mousey's page

I realize that the point people are trying to make is that if they choose not to buy a product, that's voting with their feet. What I'm saying is that you voted with your feet, and WotC only recently got the message, because they have only recently admitted to themselves that the drop in their sales isn't just a result of a poor economy.

My point is that we complained and complained and complained, but WotC reacted in the traditional manner and ignored any complaints that didn't agree with their business model. They are a typical manufacturer dealing with the market in a time-honored way. We finally got through to them, and now they're talking about listening to their customers.

First off I don NOT consider myself a Nerd, but a Geek, there is a difference.

Gamers are passionate about what they love, but this goes for anyone who is passionate about something they love including Sports. Think of all the rabid Bronco fans when Tebow replaced Orten. So it does not matter what it is games, sports, TV show, etc

Scott, you sound like someone who works for WoTC with the way you defend them and seem to represent them.

If 4E was so good, why is it failing, why is it that it is losing money, why is it that it is being replaced by 5E or what ever it will be called?

As someone who started playing a long time ago in a game that was said to be for Brainiacs and super smart kids (Something I never felt I fit into those others might say other wise) When 2E came out I was OK with it, it was pretty much the same game, with some changes. I was slow to jump on 3E but once I played it, I enjoyed it but was thrilled with 3.5E as it seemed to "Fix" some of the things wrong with 3E. When 4E was announced I was wait and see. I watched as much of the videos I could on it, and was skeptical, but thought they had some great ideas that never delivered like all the on-line stuff and long distance gaming, and mod able graphic minis. But when I got a hold of the 4E PHB that was when everything went down hill for me. I HATED WOW the "MMORPG" that was NOT RPing) I hated Everquest as well. Everything I heard from people who played it and loved it and hated it was it is D&D WOW. Even the books seemed this way from what I read. I decided to stay with 3.5E and had heard about PF Beta but paid no heed to it. That is until I say the PF CRB, then I was excited. My game group also looked at the book and it was all of a sudden after a Christmas Break, we all came back with the CRB, converted our characters to PF and we have been hooked since.

If you talk to gamers that have played 1 - 4 you will find the majority of them like 1st ed or 3.5 best. There are the purest that will never change, and then there are those that will try it and may like it.

But lets face it, there are those at WoTC that "THINK" they know best. And yes Hasbro DOES Have a say, just like any other parent company be it Ford, GM, or Chrysler, or Nabisco, or Heinz or who ever.

So WoTC has play testers or wants Play testers. But in the end WoTC has the final say. They also have rules setup and will create them. If they create 5E and play test it, will they scrap everything if 51% of the people hate it, or even 35% hate it? NO! Will they toss some and keep others? Maybe. In the end of all of this WoTC decides. Do the designers no best? NO WAY!

To me if they wanted to keep this D&D it would be a return to old ways that worked and where proven to work, because to many of the "Old Timers" 4E did NOT work despite what WoTC or you might think.

Oh and as a final thing, Never trust Customer Reviews? Really? it IS the Customer that buys the games. Those that have something to say good or bad WILL say something. If companies do not listen to customer reviews? They FAIL! And thet really does not go to just companies but anyone who has to rely upon fans. Let me toss out the name Metallica The Black album was loved by many, Load was hated by those that loved every album from Black on down. Metallica lost a TON of fans and has had to scramble to gain them back. In the end it is Metallica's choice AND the record company they work for and yes they DO have to listen to the heads of their Record company or lose their contract. Did it hurt them? yes, did they lose fans? yes, did they gain fans? yes. In the end, they listened to some of the older fans, but they lost many in the transition

So take this as you want. in the end I'll wait and see and still probably not spend the money I used to on books for D&D. Now if they offer PDF's at a cheap price? MAYBE!

I want to add I and my groups have been using minis since 1st ed before 1st ed re did the book covers. We found it more enjoyable and will continue to use them no matter what. it was not a WoTC novel Idea but something that carries back to Chainmail days and beyond. Using minis simplifies and removes confusion just like graphics in a PC game compared to a text game like Zork, But then again we have also used Starbusrts candy to represent goblins. For each one you killed, you ate the Starburst.

Scott I know you enjoy the 4th Edition and think it's the best itteration of the game to date. Many of us disagree and when you say that the only mistake was in marketing the new edition to the current pool of gamer's because we're a bunch of hyper sensitive nerds is as offensive as many of the comments against 4e.

It's also disingenuous there were a number of mistakes. Some they might wish they hadn't made, some the they may rethink , and some they don't see as mistakes. For example:

mousey wrote:

Bugleyman, why do u think its the mgt of 4E instead of what the system did to the "d&d game"?

I think I've kinda talked covered the why, but as far as the what:

1. Killing the OGL. This was basically WotC telling the industry "you're either with us, or you're against us -- and even if you're with us, you're going to get the scraps."
2. Making DDI a closed system. WotC could have easily made APIs to share the DDI with third parties...instead they froze them out. Scraps.
3. Killing Dungeon and Dragon. They could have extended the license and let the mags continue into 4E. I'm not sure Pathfinder RPG would exist if they hadn't killed the mags (though I'm sure there are many here much more qualified to address that than I am).
4. Pulling PDFs -- this was more of an annoyance than a real factor, but it was just another jab at paying customers.
5. And yes, the marketing. While I don't find it blatantly insulting, it definitely had a "we know best" tone that obviously rubbed many people the wrong way.

Add it all up and I don't think the mechanical contents of 4E really mattered all that much. I don't dispute that many people prefer the mechanics of 3/3.5/PF, but that has always been the case upon edition changes. If the industry went, most players would have (albeit reluctantly in some cases) gone. As it turns out, WotC tried to cut everyone else out, and in an OGL world, that was extremely foolish. I sincerely hope they have learned their lesson.

I agree with everythign you've said here except the bit about the mechanics.

For my group of friends who prefer and now purchase PF products and have abandoned 4e, it's ALL ABOUT the mechanics. I don't think they are some sort of bizarre boundary condition. I think they are pretty representative of disillusioned and frustrated ex D&D players. They simply don't like 4e based entirely on its mechanics. Otherwise they'd still be playing it.

I think the reason Paizo "took sales away from WotC" is because Paizo continued with a product that D&D fans liked. 3rd edition, like it or not, caused a massive resurgence in gaming in general, and D&D in particular.

Sure, you can talk about the OGL, and how it created a surge in gaming in general, but what it boils down to is that gamers were happy with 3E. And when 4E came out, and people who liked the game they were playing protested that 4E wasn't D&D, WotC not only ignored them, they acted as if the protests didn't matter at all, because they thought they knew better.

Pathfinder already existed, in its own way, as a support/campaign setting for 3E. Making it into a real game system merely gave those people being ignored by WotC a place to go. Now, WotC has discovered that there were a lot more of them than they realized, and it hurt sales.

Pathfinder didn't "steal" sales from WotC. WotC gave them away by creating the perfect opportunity for a game simlar to 3E to prosper.

For what it's worth, the link to the past article is broken, so here's the direct links to the whole set:
Past
Present
Future

Huh? You must have a really wonky definition of "subclass" (you're considering the paladin a subclass, but not the bard??). Certainly the 1E druid class was not particularly related to the 1E cleric class.

In 1E, the Paladin and Ranger were subclasses of the Fighter class. The Druid was a subclass of the Cleric class. The Illusionist was a subclass of the Magic-User class. The Assassin was a subclass of the Thief class. The Monk was a class in and of itself, and the Bard was a wonky sort of multiclass.

Of course, the definition of a subclass is not given, and there seems no significant difference (beyond name) between class and subclass in 1E.

I really get the feeling that you are misunderstanding where I am coming from Diffan. You are not seeing the picture I see, you are seeing the picture you see. 4th says, "I'm artificial" to me. There is no feeling to me that you are in a different world when you play.

The picture I see of 4th is, to describe it in terms of machinery, a complex Victorian steam engine with cogs and wheels producing a painting without vibrance or life. Some of it was done right, yes. But ---

No one in real life has the same opportunities. There is no artificial balance in real life, everything in real life is built without glaring balance. Everyone has different gifts, different opportunities, and different circumstances in life. Human beings on this planet isn't at all BALANCED obviously. Take a look at the Occupy Wall Street movement: people are fed up and frustrated that 1% controls most of the money (I think their anger is misplaced, it should be against those who control and create our money).

There is a stark difference from a ELF terrorist and a soldier in Special Forces. There is a stark difference between a bush pilot and an Airline pilot. There are differences from a Gangster and an ordinary policeman.

There should be enough differences in the balance between the classes to make the game feel plausible. So a 3.x Wizard can blow up a bunch of kobolds at 11th level, so what? A mid level Special Forces soldier can do the same with C-4 explosives.

I see 4th Edition as fake, that is the overall picture that it presents to me. We see different pictures, try to at least see mine and not to see what I see as a threat to yours. 4th Edition is an entirely different game from the others. The true relationship it has is to OD&D (BECMI), as to the rest -- it bears no similarity.

My problems are with character creation. The rest is okay. I can't solve them in ten minutes without stripping the game down. Character Creation has the problems I have with 4th, Diffan. Character Creation. I have to throw everything out dealing with Character Creation and start with scratch to have a game that I am satisfied with and call it 4th. Do you understand?

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

I'm sorry to hear that. 4e is a great system. It's a shame that you weren't able to figure out how to make it work for you.

Scott, why is it when someone doesn't like 4e, you have to imply that they did something wrong? That in this case, the reason Elton doesn't like 4e is because he couldn't "figure it out"?

There's a difference between being unable to make the game work, and being unable to make the game work in a way that suits you to a tee. Maybe Elton can't figure 4e out (I've certainly seen a fair number of people who can't), or maybe there just isn't a way to fiddle with it that will make it enjoyable for him. I'm not going to guess at which it is - assuming unkind things about a poster is frowned upon here, unless the poster in question likes 4e.

I couldn't figure out how to play the kind of character I wanted to play unless I reversed engineered a couple of things in the game. 4th Edition was overly weighted towards the Adventurer. I wanted rules for a host of non-adventuring professions and to prove it, I wanted to build a Noble.

The closest I got to was creating a Warlord that didn't use his powers. I never got the chance to play him because everyone thought I was breaking the game. I wasn't, I tried to push it in a direction I wanted it to go (Versatility.)

I quickly found out it was impossible given the rule set. If I successfully pushed 4th were I wanted it to go, it wouldn't be 4th anymore. To play D&D 4th ed is to play a rigid rules set. So, I got excited for 5th Edition and I am faithfully waiting for a versatile version of D&D right now. I definitely want versatility in the rules concerning characters.

If have a blacksmith NPC, I want rules to play that Blacksmith NPC as a DM. I had more success GMing the game, though. But still, the game is lacking. Only 1/100th of one percent of a given world population (I think it's smaller than that) is described in all three books.

4E is weighted towards the gamist, as one person said. I checked it out myself, and yes it is true. 4e is an "Olympic" or "Sport" version of D&D. If D&D competitions were televised, this is the version the Sports media would televise. 4th Edition is made with an Athlete's logic instead of a playwright's logic. It's definitely a mass market RPG, but a Roleplaying Game's niche has always been creative scholars rather than Athletes.

4e a Great System? Sorry, but you can't please everyone all at the same time. It's a great system for you, but for me, there are problems. Deep problems. To solve them, I either need to play a different game (Pathfinder, Rolemaster, AD&D 2ed Edition for ex.); or totally re-engineer the game to fit my vision.

I just couldn't get in the spirit. The entire game screams out "FAKE" to me.

I think the article reads as the WOTC guys coming up with some pretty odd reasons for 4e's low sales over the past couple of years. (Or as a friend of mine put it; 'Moving markers for armies that no longer exist around maps in their bunker.')

As someone mentions upthread Mearls seems to say 4e was written for the unimaginative. (I can't read his words any other way.) Hardly tactful.

Ryan Dancey says tabletop rpgs are dead or dying. ...Not clear why a 'VP of rpgs' would say that, seems like publicly saying you are no longer needed to do your job?

They toss and turn with comments about 'eras of rpg decadence'(!?), and how 'perfectly balanced' 4e is, like they are priests of a dying faith. Seriously guys, if the rpg industry is dying, how come smaller rpg companies such as Paizo are booming?

Tabletop rpgs are not dying, D&D (4e) is. It's that simple. I'll let you in on a secret, you don't need to wrack your brains over roleplaying philosophies, just make genuinely good roleplaying products. I only don't buy WOTC products these days because each and every time I idly pick one up to browse in the shop they don't appeal to me - they seem shallow, lacking in colour, setting detail, and flavour, to me they seem to lack interesting stories, characters, and settings. Even the art style doesn't appeal to me.

WOTC does of course have a major problem with the inevitable 5e, if they go back they would not only have to eat major crow and backtread on almost every press statement they ever made about 4e, but they'd piss off the very vocal pro-4e lobby and possibly lose customers there ... but if they press ahead with a version of 4e upgraded a bit, then it would be unlikely to reverse the apparent downward plummet of their sales figures, as those of us who hate 4e as an rpg system would be unlikely to embrace a somewhat amended version of it. Tricky.

Personally I think their only chance to turn it around is try something rather more radical. Try to create a new system that is as good at non-combat stuff as combat, that allows the diversity of pcs that the 3e variants do, but which avoids the absurd problems and fiddly complexities inherent in 3e (3.5 etc). Also accept roleplayers like 'fluff' (if you'll forgive me the use of the word), and give it to us, like Paizo does so ably. Without fluff D&D might as well be checkers. 4e often seemed doctrinally averse to good and detailed fluff, for me to start giving WOTC money again they need to start doing some of my GM word for me - creating good fluff is essential for them to address.

It might piss off the most ardent 4vengers, but I think a genuinely new system, might win back curious players and curious 4e players too.