair and buying WotC they will never be 'republished'.  
So how much does a contractor cost WotC to add in previous editions to the Builders.  
Next how much does it cost to all PDF sales again (all editions)?
I bet DriveThru and the rest of them would be more than willing to do so again.

I want to be a WotC customer, but as the theme of the thread has gone.  
*SELL ME SOMETHING I WANT TO BUY.*
That is the key to it all.  While I can play 4E, I've learned enough about it that I found it wasn't an edition to my liking/style.  I still want things that WotC has the power to supply.

Even the User-submitted articles of previous editions doesn't cost WotC much more than the hosting and the quick proof-read of the article with the adding of the NOT A WOTC ARTICLE disclaimer within their DDI.


----------



## Umbran

ggroy said:


> At this point in time, I doubt a new edition will do much to gain back their attention, considering 4E has only been around for two years.




On the contrary, it being released so soon would likely get their attention - it would be pretty shocking, and would get talked about a great deal in gaming circles.

Would they buy - I agree, probably not.  But it'd get their attention


----------



## renau1g

Umbran said:


> Folks who tried 4e, and found it lacking, have had a couple years now to move on to something else.  Whatever they found to do instead (have a kid, *take up toy trains,* or Pathfinder, or whatever) will be their focus now.  It will take big noise to gain their attention back again - release of a new edition could do it, for example.  But just making a few modest changes to the current rules probably won't do the trick.




Oh sweet Orcus, please tell me that we as a hobby haven't lost people to *gulp* toy trains!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkSx0UB8NDE]YouTube - I Love Toy Trains Series[/ame]


----------



## Umbran

TheYeti1775 said:


> It's a question of what does it cost?
> The Builder additions are a one time cost, the previous editions are set in stone and are never changing again.




Two things:

1) I don't think it is just a builder addition.  It is probably an all-new builder.  A character builder isn't system-agnostic.  You need different builders for different systems.

2) Assuming they continue with their subscription-based model, it isn't a one-time cost.  There's maintenance, and updates as their own infrastructure moves onwards.  Even if they go with a downloaded application installed on your machine, maintenance will be required as operating systems and the technologies used in the builder advance, and bugs will be found, and need to be fixed.

If folks here are to be taken as an example, putting something out and then failing to support it as time goes on is, in PR terms, worse than not ever offering it.


----------



## TheYeti1775

Umbran said:


> On the contrary, it being released so soon would likely get their attention - it would be pretty shocking, and would get talked about a great deal in gaming circles.
> 
> Would they buy - I agree, probably not.  But it'd get their attention




Yeah but I bet that would definitely be bad attention.
Look how bad we were at 3.5 and the 4E releases of crying 'too soon'.

Though it is strikingly similar that Essentials is coming out about the same time frame 3.5E rolled out.


----------



## DaveMage

TheYeti1775 said:


> Though it is strikingly similar that Essentials is coming out about the same time frame 3.5E rolled out.




Actually, it's a year sooner.

3.0 came out in 2000
3.5 in 2003.

4.0 came out in 2008
Essentials in 2010


----------



## TheYeti1775

Umbran said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1) I don't think it is just a builder addition.  It is probably an all-new builder.  A character builder isn't system-agnostic.  You need different builders for different systems.
> 
> 2) Assuming they continue with their subscription-based model, it isn't a one-time cost.  There's maintenance, and updates as their own infrastructure moves onwards.  Even if they go with a downloaded application installed on your machine, maintenance will be required as operating systems and the technologies used in the builder advance, and bugs will be found, and need to be fixed.
> 
> If folks here are to be taken as an example, putting something out and then failing to support it as time goes on is, in PR terms, worse than not ever offering it.




Very good points.
I keep forgetting how different 1E/2E is to 3E/3.5E is to 4E on the builder side.
I would argue in favor of WotC simply saying we will patch it and support it in 'xyz' only.  If it is only Windows 7 only, it's Windows 7 only.  No one will fault them this.  No one here will fault them as long as they are upfront and honest about it.
Heck you want to really make folks day, release it opensource. Highly doubt that will happen as it than earns them nothing outside of goodwill.  And frankly I'm a realist.  If there aren't $$ attached to the ROI, noone in WotC or Hasbro will approve.

But really though outside of the Builder creation itself, the only cost that factors in is the data entry to it.


----------



## renau1g

TheYeti1775 said:


> Very good points.
> 
> I would argue in favor of WotC simply saying we will patch it and support it in 'xyz' only.  If it is only Windows 7 only, it's Windows 7 only.  No one will fault them this.  No one here will fault them as long as they are upfront and honest about it.




Of course they will fault them, there will be cries about Mac support, XP support, etc. This is the internet after all.


----------



## WizarDru

Mallus said:


> Now an outside observer might be tempted to say "You never noticed her large hands before? Her Adam's apple? Her _penis_? I though you knew all along and were cool with it."




DUDE.

Thank goodness I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.


----------



## Herschel

Clefton Twain said:


> Several of the WotC people I met at Gencon were outright jerks and I just basically moved on.
> --CT




1. This has NOTHING to do with the game itself, but more importantly....

2. WTF are you talking about? I call shenanigans unless you can explain specific instances. I've met a few of them more than once and they were nothing but cordial and enthusiastic. I've played minis against Shoe and had designers run games I've played in. This is a pretty serious accusation and screams to me of either total bs or bitterness because of an edition change beyond reasonable.

*Mod Edit:* You may believe or not, as you see fit. The continuing, "Give me proof or I'll publicly call you a liar," form is still confrontational, and needs to stop now.


----------



## billd91

Herschel said:


> 2. WTF are you talking about? I call shenanigans unless you can explain specific instances. I've met a few of them more than once and they were nothing but cordial and enthusiastic. I've played minis against Shoe and had designers run games I've played in. This is a pretty serious accusation and screams to me of either total bs or bitterness because of an edition change beyond reasonable.




Or that he dealt with them while they were having a bad day. Or are you flat out calling him a liar because the WotC personnel can't *possibly* have bad moods or unprofessional moments from time to time?


----------



## DaveMage

Herschel said:


> 1. This has NOTHING to do with the game itself, but more importantly....




One's perception of a publisher can absolutely affect whether you buy their games or not.  At that point, the game itself becomes irrelevant.  

There is one certain publisher who posts on EN World whose products I absolutely refuse to buy due to the way he's treated people on these boards (even though at least one of the products has received acclaim).

Hobby games are (obviously) an emotional buy in.  If one's felt personally insulted by a company representative, the insulted person is highly unlikely to buy that company's products.

Personally, I strongly dislike what 4E has become, but none of the WotC people have ever treated me rudely or unprofessionally so the door there will remain open.  However, when the other vendor personally offended me, the door shut mighty fast.

(And, yes, I fully appreciate that what some people find offensive, others find to be no big deal, but emotions are like that...)


----------



## Herschel

DaveMage said:


> Should a "5E" ever come out, I will certainly be interested in seeing what it offers.
> 
> It would likely have to be very different from 4E and more similar to the other editions to be worthy of my purchasing it.




Honest question: You've admitted you didn't read OR play 4E so why should anyone at WotC believe you'll do so for a new edition? How can they actually market to you to give something a try/read?

You like 3E and what Paizo has done with it, that's cool. You have a game you like and people that play it. That's really all any of us can ask for. 

So why rail against a game you know nothing about but heresay bits from the rumor mill? There is literally nothing WotC can do to bring you back in to the fold unless they bring back in whichever heresay sources you listen to first? 

That's an impossible bit to market research to bring a customer back in. Fortunately or not, if you can't show up in market research, getting what you want is much tougher. Sifting through posts on internet fan sites isn't the most efficient or beneficial way to garner information.


----------



## Shemeska

DaveMage said:


> Hobby games are (obviously) an emotional buy in.  If one's felt personally insulted by a company representative, the insulted person is highly unlikely to buy that company's products.




I got a mean email from Andy Collins several years ago after I gave him grief on the WotC forums over something. It didn't much change my opinion of the company one way or the other, and in his defence I actually got on his case over two things and as it turned out one of them was actually something that James Wyatt had said.

It was all design stuff, and nothing personal in those instances, though some of the early 4e design comments don't exactly endear me to buying stuff from the folks who said one or two of them. However if something was truly awesome I'd still buy it regardless of the author, just some people can raise the bar of what I consider totally awesome a bit further away than it might have been otherwise.


----------



## Herschel

billd91 said:


> Or that he dealt with them while they were having a bad day. Or are you flat out calling him a liar because the WotC personnel can't *possibly* have bad moods or unprofessional moments from time to time?




People do have bad moods or days. I don't deny that, but it's pretty strong to call them out where they may not be active to defend themselves. People can be pretty emotional about their game/sport/tea preference/whatever. I'm not intending to call him a liar, per se, but it would be nice to see a specific type or instance of that behavior mentioned rather than just a general "they were poopy" in order to better verify a statement rather contrary to many others' experience. 

They also, IIRC, have people at booths that are temp hired, etc. and not necessarily true, regular WotC employees. While what they do while working the Con Booth/area for WotC reflects on WotC, it would be nice to know whether or not the offenders were actually "central" to the game.


----------



## billd91

Herschel said:


> People do have bad moods or days. I don't deny that, but it's pretty strong to call them out where they may not be active to defend themselves. People can be pretty emotional about their game/sport/tea preference/whatever. I'm not intending to call him a liar, per se, but it would be nice to see a specific type or instance of that behavior mentioned rather than just a general "they were poopy" in order to better *verify a statement* rather contrary to many others' experience. [emphasis mine]
> 
> They also, IIRC, have people at booths that are temp hired, etc. and not necessarily true, regular WotC employees. While what they do while working the Con Booth/area for WotC reflects on WotC, it would be nice to know whether or not the offenders were actually "central" to the game.




How can you verify the statement without having an impartial witness there? What's the point of even asking or thinking you have the right to do so? He says he had he experience. Would it be definitively invalidated just because you might have had a good exchance or two with the person involved? 
And who really cares whether it was someone central to the game? If the experience left a bad impression with WotC, that's enough.

EDIT: Didn't see the mod comment up above. Can we really consider putting them in a new message rather than just editing the previous one? I don't routinely go back and re-read posts in the thread before I post new stuff.


----------



## DaveMage

Herschel said:


> Honest question: You've admitted you didn't read OR play 4E so why should anyone at WotC believe you'll do so for a new edition?




Heh.  My one opinion will likely have absolutely no effect on WotC's plans.  They don't need to "believe" anything.  This is not a promise to pay.  

The point is that they removed elements of the game I enjoyed for 4E.  I've bought almost everything from every other edition (except OD&D - that stuff's too expensive today!).



Herschel said:


> You like 3E and what Paizo has done with it, that's cool. You have a game you like and people that play it. That's really all any of us can ask for.




Yep.



Herschel said:


> So why troll against a game you know nothing about but heresay bits from the rumor mill?




You lost me here.  I've read tons of previews, WotC ad copy, and messageboards full of lots of 4E players discussing 4E.  Unless the game doesn't match any of this commentary (which I highly doubt), I think I know quite a bit about it.

As for "trolling", I think that's unfair.  I'm expressing my opinion - which happens to differ from yours (and, obviously, others) - in a thread specifically addressing those who are disenchanted.  (Indeed, since you are not disenchanted, I would ask you why you are posting in this thread?    )

Truth be known, the reason I still participate in these convesations is that I have a great deal of affection for Dungeons and Dragons.  It's been a part of my life for 30 of my 40 years.  I don't like seeing it become something that doesn't interest me.



Herschel said:


> There is literally nothing WotC can do to bring you back in to the fold unless they bring back in whichever heresay sources you listen to first?
> 
> That's an impossible bit to market research to bring a customer back in.




Of course they can bring me back.  Like I said in the first post I made in the thread - make products I want to buy.  I *do* still buy the dungeon tiles and I do buy the minis (at least, the ones that work in my 3.5/Pathfinder game).

I don't like 4E D&D, that's all.


----------



## Piratecat

billd91 said:


> EDIT: Didn't see the mod comment up above. Can we really consider putting them in a new message rather than just editing the previous one? I don't routinely go back and re-read posts in the thread before I post new stuff.



That probably won't change. In most cases it's actually much more effective to put it in the offending post, although we occasionally follow that with a post at the end of the thread. You'd be amazed by how many people read a problematic comment and either re-report it or reply angrily, even when there's a moderator warning later in the thread. Worse, reading an apparently unchallenged jerky post makes people angry, and that anger carries over to their later responses.

If you're in doubt, scan a page quickly and look for colored text. You may want to increase the number of posts per page in your settings, if you haven't already. I personally find it more convenient.

Back on topic, WotC is made out of people and people are human. I've seen incredibly nice, conscientious people in bad moods. If you catch someone at the wrong time, you just get a bad first impression.


----------



## Herschel

DaveMage said:


> You lost me here. I've read tons of previews, WotC ad copy, and messageboards full of lots of 4E players discussing 4E. Unless the game doesn't match any of this commentary (which I highly doubt), I think I know quite a bit about it.
> 
> ...I don't like 4E D&D, that's all.





But again, how do you know unless you read and play it? Just reading the board is reading others' opinions but doesn't give you any real, personal experience. That would drive me absolutely nuts. 

Example: I generally like Roger Ebert as a movie critic. He's generally the most "down to Earth" of the major critics when attempting to view movies like a "regular, non-critic" viewer would. But if a movie is in a genre I am interested in, it doesn't matter one lick what he wrote about it or if he liked it. 

IMO, It also isn't going to be indicative of any other's real tastes. I don't think anyone can agree with another on everything, or even a group. We're just alll different people with different thoughts. 

To bring this back to the original topic, how can they market to people who only go by internet boards and the like? That's more imporatant than what they put "in" the game because if they have something you would love but will never see, it doesn't matter what "it" is.


----------



## Umbran

Herschel said:


> But again, how do you know unless you read and play it?




Dude, everyone has their own thresholds of information for making various forms of decision.  

You're considering going to the movies.  Do you actually have to have seen a particular film before you can decide whether you want to pay full-price for the tickets, or will only pay matinee, or wait for DVD release?


----------



## Shazman

You don't have to know every single thing about something to be farily sure that you don't/won't like it.  I've never seen any of the Twilight movies and a fair number of other "chick flicks" because I know that those types of movies aren't for me.  It's easy enough to find out quite a bit about 4E without buying the books or playing the game.  If you don't like the way all classes have the same structure, or that everyone has at-wills/encounter/dailies, you know that 4E isn't for you.  If you don't like having to focus fire on one kobold for three rounds to drop it, you know that 4E isn't for you.  If you don't like some of the excessive gamist/metagamey things in 4E like martial healing, divine challenge, healing surges, hit points aren't physical damage yet you can become "bloodied" and "dying" by losing hit points, you know that 4E isn't for you.  You can get all of this information about 4E without reading the entire PHBI or playing several sessions of it.


----------



## Herschel

Umbran said:


> Dude, everyone has their own thresholds of information for making various forms of decision.
> 
> You're considering going to the movies. Do you actually have to have seen a particular film before you can decide whether you want to pay full-price for the tickets, or will only pay matinee, or wait for DVD release?




Not at all, but I do want to actually see it before telling people how bad it is. 

Example as it applies to the thread: I think the "Twilight" series is goofy from the chapters I read (which was literally painful) and the SO dragged me to the movies. I'm not generally their target market sure, but the trailer for the latest one showing the big battle bits intrigued me slightly and made me not so desperate to find an excuse not to go (it's important to her because she's a big fan of the books and she's going to Gen Con with me again. :v) ).

And you know what, the movie wasn't as bad as the others (for me). And that's very likely in no small part because they found a way to market it that appealed to me. Had I not seen the trailer, the teen angst crap leading up to the final scenes would likely have sent me to the bathroom, for popcorn, whatever before it got that far but they found a way to have me "give it a try".   

I can't say I liked the film, but I do like those scenes and two characters, Alice and Carlisle, and I'll take her to the next one willingly. 

And whiny Bella disturbs me more than Jar Jar.


----------



## NoWayJose

Shazman said:


> If you don't like some of the excessive gamist/metagamey things in 4E like martial healing, divine challenge, healing surges, hit points aren't physical damage yet you can become "bloodied" and "dying" by losing hit points, you know that 4E isn't for you. You can get all of this information about 4E without reading the entire PHBI or playing several sessions of it.



Oh oh, you opened the Hit-Points-as-an-Abstraction can of worms. THEY are going to get you on that one. I agree with the overall criticism of gamist/metagamey, but THEY are going to latch onto that one point in order to distract from your overall point. Even I was won over by the hit points paradigm.


----------



## Mallus

NoWayJose said:


> THEY are going to get you on that one. I agree with the overall criticism of gamist/metagamey, but THEY are going to latch onto that one point in order to distract from your overall point.



Who are THEY?

Are they related to THEM!?

(cos' that would be scary... giant ants creep my out!)


----------



## Herschel

Shazman said:


> If you don't like the way ...that everyone has at-wills/encounter/dailies... healing surges...




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

But they found a way to market to me that made me give it a try. I was a minis player, had given 3E a 5th try with yet another group (and guys I really like) and had played the demo at Gen Con and I was going to buy the core books. 

It was the FR Player's Guide that probably roped me most. It was a familiar name and gave me my now favorite race (and unbeknown to me at the time, character class). 

My first character was a Windsoul Genasi Ranger because hey, I loved Rangers all the way back to 2E and Genasi are just plain cool (which their introduction as a major race was one of the admittedly few things I loved about 3E). I "bought" a 20 in strength, looked at all those hit points I had at first level, put some points in to INT for AC and whatever was left in WIS for riders and picked a background from a "homeland" without giving it much thought or justification. You know what? He was a carton of eggs. Sometimes he'd make an omelette of enemies in battle but too often he was easily dropped and a mess on the ground. My preconceived notions were what was scrambled most. I changed to a Swordmage that better fit my personality and haven't looked back. 

So again, the question is how can they get someone to actually try something to bring them back? What can they do to intrigue someone enough to actually try something without heresay? That's likely the most important part.


----------



## Herschel

Mallus said:


> Who are THEY?
> 
> Are they related to THEM!?
> 
> (cos' that would be scary... giant ants creep my out!)




Cover them in chocolate and sell them at a specialty shop.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

First, it's "hearsay."  I'm not being a spelling nazi, it's just that as a lawyer seeing that so often misspelled is hurting my brain.

Second, in any context other than a court of law, reliable hearsay is _fantastic_ evidence.  Everybody in the world relies on it constantly.  Society could, in fact, not function without it.

Third, how did you manage to flub a character build in 4E?  I've been told that's just about impossible.

Fourth, speaking just for me, I'll try any new edition of D&D, just like I tried 4E.  (We played through to 4th level.)  I suspect many of the "disenchanted" will do so, assuming that there's stuff in the marketing and "hearsay" that doesn't completely turn them off.


----------



## Doug McCrae

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


----------



## Shazman

Yeah, I'd most likely try 5E, unless it was pretty apparent that it didn't fix a lot of the issues I have with 4E.  It would also be helpful if the "marketing" didn't try to paint past editions that I loved as "badwrongfun"  and make hyberbolic claims that this new edition is going to fix all of that and be "awesome", without giving any detail as to why it is "awesome".


----------



## Herschel

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


----------



## Clefton Twain

Jack99 said:


> Thats some accusation. But lets hear some names and what happened, because otherwise, I am gonna call _nonsense_ on that story. Bear in mind that alot of them post here, so better have your facts straight.




So, it was three years ago, I don't keep names in my mind that long. Basically, every question I asked about anything was responded to with very terse, condescending answers. The individual in charge of the large die at the WotC booth acted as if I'd just insulted his grandmother when I asked "So what is Dreamblade?"

"Well, if you tested it, you'd know. Did you actually *play* any of our games?" was his answer.

--CT


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Doug McCrae said:


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



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

_See the moderator warning on the next page, please._


----------



## NoWayJose

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



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

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

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


----------



## Shazman

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


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Herschel said:


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



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

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


----------



## NoWayJose

NoWayJose said:


> Make the fluff more compelling and reasonable, especially wherever there is a deficiency in internal logic (and don't put the onus of reskinning on the DM). Doesn't have to 100% perfect or anything, just better than what it is now. Start with Beguiling Strands, and work from there.
> 
> The "metagamists" won't care or be turned off, because they focus on the metagame anyway.
> 
> The "ingamists", however, will appreciate the extra imaginative efforts, and possibly forgive or warm up to the overt metagame elements.



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


----------



## Raven Crowking

Doug McCrae said:


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




Exactly that kind of hearsay.

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

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

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


RC


----------



## Umbran

Jeff Wilder said:


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





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

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

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

Any of you want to continue?


----------



## LurkMonkey

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

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

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

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

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

My 2C


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Raven Crowking said:


> Exactly that kind of hearsay.



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


----------



## Nifft

Herschel said:


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



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

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

Cheers, -- N


----------



## DaveMage

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

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

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

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


----------



## renau1g

NoWayJose said:


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




Like fighter....or rogue? Those mean different things to different people as well.


----------



## Wicht

renau1g said:


> Like fighter....or rogue? Those mean different things to different people as well.




In what way can the 3e fighter and rogue classes be considered counter to any common stereotypes associated with those words? Just curious.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Some very basic terms at the heart of the D&D combat system are confusing - 'hit', 'damage', 'hit points'. Hit because it also refers to a blow that strikes armor but does not penetrate. And damage and hit points because they include not just physical injury but luck, skill, divine protection, etc.

Likewise, for most people cleric does not conjure up images of a guy in plate armor swinging a mace. Most clergymen are fairly peaceable types, even those in history.

The only reason we don't find these terms confusing is because we've been playing the game for so long.


----------



## Wicht

Doug McCrae said:


> Some very basic terms at the heart of the D&D combat system are confusing - 'hit', 'damage', 'hit points'.




I have been very fortunate then. Noone I ever taught to play, including 4 year olds, ever found those terms confusing. Of course, I never tried to make it mean anything other than physical damage either. 

Meanwhile, I admit that when I think cleric, I think priest, not armored warrior. Of course, most of the illustrations of clerics in the game focus on the priestly aspects more than the armor. And whenever anyone says, "what is a cleric," I answer, "priest." Never created any confusion for my games.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Wicht said:


> Of course, I never tried to make it mean anything other than physical damage either.



That's actually a house rule, at least I know that in 1e and 3e it is. And it leads to the problem of a high level fighter becoming superhumanly tough and durable, as resistant to injury as a rhinocerous.

I'm not saying it's the wrong way to go, just that any interpretation of hit points is problematic.


----------



## Wicht

Doug McCrae said:


> I'm not saying it's the wrong way to go, just that any interpretation of hit points is problematic.




If you say so. Never been a problem in my games, but I'll take your word for it that it is so.


----------



## NoWayJose

Doug McCrae said:


> Some very basic terms at the heart of the D&D combat system are confusing - 'hit', 'damage', 'hit points'.




On the other hand, "hit" is arguably an abstract term:
-to deal a blow or stroke to

If your PC is "hit", it could mean lots of things. A glancing blow on armor is still a "hit". But that's OK when hit points are abstracted and doesn't require a hit to penetrate armor. When you say "you are hit" metagame vs "you are hit" ingame, there need be no dissonance.

"Damage" is also arguably a generic word:
- injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness

Damage can correctly imply a wound, concussion, shaken confidence, damaged morale, etc.

Unfortunately, the real meaning of the word "bloodied" is pretty damn specific:
- To stain, spot, or color with or as if with blood
- To make bleed, as by injuring or wounding

The metagame definition of bloodied is NOT the in-game definition of bloodied (it can be, but it usually isn't).

So yes, "bloodied" is a misleading term, and I think that's just the tip of the iceberg, and I think the overall lack of caring about reconciling 4E metagame elements to fluff is one reason why a) 4E reads so badly and b) 4E can feel very gamist, a big obstacle to attracting the Disenchanted.


----------



## Jack99

First of all, sorry for the phrasing of my sentence, it was quite a bit short of stellar.



> So, it was three years ago, I don't keep names in my mind that long. Basically, every question I asked about anything was responded to with very terse, condescending answers. The individual in charge of the large die at the WotC booth acted as if I'd just insulted his grandmother when I asked "So what is Dreamblade?"
> 
> "Well, if you tested it, you'd know. Did you actually *play* any of our games?" was his answer.



I can totally see why answers like that would piss someone off. But going from what you tell us, it seems to me that whoever you talked to probably is a nobody, not one of the designers or developers, which I assumed (and that’s really never a good idea in communication) you meant in your initial post. 

With that in mind, I am not sure I understand why one low-ranked employee can turn you off from buying WotC’s products. Now, if it was Mike, Bill, James or someone like that, I could (maybe understand why one rude representative could turn you off the game you like. Unless you didn’t already not like it, in which case what happened with the representative has little influence on your choice to not support WotC anymore.

Either way, you are of course entitled to feel however you want, I am not trying to tell you that you are wrong. Just that I do not understand why you react like that.

Cheers


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Wandered here and all over but with excellent temperament great points around. Thread's almost to 1,000 posts, I think I'm good with unsubscribing from this now . . .


----------



## caelum

Jack99 said:


> With that in mind, I am not sure I understand why one low-ranked employee can turn you off from buying WotC’s products. Now, if it was Mike, Bill, James or someone like that, I could (maybe understand why one rude representative could turn you off the game you like.




Personally, I don't think you should have to keep track of who the designers are (and I don't think many fans do, and I don't think that WotC thinks they do - hence the massive turnover at the company).  And if somebody is rude to me, whether a customer service representative or a manager, my opinion of the company goes down.

I have a hazy memory of similar reports from a year or two ago.  I bring this up not to slam WotC but to mention that, if memory serves, Scott Rouse immediately jumped in, apologized, and promised to look into the matter.  That kind of representation and forthrightness impressed me, and I think that kind of engagement with the community is another thing WotC can do to make me more willing to give their products a look.  

It is a shame that his voice (and lurkinglidda's) are gone and haven't been replaced, leaving a void in this community, at least.  I don't frequent WotC boards, though I imagine their replacements are more engaged there.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

renau1g said:


> Oh sweet Orcus, please tell me that we as a hobby haven't lost people to *gulp* toy trains!
> 
> YouTube - I Love Toy Trains Series



Ummm... *shuffle* I use toy trains _in_ my games. 

I run an steampunk Spycraft game, and nothing does better at representing a steam train than having a model on the table.

However, I have learned to leave the batteries out of the toy trains - gamers, no matter what age, seem compelled to turn the trains on and have them chug around the table....

The Auld Grump, they also seem to like the 'Whoo Whoo!'


----------



## Clefton Twain

Jack99 said:


> First of all, sorry for the phrasing of my sentence, it was quite a bit short of stellar.
> 
> I can totally see why answers like that would piss someone off. But going from what you tell us, it seems to me that whoever you talked to probably is a nobody, not one of the designers or developers, which I assumed (and that’s really never a good idea in communication) you meant in your initial post.
> 
> With that in mind, I am not sure I understand why one low-ranked employee can turn you off from buying WotC’s products. Now, if it was Mike, Bill, James or someone like that, I could (maybe understand why one rude representative could turn you off the game you like. Unless you didn’t already not like it, in which case what happened with the representative has little influence on your choice to not support WotC anymore.
> 
> Either way, you are of course entitled to feel however you want, I am not trying to tell you that you are wrong. Just that I do not understand why you react like that.
> 
> Cheers




It wasn't this instance alone that soured me on WotC, but it sort of started the whole thing. No, it wasn't a designer. I've never met any of the designers or writers. Most of those with whom I am actually familiar are no longer with the company and have their own opinions on their former employer.

More than anything, WotC doesn't really have a game that appeals to me anymore. That, in conjunction with some of their past decisions/directions and the attitude of said employee plus a couple of other encounters, has led me to spend my $$ elsewhere. I did not intend to make my post sound like one dude drove me away from WotC. Certainly he did not help matters any, but it is a whole combination of things.

Maybe I'm old and jaded. 

--CT


----------



## Umbran

Doug McCrae said:


> Some very basic terms at the heart of the D&D combat system are confusing - 'hit', 'damage', 'hit points'.
> 
> ...
> 
> The only reason we don't find these terms confusing is because we've been playing the game for so long.




Um, major problem:  The game has always had those terms.  And each of us started playing at some point.

So, are you trying to tell us that *we were all* confused when we picked up the game?  That would be... a bit more than you could reasonably claim, sir.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Umbran said:


> Um, major problem:  The game has always had those terms.  And each of us started playing at some point.
> 
> So, are you trying to tell us that *we were all* confused when we picked up the game?  That would be... a bit more than you could reasonably claim, sir.



Imo it's common for D&Ders to go thru stages. We start off thinking that 'damage' and hit points are entirely physical. After playing for a few years, the inconsistencies become apparent and, over time, we resolve them in whatever manner we deem fit. I think confusion is a good word to refer to this middle stage in which we are aware of the contradictions but haven't yet solved them.


----------



## Jack99

Clefton Twain said:


> It wasn't this instance alone that soured me on WotC, but it sort of started the whole thing. No, it wasn't a designer. I've never met any of the designers or writers. Most of those with whom I am actually familiar are no longer with the company and have their own opinions on their former employer.
> 
> More than anything, WotC doesn't really have a game that appeals to me anymore. That, in conjunction with some of their past decisions/directions and the attitude of said employee plus a couple of other encounters, has led me to spend my $$ elsewhere. I did not intend to make my post sound like one dude drove me away from WotC. Certainly he did not help matters any, but it is a whole combination of things.
> 
> Maybe I'm old and jaded.
> 
> --CT



Fair enough, makes a lot more sense to me now. 

Cheers


----------



## Wicht

Doug McCrae said:


> Imo it's common for D&Ders to go thru stages. We start off thinking that 'damage' and hit points are entirely physical. After playing for a few years, the inconsistencies become apparent and, over time, we resolve them in whatever manner we deem fit. I think confusion is a good word to refer to this middle stage in which we are aware of the contradictions but haven't yet solved them.




I think you paint with too broad a brush. I've been playing the game since 1982 and have yet to hit your "middle stage." Or maybe we just have a different opinion of what constitutes a "few" years. 

Your hit points is equal to the amount of damage you can take before passing out. Its not any more complicated than that (however one wants to think of damage). And yes, as one progresses in levels one can get hit a lot more times. But its just make-believe; its not real and though I like a level of versimilitude in my games I have never once agonized over why a high level barbarian can fall from a cliff and live. It has caused me not an ounce of worry. On the other hand, I don't like healing to come from a guy shouting at you- that just seems silly to me: so everyone has different thesh-holds for what makes them lose their willing suspension of disbelieve, but what bothers you doesn't necessarily bother others.


----------



## Herschel

Except how much more actual, physical damage can a "person" take in their life? A first-level character is obviously less skilled than a 10th-level character, but his body doesn't really absorb more punishment. Way back in 1E they wrote about Hit Points being a combination of things and as you level you learn to better "roll with teh punches".

Or look at it this way: I played football in to college. I was a RB, so I had the ball in my hands and got tackled. When you get tackled hard, it hurts and you wear down. As I got better, it isn't that the tacklers hit with any less velocity (especially when you go up in level) but I became better at avoiding direct hits. I was able to avoid major injury in the game this way.


----------



## Hussar

See, this right here is why listening to various people talk about the game is so problematic.  They present their points as facts, not opinions.  None of the points Shazman makes are actually facts.  They are certainly his opinion, and there may be varying levels of evidence to back them up, but, none of them are actually facts.



Shazman said:


> /snip If you don't like the way all classes have the same structure, or that everyone has at-wills/encounter/dailies, you know that 4E isn't for you.  If you don't like having to focus fire on one kobold for three rounds to drop it, you know that 4E isn't for you.  If you don't like some of the excessive gamist/metagamey things in 4E like martial healing, divine challenge, healing surges, hit points aren't physical damage yet you can become "bloodied" and "dying" by losing hit points, you know that 4E isn't for you.  You can get all of this information about 4E without reading the entire PHBI or playing several sessions of it.




People can make all sorts of claims on the Internet without needing any evidence to back them up.  Until such time as evidence is given, it's just a case of dueling anecdotes.

Take the grind issue for example.  Some people claim that combat in 4e takes massive amounts of time.  But, let's look at the evidence shall we?

On one hand, we have access to four WOTC podcasts, three run by a WOTC designer, and one run by just some guy.  The podcast members were certainly not rules experts - in the Robot Chicken podcast, one of the players had never played a table top RPG in his life.

Yet, in all four podcasts, 16 hours of recorded playtime, we have fights that never last more than about 40 minutes, most lasting far less.  In the Robot Chicken podcast, for example, they have five encounters in less than four hours.  The DM's commentary even makes a point that the first encounter doesn't occur until the 40 minute mark.  That's 5 encounters in a hair over 3 hours remaining.  Certainly no grind there.

In the "Posterity" thread here on En World, a number of players are reporting combats that last less than an hour, with longer ones usually being special encounters - big boss type things.

OTOH, I have a number of people, many of whom actively dislike 4e, some of whom do not even play 4e and almost never have, claiming that 4e combat takes hours to play.  That it "takes 3 rounds of focus fire to drop a kobold".  Most of the grind claims are coming from those who are pretty antagonistic towards 4e as a whole.

About the only claim I've seen so far from someone whose opinion I actually trust is MerricB's.  Here's someone who has not been constantly bitching about 4e saying that he has problems with combat length.  I'm not sure if it's really a problem, but, it does carry a fair bit more weight.

But, that's my point.  Those claiming that fights take all these hours refuse to provide any actual evidence beyond anecdotes from their games.  People used to claim 3 hour combats in 3e too, yet, I don't think that was too common.  

So, no, listening to random internet guy about making a decision about the mechanics of a game is not getting an accurate picture.  At best you're simply playing into your own observation bias.


----------



## Lanefan

Herschel said:


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



I've never tried playing 4e, though I bought and (mostly) read the first round of core books and have run a 4e adventure in 1e.  But I still play D+D, and still consider - or would like to consider - myself as part of the market.

So WotC can still market 5e to me when it comes, and I'll certainly give it a look - and likely end up buying at least its version of the DMG and PH provided they are sold in book form.

Lan-"less rules, more guidelines"-efan


----------



## renau1g

Wicht said:


> In what way can the 3e fighter and rogue classes be considered counter to any common stereotypes associated with those words? Just curious.




Sure... well I'll just give a quick example of rogue, although it's not edition specific, 4e has this same thing. 

Ok, so all rogues are good at stabbing people in the back right? It's their thing. If you look up rogue in the dictionary, it says "2.  One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp." in addition to other definitions. 

Now, by that definition Huckleberry Finn would seem to be a rogue, but I don't see him stabbing whatever the antagonist's name is in those books in the back. There's many other examples in popular fiction of someone cut from this cloth who _wouldn't_ meet the D&D version.  

TBH, I preferred Thief over Rogue for a class name as it was certainly a far better descriptor for what the class does. It finds and disable traps, pickspockets, stabs in the back, etc.


----------



## renau1g

Shazman said:


> If you don't like having to focus fire on one kobold for three rounds to drop it, you know that 4E isn't for you.




I've never had a group take three rounds to drop a bad guy unless they were at least a "lieutenant" level enemy aka Elite in 4e terms. Even then I don't think most of them lasted 3 rounds without a gimmick (invisibility, burrow, regeneration). 

I have a second level group that two hit killed regular monsters on a regular basis, not too uncommon from what 3e did.


----------



## Remathilis

renau1g said:


> TBH, I preferred Thief over Rogue for a class name as it was certainly a far better descriptor for what the class does. It finds and disable traps, pickspockets, stabs in the back, etc.




OTOH, I remember for YEARS problems with the "Oh, your a Thief. Watch out, he's gonna steal something!" stereotype. This became brutally honest when in 3e rogues no longer needed to take the iconic "thief" skills. 

But that's the problem with ANY character class name: Look up any class name in the dictionary and its bound to have definitions that don't pertain to it:

D&D's Barbarian has nothing to do with being a non-Greek, non-Roman, or Non-Christian.
D&D's Bard and Druid has nothing to Medieval Celtic Priesthoods.
D&D's Cleric isn't Muslim in faith.
D&D's Monk isn't even Religious!
D&D's Paladin isn't a Knight of Charlemagne, etc. 

Similar problems arise with Ranger, Sorcerer, and Warlord: they define a game-role with a term or profession that has connotations beyond D&D. 

(Oh, and don't EVEN get me going on how not all fighting-men were MEN)!


----------



## renau1g

I agree with you, so why is Warlord the one exception?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

renau1g said:


> Shazman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the way all classes have the same structure, or that everyone has at-wills/encounter/dailies, you know that 4E isn't for you.  If you don't like having to focus fire on one kobold for three rounds to drop it, you know that 4E isn't for you.  If you don't like some of the excessive gamist/metagamey things in 4E like martial healing, divine challenge, healing surges, hit points aren't physical damage yet you can become "bloodied" and "dying" by losing hit points, you know that 4E isn't for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never had a group take three rounds to drop a bad guy unless they were at least a "lieutenant" level enemy aka Elite in 4e terms. Even then I don't think most of them lasted 3 rounds without a gimmick (invisibility, burrow, regeneration).
Click to expand...


4Ed is a decent FRPG, but its not and never will be D&D for me.  I'll play it, but won't EVER run it- for many of the reasons that Shazman cites, and more.

That said, *ahem*

As it so happens, we're currently going through a "shakedown" of 4Ed to see if everyone likes it enough to give the group's most active DM a break.

And kobolds have NOT been going down in 2 hits.

The kobolds we've been fighting have taken 2 hits to get to "bloodied."  And while in all fairness, that second hit usually carries them a bit past that point, not a one has gone down in under 3 hits, and 4 is the usual number of successful strikes to take down our foes.

Now, part of that has been due to some wonky rolls on our part- we've seen some legendarily bad rolling the past few weeks- but not all of it.  Simply put, whether its because of PC's average damage output, more HP for the base versions of our foes or a combination of the 2, kobolds are clearly a tougher kill than ever before.

Not that this is something I have a serious problem with.  Its not intrinsically bad, it just a shock to the system (so to speak) for people who have been playing 25-30 years.


----------



## Hussar

I would point something out:



			
				Shazman said:
			
		

> If you don't like having to focus fire on one kobold for three rounds to drop it, you know that 4E isn't for you.




That's not 3 hits, that three ROUNDS.

DannyA, I'll totally agree that a critter will last three hits.  That's fine.  One hit kills are for minions.  Everything else takes a bit more.  But, it's the hyperbole of three rounds, which could be up to FIFTEEN hits which irks me.


----------



## Hussar

renau1g said:


> I agree with you, so why is Warlord the one exception?




Y'know, I'd generally agree with you.  Except that we've had the recent psionics discussions and I am starting to understand why some people have this hang up.  For me, psionics are mechanically fine.  Heck, don't even mind the flavour - mental power magic.  It's simply the term "psionics" that I don't like because, for me, psionics is a specific term from SF that allows authors to port magic into an SF setting.

A fantasy setting doesn't need that.  It already has magic, so, dressing up magic as pseudo-science isn't required.  If you renamed psionics "Chakra magic" or something like that, I'd be fine.  It's solely the word psionics that I don't like.

I think for many people it's the same thing.  The concept of a martial leader class isn't a bad one.  It certainly fits in lots of genre fiction.  You can name half a dozen archetypes that fit the bill, from Sam Vimes in the Discworld stories to Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly.  However the term "warlord" conjures up the wrong image for some people and it becomes a serious sticking point.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

renau1g said:


> Now, by that definition Huckleberry Finn would seem to be a rogue, but I don't see him stabbing whatever the antagonist's name is in those books in the back. There's many other examples in popular fiction of someone cut from this cloth who _wouldn't_ meet the D&D version.



Actually, I would probably just call him a commoner. 
Not every protagonist in a novel needs a PC class. Given how much time he spends fending for himself ranger might also fit, but I still think commoner.

Huck ain't much of a scamp, though his friend Tom is, and might qualify as a rogue. (Me, I prefer Huckleberry.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## pemerton

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In my personal thoughts, mechanics need to arise out of unique flavor.
> 
> If honor is important in your setting, you should have a *mechanical* reason that this is true.
> 
> If chivalry is important in your setting, *mechanics* should reinforce this.



I agree with this, but only to the extent that "mechanics" is given a pretty broad interpretation. For example, if honour is important, then this should reflect itself in the resolution of social conflicts. But (in my view), that doesn't necessarily require something like the 1st ed OA honour system. Especially because I prefer the players to choose to what extent and in what manner they engage these ingame value systems (and hence to choose how the social and religious life of their PCs plays out) whereas a mechanica system like honour or alignment tends to presuppose the way these ingame value systems should be engaged (mostly because they hose PCs whose players deviate from those presuppositions).


----------



## NoWayJose

Remathilis said:


> D&D's Barbarian has nothing to do with being a non-Greek, non-Roman, or Non-Christian.
> D&D's Bard and Druid has nothing to Medieval Celtic Priesthoods.
> D&D's Cleric isn't Muslim in faith.
> D&D's Monk isn't even Religious!
> D&D's Paladin isn't a Knight of Charlemagne, etc.
> Similar problems arise with Ranger, Sorcerer, and Warlord: they define a game-role with a term or profession that has connotations beyond D&D.



With all due respect...

A cleric, for example, is "a man in a religious order, a man in holy orders". There is no conflict of meaning here.

Yes, the cleric, barbarian, bard, druid, monk, paladin -- these have real-life historical and/or modern context, but they also have a commonly understood generic meaning. Sci-fi and fantasy is replete with these archetypes appropriated into an imaginary setting.

Thanks to Tolkien, rangers are so common in fantasy that everyone "gets" that too. Just as importantly, the fluff for rangers in RPG is more-or-less believable. That's what good fantasy does: translocating real-life concepts into fantasy settings in a believable satisfying way. Furthermore, there are no other types of rangers in D&D (no Texas rangers, no government protected park wardens) so there's no paradox.

"Sorcerer", "wizard", "warlock" in real-life are used so vaguely and interchangeably that there is no authoritative definitions and fantasy writers can feel free to define them as they wish.



renau1g said:


> I agree with you, so why is Warlord the one exception?




For the same reason that "bloodied" metagame does not mean "bloodied" ingame (see post #977).

A Warlord is not necessarily a warlord, and a warlord is not necessarily a Warlord.

(Also see post #850, 865, 876, 898, 901, 916, etc.)


----------



## NoWayJose

Hussar said:


> Y'know, I'd generally agree with you. Except that we've had the recent psionics discussions and I am starting to understand why some people have this hang up. For me, psionics are mechanically fine. Heck, don't even mind the flavour - mental power magic. It's simply the term "psionics" that I don't like because, for me, psionics is a specific term from SF that allows authors to port magic into an SF setting.
> 
> A fantasy setting doesn't need that. It already has magic, so, dressing up magic as pseudo-science isn't required. If you renamed psionics "Chakra magic" or something like that, I'd be fine. It's solely the word psionics that I don't like.




IIRC, WoTC has recently reskinned psionics as a power source originating from the Far Realm. I'm OK with that. And the Far Realm is sort of like D&D's version of sci-fi/horror, so it's like porting sci-fi into a magic setting. At least WoTC made the effort in this case (their reconciliation of metagame to fluff is sporadic at best). Something like Chakra magic could be equally as good or better, but I suppose WoTC didn't want to limit psionics to a certain cultural feel which may not fit into all campaigns.


----------



## Savevsdeath

The Human Target said:


> Put me in the "I hope they don't do anything to bring back the disenchanted" camp.
> 
> The simple fact is, you're going to lose some people every time you switch editions.
> 
> And you're going to gain some people.
> 
> I'm very worried the Essentials line is going to try too hard to bring back the lapsed DnDers and end up changing the game in ways I myself no longer want to support.




This is pretty much how i feel too. if you don't like 4E as is, odds are you want a game that does something completely different from what 4E is designed for - which by the way is over-the-top, epic action fantasy just a step below Exalted but several steps above 3.5. If you want old dungeon crawls with fighters doing boring full attacks and vancian fire and forget magic, i dont want you, because you will basically ruin the game i love. I like that 4E is more Slayers and Ninja Scroll than Lord of the Rings or Conan.


----------



## Hussar

NoWayJose said:


> With all due respect...
> 
> A cleric, for example, is "a man in a religious order, a man in holy orders". There is no conflict of meaning here.




Hang on a tick.  Playing dueling definitions gets nowhere.  Cleric has a pretty commonly understood meaning of Muslim holy person.  While it does have one definition which is any religious person, it does have the other, more specific meaning.  We don't get to pick and choose definitions on one hand and then complain when others do the same.



> Yes, the cleric, barbarian, bard, druid, monk, paladin -- these have real-life historical and/or modern context, but they also have a commonly understood generic meaning. Sci-fi and fantasy is replete with these archetypes appropriated into an imaginary setting.




Really?  Outside of D&D fantasy, since when have barbarians=beserker?  Since when are monks all martial arts warriors?  Sure, Shoalin monks teach martial arts, but Buddhist monks in Japan certainly don't.  Only D&D derivitives cast paladins at all.  Everyone else calls them knights. 



> Thanks to Tolkien, rangers are so common in fantasy that everyone "gets" that too. Just as importantly, the fluff for rangers in RPG is more-or-less believable. That's what good fantasy does: translocating real-life concepts into fantasy settings in a believable satisfying way. Furthermore, there are no other types of rangers in D&D (no Texas rangers, no government protected park wardens) so there's no paradox.
> 
> "Sorcerer", "wizard", "warlock" in real-life are used so vaguely and interchangeably that there is no authoritative definitions and fantasy writers can feel free to define them as they wish.
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason that "bloodied" metagame does not mean "bloodied" ingame (see post #977).
> 
> A Warlord is not necessarily a warlord, and a warlord is not necessarily a Warlord.
> 
> (Also see post #850, 865, 876, 898, 901, 916, etc.)




But, by the same token, none of the classes you picked up necessarily mean their D&D definition.  As I said, you don't get to pick and choose. Either you get to play pick and choose with all the terms, or you don't get to pick and choose with any of them.


----------



## Wicht

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick.  Playing dueling definitions gets nowhere.  Cleric has a pretty commonly understood meaning of Muslim holy person.  While it does have one definition which is any religious person, it does have the other, more specific meaning.  We don't get to pick and choose definitions on one hand and then complain when others do the same.




I must ask, who understands/accepts this definition that cleric = muslim? I have never made that connection myself nor is it historically or linguistically true. I wonder if you are not projecting your own presumptions about the word and the way you most normally hear it used. I've always thought of "cleric" as the brother of the words "clergy" (which it is) and "clerk" (again it is) and even as a child I understood it to refer to ministers and priests in general. Until your comments in this thread it would not have even crossed my mind to apply it to muslims exclusively.  

From the freedictionary.com (taken from other, reliable sources, all fully documented on site):

*cleric [ˈklɛrɪk]* _n_(Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a member of the clergy [from Church Latin clēricus priest, clerk]

*Word History: *Cleric, clerk, and clark all come from Latin clricus, "a man in a religious order, a man in holy orders." Cleric appears in Old English about 975 and lasts into the 13th century. Clerc appears in late Old English, around 1129, and was identical in spelling and pronunciation with Old French clerc, "belonging to the (Christian) clergy." In the Middle Ages the clergy were the only literate class and were often employed as scribes, secretaries, or notaries. By about 1200 clerc had acquired the meaning "pupil, scholar," as we see in Chaucer's "clerk of Oxenford" in The Canterbury Tales (around 1386). Clerks were also of necessity employed in keeping accounts and recording business transactions; this is the source of the modern sense of clerk. By the early 17th century, the word clerk had become completely ambiguous; it could refer equally to a clergyman or to an accountant. For this reason cleric (spelled Clericke and with its modern pronunciation) was introduced or reintroduced from Latin or Greek as both a noun and an adjective to refer specifically to a member of the clergy. The pronunciation (klärk), spelled clark and clerk, arose in the south of England during the 15th century and is today the Received Pronunciation of clerk in the United Kingdom. The modern American pronunciation (klûrk) more closely represents the older pronunciation. The pronunciation (klärk) is used in the United States only in the proper name Clark. The south England sound change responsible for the pronunciation (klärk) also gave rise to parson (beside person), varsity (beside university), and even varmint (beside vermin).

*Edit:* As a complete aside, it always amazes/surprises me when I learn/relearn that we Americans (in some cases) actually have the more traditional english pronounciations and that the modern English accents are the new-fangled way of saying things. In fact, it is said by linguistic scholars that the most classic english pronounciations are found in the hills of WV.


----------



## NoWayJose

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick. Playing dueling definitions gets nowhere. Cleric has a pretty commonly understood meaning of Muslim holy person. While it does have one definition which is any religious person, it does have the other, more specific meaning. We don't get to pick and choose definitions on one hand and then complain when others do the same.



I agree with Wicht. I'm not playing dueling definitions. I don't associate the word cleric with Muslims, never have and never will. We can run a poll.


> Really? Outside of D&D fantasy, since when have barbarians=beserker?



Berserskers are inspired from Viking berserker myths.


> Since when are monks all martial arts warriors? Sure, Shoalin monks teach martial arts, but Buddhist monks in Japan certainly don't.



Fantasy archetype != real-life archetype. Fantasy archetype = fantasized version of real-life archetype.

Buddhist monks used to exist in D&D, but they all died out (their passive nature didn't agree with the all monsters and whatnot).


> As I said, you don't get to pick and choose.



Yes, you can. That's exactly what fantasy authors do all the time. Then again, I don't know what you're getting at...


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Since when are monks all martial arts warriors?  Sure, Shoalin monks teach martial arts, but Buddhist monks in Japan certainly don't.



Wait, you are arguing that the term "monk" is wrong because a term that doesn't fit all real life monks.  And yet the wrongness depends solely on your arbitrary assertion that in D&D "all" monks are "martial arts warriors".  Doesn't the answer to your question reside in the question itself?

If you went up to a Shaolin monk and said they can't be monks because they are not the same as Buddhist monks, then the foolishness of your comment would be self-evident.  Applying that reasoning to D&D monks is just as foolish.  Nowhere in the rules does it state that "all" people who carry the title "monk" are martial arts warriors.  You seem to have injected this into the game.  And, that's a shame.  Just as in real life, the term "monk" applies to different things.  A particular form of adventuring person is one of those things.

For the record, in my games there are a lot of clergy at various churches, and many of them will answer to the label "cleric".  Not all of them carry maces or know how to cast Cure Light Wounds.



> Only D&D derivitives cast paladins at all.  Everyone else calls them knights.



Ok, since your whole argument here is based on being completely anal retentive over the meaning of words, I'll start with the fact that in a strict sense you just said that no one ever calls anyone a paladin.  So you are wrong.

If we instead agree that the term paladin does, in fact, pre-dates D&D then we now know that there are people who were called "paladin" and there were reasons for this label being added in addition to "knight".  Its the old All Paladins are Knights does not mean All Knights are Paladins.  Thus, the term Paladin does have a more precise meaning that Knight and is useful.  Paladin refers to this subset.   So you are wrong.

Also, the D&D "paladin" has certainly evolved into a more inclusive term, not of knights in general, but further contrary to your claim, it includes a range of divinely called warrior types who would not be considered knights.  For example, Joan of Arc is an often-cited paladin archetype and the is Batman a paladin debate is a recurring theme.  Though maybe you should write to DC and explain to the them that a guy in tights who knows martial arts clearly can't be a "Dark Knight".


----------



## ExploderWizard

Remathilis said:


> (Oh, and don't EVEN get me going on how not all fighting-men were MEN)!




Yup, some of them are so cowardly I would hesitate to call them men too.


----------



## Hussar

On definitions.  I tend to trust the OED, so, this is what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say:



			
				OED said:
			
		

> a priest or religious leader , especially a Christian or Muslim one




That you may not make the connection is fine.  But, its certainly a common connection to make.  

And, sure, I do realize that berserker=viking.  I get that.  But the class isn't called viking, it's called barbarian.  Since when does barbarian=viking?  Since when are vikings barbarians?  



> Yes, you can. That's exactly what fantasy authors do all the time. Then again, I don't know what you're getting at.




Then what is the issue with Warlord?  You have no problems with fantasy authors redefining and picking and choosing other words, but, when it comes to warlord, it's suddenly an issue?  

Let me be very clear then.  If it is acceptable to you to pick and choose particular definitions of words and use those definitions to the exclusion of other definitions, then why the double standard?  

I got zero problem with you saying, "I just don't like warlord".  But don't try to dress it up as anything other than your own personal preference.  Because if being selective with dictionaries is okay for one, then it's certainly okay for the other.  If barbarian, a word which has NOTHING to do with Viking beserkers is okay to be used for a class that borrows heavily on the idea of Viking beserkers, then why is it suddenly bad to use the word warlord?


----------



## Khairn

I know this thread has meandered around a bit, but I thought I'd take a shot at replying to the OP's question.  Assuming that WotC is in any way interested in regaining me as a customer (as I'm definitely one of the disenchanted) they would have to do something along the following ...

-introduce an original and creative setting for 4E.  The constant retreading of older settings doesn't encourage me to give 4E another try.  But a new setting built from the ground up with 4E in mind would almost definitely pull me in.

-Become a real home for *all *D&D players, by embracing the older editions and their fans.  Enable the purchase of pdf's of older edition products and in some way support those editions. 

-Gleemax (even though I hated the name, icon and format) was a great idea with great potential.  Add that to GM's site like Obsidian Portal or Epic Words, and you'll have built a powerful magnet for players.

-Finish the VTT you promised and promoted with 4E.

-Enable GM's to create and save their 4E houserules(allowed classes, races etc), 3PP content, and other tweaks to the DDI.  


Now that I think about, if WotC did any 2 of these, I'd probably start buying and playing their products once again.  But I really don't see any of those happening anytime soon.


----------



## Remathilis

My my my, what I can of worms I opened... 

My point is that if "rogue" is a poor name because there are plenty of historical, literary, or archetypal rogues without Sneak Attack and Trapfinding, the same rule applies to "ranger" (plenty without spells or animal companions), "barbarian" (hundreds without raging) "monk" (lots of them don't kick your butt with kung-fu), etc. In fact, using literary examples is exceptionally poor because for every one that might fit the D&D-version of the archetype, there is twenty more who don't. 

For the Record, I've always associated Cleric with Secretary, since the latter does "clerical" work.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> And, sure, I do realize that berserker=viking.  I get that.  But the class isn't called viking, it's called barbarian.  Since when does barbarian=viking?  Since when are vikings barbarians?




Excellent question.

"Barbarian" has it's roots in Rome, which was sacked by barbarians several times - by Gauls, Vandals, Ostrogoths and Visigoths.  The Western Roman Empire was done for by 476 AD.

The first recorded viking raid was in the 790s.

So, the Romans weren't originally talking about Vikings.  But then again, we aren't Romans.  Words change in meaning. 

And very few words in English (or any language, really) have only a single, unambiguous meaning.  Context matters - if I say I am "going home", what I mean depends on whether I'm on a city bus, or standing in a stadium with a baseball bat in my hands.  But I don't see anyone griping that baseball used the wrong word.

Can you debate the merits over one word or another?  Sure.  You can do it forever, really.  Have fun with that.


----------



## NoWayJose

Hussar, I don't even know where to begin with responding to that. You issued a slew of non-sequitors that have nothing to do with anything. You get absolutely massacred by Wicht and BryanD and desperately latch on to any other meagre points you have left. I feel that if there was a reading comprehension test on the last two pages, you would have gotten an 'F'. Because if you weren't so obtuse, you'd realize that the answer to the viking/barbarian thing is just as irrelevant as the shaolin/buddhist thing. Then again, I would also get an 'F' with your posts as I find it difficult to understand what on earth you're aiming at.


----------



## caelum

Hussar said:


> On definitions.  I tend to trust the OED, so, this is what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say:
> 
> That you may not make the connection is fine.  But, its certainly a common connection to make.




Just to be clear:  the definition you quoted is NOT the OED definition, it is the (popular press, vastly simplified, no more authoritative than any other source) Oxford World Dictionary definition.  The full OED is only available online by subscription, and it actually makes no mention of Islam.  Here's that definition (only including the noun form):



			
				OED said:
			
		

> Cleric: n. A clerical man, a clergyman. Often used instead of the earlier CLERK (in sense 1), to avoid the ambiguity of that word.
> 
> 1621 W. SCLATER Tythes (1623) 36, I haue now to deale with a Clericke. 1737 R. CHALLONER Catholic Chr. Instr. in Sacr. 7 In case of necessity..baptism may..be administered by any person whatsoever. In which case a cleric, though only in lesser orders, is to be admitted preferably to a layman. 1786 BP. HORSLEY Serm. Sons Clergy (L.), The cleric who is..the most addicted to a life of study and devotion. 1875 M. PATTISON Casaubon 417 The professors and governors are all clerics.




Sense 1 of clerk (without etymology) is:



			
				OED said:
			
		

> Clerk 1. A man ordained to the ministry or service of the Christian Church; a churchman, clergyman, or ecclesiastic. (For greater distinction, CLERIC is now often substituted.)    a. Before the Reformation, and in the R.C. Church, a member of any of the eight orders (though sometimes excluding the bishop). Hence, the distinction, clerk in holy orders, clerk in minor orders: see quot. 1844.
> 
> b. Since the Reformation, in England generally = ‘clerk in holy orders’, i.e. a deacon, priest, or bishop. Now chiefly a legal or formal designation.




And, for completeness, here is clergyman:



			
				OED said:
			
		

> Clergyman 1. A man of the clerical order; an ordained minister of the Christian church; one in holy orders. (In England, unless otherwise qualified, commonly meaning a minister of the Church of England.)
> 
> b. transf. Applied to priests of non-Christian religions. (Cf. CLERGY 1b.) Obs.




So "cleric" is used to refer to anyone in a religious hierarchy, although (being an English word) of course it began with Christianity.  Sunni Islam has no formal hierarchy, so I do not believe there are official words for "ministers" - "imam" is usually used, but it has formal meaning only in Shia Islam, if I understand correctly.  So probably the generic cleric is often used just for lack of anything more specific.


----------



## Woas

Barbarian is a greek word, not latin. It means 'anyone who isn't greek'.


----------



## Vegepygmy

Woas said:


> Barbarian is a greek word, not latin.



It's both, actually. The Romans adopted it from the Greeks, as they did so many other things. And it really means "anyone who isn't us."


----------



## Korgoth

Umbran said:


> "Barbarian" has it's roots in Rome, which was sacked by barbarians several times - by Gauls, Vandals, Ostrogoths and Visigoths.  The Western Roman Empire was done for by 476 AD.




Romans were considered "barbarians" as well.

Barbarian is a Greek word. It means literally "the bar-bar ones", i.e. the people who say "bar-bar". That sound, "bar-bar", was what some foreign languages sounded like to Greek ears.

So Woas is right: a "barbarian" is originally someone who simply doesn't speak Greek (and is therefore an _obvious inferior_).


----------



## Remathilis

While playing English & Etymologies (E&E) is fun, we should either fork this or get back on topic.


----------



## the Jester

NoWayJose said:


> Yes, children are trained as squires to become knights, sent off to monastery to become clerics, apprenticed to a mage to become wizards, etc. Most classes at level 1 are modelled on the heroic output of in-game professional training + natural talents. The warlord class has no equivalent in-game meaning and feels artificial and arbitrary in-game (outside of the metagame).




What?

Dude, don't blame anyone but yourself for your failure of imagination. 

A 1st level warlord might be the eldest son of a chieftain, robber baron, governor, noble, etc. Brought up to lead men in war.

A 1st level warlord might be a mercenary captain. He might be a mercenary sergeant. He might be a fresh untried mercenary with a bevy of natural talent.

A 1st level warlord might be an old retired centurion called back into service in his twilight years.  Not every starting adventurer is a 16-year-old sprig, you know.

A 1st level warlord could be a pretty princess who shouts panicked commands to her bodyguards, friends and allies- never attacking herself, but just directing the flow of battle. 

And how many movies or books or comics or tv shows or plays have shown us the image of the wounded hero, seemingly taken out of the fight- until an ally/friend/loved one/commander pleads, "DON'T GIVE UP!!" and somehow, the hero struggles to his feet despite his wounds, given the sheer mettle to keep fighting without closing a wound? Not to mention that being at 0 hit points doesn't have to mean you're lying in a pool of blood with your guts stretched around you.

If there is a problem with the warlord, it is in peoples' unwillingness to stretch their imagination _just the tiniest bit_, not in the class design. And really, that tiny tiny stretch? There are tons of examples in pretty much every type of media that will paint a picture of a 1st level warlord... not to mention history. Even as a fresh-faced youngster! Octavian, anyone? For something more modern, how about 15-year old Burmese warlord Mohammed Humayan? There are plenty more.

However, some people have made up their mind that the warlord MUST BE (fill in your vision of the warlord), and therefore it just. doesn't. work.

That's fine; everyone has their preferences. But think about it- if you'll play an elf, you look pretty damn silly bitching about how a warlord is unrealistic.


----------



## Umbran

Korgoth said:


> Barbarian is a Greek word.




Technically correct.  But stated more to highlight the fact itself than how it strengthens the point about linguistic change.  In failing to connect to the point, you've also demonstrated how showing off linguistic minutiae in and of itself does not get the discussion very far.

Folks, if the the thread is now about small points of the meaning and origins of words, this should be forked to Off Topic, or just closed.  

Please get back to something gaming-related.  Thanks.


----------



## Wicht

the Jester said:


> That's fine; everyone has their preferences. But think about it- if you'll play an elf, you look pretty damn silly bitching about how a warlord is unrealistic.




I don't think the problem with the name has anything to do with the class itself. Its just the fact that the word "Warlord" tends to conjure up an image of a guy with a big army: one who is leading it to war.

It would be like having a seafaring class, and naming it "Admiral." So your first level Admiral swabs the decks and at 10th level you get to captain the ship and not until 20th level are you expected to have multiple Captains working under you. Its just a weird usage of the word.

Edit: And to make it slightly OT, yes, the name Warlord for a class was just one of several things that initially made me wonder about 4e. Changing the high elf to the Eladrin was another such silly little thing. Not to mention the whole demon/devil fiasco.


----------



## the Jester

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick.  Playing dueling definitions gets nowhere.  Cleric has a pretty commonly understood meaning of Muslim holy person.




If by "pretty commonly understood" you mean "I use it this way", I'll buy that. However- and I'm reasonably well-educated and well-read- I have _never_ heard this assertion before. Let's check around a bit, shall we?



			
				Dictionary.net said:
			
		

> A clerk, a clergyman.






			
				Dictionary.reference.com said:
			
		

> 1. a member of the clergy.
> 2. a member of a clerical party.
> 3. clerics, ( used with a plural verb ) half-sized or small-sized reading glasses worn on the nose, usually rimless or with a thin metal frame.






			
				merriam-webster.com/dictionary said:
			
		

> a member of the clergy






			
				google.com said:
			
		

> a clergyman or other person in religious orders




However, Wikipedia has this to offer regarding the term "cleric" and Islam:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> A cleric (from Ancient Greek κληρικός - klērikos[1]), clergyman (pl. clergymen), or churchman (pl. churchmen) is a member of the clergy of a religion, especially one who is a priest, preacher, pastor or other religious professional. It is often, and incorrectly, used to refer to the religious leadership in Islam, where the term "priest" is not accurate and where terms such as "Alim" are not widely understood in the English-speaking world.




If you're going to split hairs about the meaning of words, you might do well to make sure you understand them yourself first. That said, your point (rpgs redefine words all the time) is correct, and I agree that choosing one or two terms to object to on some weird principle of linguistics is awfully limiting. Like I posted above, stretch your imagination! If you don't like a thing in your game, that's fine, but don't pretend that it's some principled objection over the term "warlord".


----------



## the Jester

Wicht said:


> I don't think the problem with the name has anything to do with the class itself. Its just the fact that the word "Warlord" tends to conjure up an image of a guy with a big army: one who is leading it to war.




For some people, I guess. For others a warlord might be a guy at the head of a band of a dozen or so raiders. Again, it just takes a little imagination.



Wicht said:


> It would be like having a seafaring class, and naming it "Admiral." So your first level Admiral swabs the decks and at 10th level you get to captain the ship and not until 20th level are you expected to have multiple Captains working under you. Its just a weird usage of the word.




Now that I can agree with. But I ask you this- how many people object to the term "marshal" for a class in 3e? Because "marshal" is closer to "general" than "warlord" is imho.



Wicht said:


> Changing the high elf to the Eladrin was another such silly little thing.




Grey elf, but hey.  The high elf comes down squarely in between elves (= old wood elves) and eladrin (= old grey elves) in 4e imho. Shrug. 

The moral of the story (to me, anyway) is that rpgs are like the English language: they steal grammar and words and beat them into new shapes suitable for their own purposes. Heck, if you want a good example of D&Ds historical willingness to do this, try to get some agreement on what a morningstar looks like out of the 1e days. _There are more important things to worry about._ Does this class work? Does this weapon offer something cool to the game? Really, ultimately, if you don't like the name it is simple stuff to change it. "I don't allow warlords, but the *centurion* is exactly the same with a new name." 

As I see it- not to be repetitious, but hey- the problem here lies in a failure to imagination. Sticking to the warlord as my example, if you cannot stretch your imagination around the warlord as-is, all you need to do is imagine a new name that does work for you. Seriously- NOT THAT HARD, folks.


----------



## Wicht

the Jester said:


> Really, ultimately, if you don't like the name it is simple stuff to change it. "I don't allow warlords, but the *centurion* is exactly the same with a new name."




Centurion means the guy with a hundred men under him (loosely a hundred I understand, in real life the number actually varied) so I can't see that as in any way a good replacement. 

In seriousness, I have had people tell me since before 4e came out that if you don't like what something is called, just rename it in your home games. But if I have to pay good money for a game, I don't want one where I have to go through and rewrite large swathes of it for my own enjoyment. A change here or there is fine, but one reaches a limit where its just not enjoyable. One might as well write their own system. So, could I accept the Warlord? Sure. But 4e changed too much of how I understood the game world. Reinventing how all the classes work, how dragons are codified, how alignments are understood (or ignored as the case may be), how demons and devils work, the nature of the planes, etc, etc; it all just added up to something that was a big turn off.  It was not an edition change, it was a clean sweep of the game. If WotC wants to know how to win back the disenchanted they need to be aware that completely altering the fabric of the game world was a big no-no for some of us and just left me, personally, very cold to the system. I'm not a hater of 4e. But there was not a single thing about it that appealed to me enough to accept the slaughtering of things I actually enjoyed in Dungeons and Dragons.


----------



## Ranes

the Jester said:


> ...How many people object to the term "marshal" for a class in 3e? Because "marshal" is closer to "general" than "warlord" is imho.




Oh, I do. And don't even get me started on the PrC names.



the Jester said:


> The moral of the story (to me, anyway) is that rpgs are like the English language: they steal grammar and words and beat them into new shapes suitable for their own purposes.




The writers of D&D are sometimes too quick to do this. I find class names like Warlord and Marshal much harder to live with when they're brought to bear by people - I'm looking at WotC and Paizo writers in particular - who don't seem to know that there is no such word as 'foes'. Foe means enemy, singular or plural, dagnabbit!



> If you don't like the name it is simple stuff to change it. "I don't allow warlords, but the *centurion* is exactly the same with a new name."



Lordy, that's even worse.



> As I see it- not to be repetitious, but hey- the problem here lies in a failure to imagination. Sticking to the warlord as my example, if you cannot stretch your imagination around the warlord as-is, all you need to do is imagine a new name that does work for you. Seriously- NOT THAT HARD, folks.



Then you see it incorrectly. Far from representing a lack of imagination, my love of language enables me to give form to my imagination in ways that have entertained friends and strangers alike for decades.

Umbran, hi. WotC can win me back with a 5th edition that's a 3.5/Pathfinder love-in that doesn't use the word 'foes'.


----------



## NoWayJose

the Jester said:


> For some people, I guess. For others a warlord might be a guy at the head of a band of a dozen or so raiders. Again, it just takes a little imagination.
> <snip>
> Sticking to the warlord as my example, if you cannot stretch your imagination around the warlord as-is, all you need to do is imagine a new name that does work for you. Seriously- NOT THAT HARD, folks.



Dude, I'm making up a new class. It's called Prisoner. Except that he's out of prison and hangs out with adventurers all the time. So ya, he's not really a prisoner per se, but the class is still called Prisoner. Likewise, in-game, a PC can be prisoner in-game but he's not necessarily a Prisoner class.

What? You don't get it? Dude, the whole world is a prison, see? It just takes a little imagination, which you are clearly deficient. Why are you complaining so much anyway? It's not as if this was a thread about winning back the disenchanted.

Why isn't this class called Ex-Prisoner or Escaped Prisoner? Dude, if you don't like it, you can just change the word Prisoner to something else. Don't forget to change the word Prisoner on every copy of every D&D book you own, and when your DM or any other player says 'Prisoner' remember to constantly remind them about the new change. You might even volunteer to edit THEIR copies too!

Why is this a unique class instead of a standard class with a Prisoner background? No, it's not because a bunch of prisoners are running around adventuring and I needed to create rules to roleplay them! No, that would be stupid. it's because I created a new power source, Criminal, and I needed a new Criminal Striker class. Isn't that a great reason?

Are you going to nitpick the etymology of the word prisoner now?


----------



## Maggan

NoWayJose said:


> Dude, I'm making up a new class. It's called Prisoner. Except that he's out of prison and hangs out with adventurers all the time. So ya, he's not really a prisoner per se, but the class is still called Prisoner. Likewise, in-game, a PC can be prisoner in-game but he's not necessarily a Prisoner class.




I'd play it if it was a fun class. Then again, I'm used to the WFRP career system, which can be a lot more free when it comes to what people are called in relation to what they do than D&D. 



/M


----------



## Remathilis

NoWayJose said:


> Dude, I'm making up a new class. It's called Prisoner. Except that he's out of prison and hangs out with adventurers all the time. So ya, he's not really a prisoner per se, but the class is still called Prisoner. Likewise, in-game, a PC can be prisoner in-game but he's not necessarily a Prisoner class.
> 
> What? You don't get it? Dude, the whole world is a prison, see? It just takes a little imagination, which you are clearly deficient. Why are you complaining so much anyway? It's not as if this was a thread about winning back the disenchanted.
> 
> Why isn't this class called Ex-Prisoner or Escaped Prisoner? Dude, if you don't like it, you can just change the word Prisoner to something else. Don't forget to change the word Prisoner on every copy of every D&D book you own, and when your DM or any other player says 'Prisoner' remember to constantly remind them about the new change. You might even volunteer to edit THEIR copies too!
> 
> Why is this a unique class instead of a standard class with a Prisoner background? No, it's not because a bunch of prisoners are running around adventuring and I needed to create rules to roleplay them! No, that would be stupid. it's because I created a new power source, Criminal, and I needed a new Criminal Striker class. Isn't that a great reason?
> 
> Are you going to nitpick the etymology of the word prisoner now?




Of course, the alternative is worse:

Which would you rather play:

* Fighter or Battlemaster?
* Wizard or Arcanist?
* Cleric or Divine Speaker?
* Rogue or Shadowsneak?
* Ranger or Woods Stalker?
* Barbarian or Rage Lord?
* Warlord or Battle Captain?

etc. I'd rather have a name that invokes an archetype (even poorly) than some compound or nonsense name like rune priest, lurk, favored soul, duskblade, warblade, ardent, or battlemind!


----------



## the Jester

NoWayJose said:


> Dude, I'm making up a new class. It's called Prisoner.... Dude, if you don't like it, you can just change the word Prisoner to something else.




Okay. See how easy that was?



NoWayJose said:


> Don't forget to change the word Prisoner on every copy of every D&D book you own, and when your DM or any other player says 'Prisoner' remember to constantly remind them about the new change. You might even volunteer to edit THEIR copies too!




If you're seriously suggesting that one won't be able to keep the details straight of _renaming a class without changing anything else,_ then I think the problem might be that you significantly underestimate people in general. Do you really think it's that hard to make a simple mental substitution?


----------



## Aeolius

NoWayJose said:


> Are you going to nitpick the etymology of the word prisoner now?




Number Six?


----------



## Nifft

Ranes said:


> there is no such word as 'foes'. Foe means enemy, singular or plural, dagnabbit!



 Next thing you'll be telling me there're no such words as "fees", "fies", or "fums".

- - -

Levity aside, you're neglecting temporal multiplicity. If I slew a foe on Friday night, then another foe on Saturday, and a third foe during my Sunday brunch, how did I spend my weekend? "Slaying _______." What exactly?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Kaiyanwang

Remathilis said:


> etc. I'd rather have a name that invokes an archetype (even poorly) than some compound or nonsense name like rune priest, lurk, favored soul, duskblade, warblade, ardent, or battlemind!




I agree completely  - even if one could find a justification for the designers: after a while, you used Fighter, Warrior, Knight... what name use for the next class? Well, ok, we will go with Warblade.. 

Actually, I wonder if mine is the real explaination, or there was an actual intention to name the class Warblade "because sounds cool". Who knows.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Ranes said:


> people - I'm looking at WotC and Paizo writers in particular - who don't seem to know that there is no such word as 'foes'. Foe means enemy, singular or plural, dagnabbit!




Where on earth did you get that idea?

About five seconds of googling or the consultation of any reputable dictionary would have disabused you of the notion.

This might sound familiar, as well:

_Two households, both alike in dignity, 
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, 
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, 
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. 
From forth the fatal loins of these two *foes*
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life._

While the word "foe" can refer to a collection of people, it doesn't follow that there cannot be multiple foes. It's like claiming that the word "armies" doesn't exist because one army can be made up of many people.


----------



## El Mahdi

Ranes said:


> ... who don't seem to know that there is no such word as 'foes'. Foe means enemy, singular or plural, dagnabbit!...




Apparently you haven't dowloaded the latest errata and updates from Websters Online...


----------



## Lanefan

Savevsdeath said:


> This is pretty much how i feel too. if you don't like 4E as is, odds are you want a game that does something completely different from what 4E is designed for - which by the way is over-the-top, epic action fantasy just a step below Exalted but several steps above 3.5. If you want old dungeon crawls with fighters doing boring full attacks and vancian fire and forget magic, i dont want you, because you will basically ruin the game i love. I like that 4E is more Slayers and Ninja Scroll than Lord of the Rings or Conan.



Fine.  I prefer more Lord-of-the-Rings style and good solid dungeon crawls over whatever you're referring to, as that *is* the game I love.

But all the way from post #1 - here slightly re-stated - these questions still remain: 
a) how can D+D be designed so as to appeal to us both, and
b) how can WotC successfully market said design to both of us.

And answers along the lines of "it/they can't" will not do.

Lanefan


----------



## El Mahdi

Wicht said:


> ...One might as well write their own system. ...




Honestly, I think this is probably the only way for anyone to get a system that's perfect for them - but writing your own is definitely not easy (and not worth it for most).  I've actually been working on writing my own version of 3E for myself (and my gaming group), and I'll tell you, I've got a new appreciation for RPG writers and designers.  I don't think it's possible for _any_ system to be perfect for everybody.  I'd probably go as far as to say that the number of people who think any system is "perfect" is probably extremely small.  Like you, 4E just doesn't do it for me.  But even 3E isn't perfect in my opinion, and 4E has some absolutely awesome little bits that I've shamelessly stolen for my own rules.


----------



## El Mahdi

Lanefan said:


> ... these questions still remain:
> a) how can D+D be designed so as to appeal to us both, and
> b) how can WotC successfully market said design to both of us.
> 
> And answers along the lines of "it/they can't" will not do.




As far as a): I think "they can't" is the only answer.  It's impossible to design a system in a manner that appeals to everyone.

But, as far as b): I don't believe any system is _completely_ untenable for anyone either.  As complicated as most RPG's are, and especially D&D in all of it's varied editions, I can't believe there isn't at least some part of any edition or game that will appeal to anyone.  But of course, even that small part won't necessarily make the edition or game worth it for many.  

But, I don't think WotC needs to market the "design" (the 4E system) to me, in order to get me as a customer.  There are other things they can sell me besides 4E, and if they do, I may even end up buying the occasional 4E product.  So, "they can't" market the design to me, but they can market products to me.


----------



## Primal

Lanefan said:


> Fine.  I prefer more Lord-of-the-Rings style and good solid dungeon crawls over whatever you're referring to, as that *is* the game I love.
> 
> But all the way from post #1 - here slightly re-stated - these questions still remain:
> a) how can D+D be designed so as to appeal to us both, and
> b) how can WotC successfully market said design to both of us.
> 
> And answers along the lines of "it/they can't" will not do.
> 
> Lanefan




After taking a closer look at the 'Essentials' previews, it looks to me your point a) is what they are trying to achieve; for example, it seems class features (beyond those gained at 1st level) seem to be back and fighter will use basic attacks boosted with certain tactical options (which, IMHO, is how they should have developed fighter in the first place). It also means that at least *some* classes won't get a huge number of slightly varied powers published in an endless stream of supplements -- I don't mind variety, but so far it has looked like the rigid "[w] + Stat damage and Effect Z"-type of power design method was chosen just to sell more books. And to add more flavour to the classes, naturally. Then again, when you have 500+ powers to pick from,  many people may be "paralyzed" by such a vast number of options (I had this same problem with 3E feats and spells).  

In reality, it would be pretty easy to design most 4E powers with a point-based system that would prevent you from "going nova" -- for example, by limiting points spent in single round and having certain options (Stun, Immobilized, Dominated etcetera.)  become available as you progress in levels. I also think it would result in characters having more versatile tactical options without needless "hardwiring" and "power paralysis". Yet I don't think they'd go this far (maybe 5E will, though?) but I do hope they'll publish less but more versatile powers for each class. That might actually get me to buy the whole 'Essentials' line.


----------



## Hussar

NoWayJose said:


> Hussar, I don't even know where to begin with responding to that. You issued a slew of non-sequitors that have nothing to do with anything. You get absolutely massacred by Wicht and BryanD and desperately latch on to any other meagre points you have left. I feel that if there was a reading comprehension test on the last two pages, you would have gotten an 'F'. Because if you weren't so obtuse, you'd realize that the answer to the viking/barbarian thing is just as irrelevant as the shaolin/buddhist thing. Then again, I would also get an 'F' with your posts as I find it difficult to understand what on earth you're aiming at.




Yet, funnily enough, everyone else seems to be able to understand my plain English meaning.  

As Umbran said, you have fun with dueling dictionaries.


----------



## Umbran

*Fee, fie, foe(s), fum!
I smell an argument that can't be won!
Be ye nerd, or geek, or dork,
Next time learn you how to fork!*

_*klunk*_
Thread closed


----------

