We've dealt with this same issue on these forums before - people claim that they "very distinctly" recall WotC bashing 3e right before 4e's release, and then are never able to produce evidence of that. Keep in mind that we were there, too, and we played 3.5 as well. I don't remember any bashing. I remember WotC saying...I'm talking about how much push there was to show how bad 3E was and how much better 4E was/would be/turned out, covering up all the mistakes and blah blah blah. It happened both before and after 4e was out.I'd really like to see some evidence of what you're claiming here. Some direct quotes from WotC would be nice.
Right now it looks like you're simply passing off internet overreaction as fact.
I can remember clearly the 4E preview books, like the races preview, saying things along the lines of, "The halfling design didn't make any sense in 3E, and we've made our new halflings much cooler." (This is NOT an example of an actual quote, just a "something like"). I don't have the 4E preview books because after reading stuff like that, I decided not to buy them, but maybe someone who has copies could oblige.
I distinctly recall a LOT of early 4E marketing boiling down to, "You don't want to play 3.x anymore; it's icky and 4E is much better." And I remember reading these things directly from the 4E marketing materials, not Internet discussion (I tried to stay out of 4E discussions after awhile because they got so ugly, so fast). I just remember reading the 4E marketing stuff written by WotC and thinking, "Damn, why are they bashing my hobby so much? This isn't selling the new system to me at all."
I don't know what Beckett's got, but if I can manage to find a quote from way back in 2007-8, I'll try, but I will back up that that was going on. Hard to find stuff on the Internet that "old," unfortunately.
Note this has nothing to do with the 4E system, just the early marketing efforts.
I'm working on finding stuff on the Internet--again, the challenge is finding stuff in the Internet from 4-5 years ago quickly. 4E fan that you are, would you have .pdfs for the preview books? If I could see the text again, I think I could find what I was talking about, if my memory is indeed serving me correctly.
Apparently "Future Releases" is now a subforum of "D&D Next" on the Wizards forums. So much for continued 4th Ed. support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_e5wAUwdmM
^^^Video from WotC bad mouthing previous editions, and saying "4th ed is going to be the same but better!"
Sorry, badmouthing?
That was a retrospective. And everything in that video played on common criticisms of the game during those editions. The whole point was to demonstrate that the game had evolved from edition to edition, and that the developers are in a constant process of taking in criticism and addressing it in the next edition of the game. The audience erupted into laughter at the first mention of grappling in the 3.5 scene. They all knew what was coming, because they'd all experienced that same problem.
No one was bashing 1e, or 2e, or 3e. They never said the games were bad, or that you were an idiot for enjoying them. Those things were made up by people with wildly inflamed opinions looking for new and exciting reasons to hate WotC.
|
Waiting for my bonus check to see a) if I can afford a copy and b) which POD copy I can afford.
Which PoD Copy? Isn't there just the one?
If you didn't get it at Grand Masquerade, you dont get the Leatherbound Copy. If you didnt preorder it you didnt get the regular print copy.
Oooooooo. They've finally put it up for sale. Shiny.
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=1&produ cts_id=94815
I want that 84$ copy, but I'm gonna have to wait a couple weeks before I order it.
I'm not sure I like that its a 2 volume set though. I've seen the PDF already, and seen photos of the preorders, it's definitely designed as a single volume...
Does anyone have any pics, I'm curious what the B&W copy looks like; cause well: its a single volume.
Does the color art look like crap when they print it in black and white?
I'd really like to see some evidence of what you're claiming here. Some direct quotes from WotC would be nice.
Right now it looks like you're simply passing off internet overreaction as fact.
Long since been covered in other threads (and other messageboards - ENWorld has great examples). A term has even popped up for it: "the tyranny of fun".
I can't believe people are still asking for "evidence" in 2012. Long since covered, d00d. Pretty much the only people that inexplicably deny the bad marketing nowadays are 'rah rah' 4e'ers and WotC apologists.
V20 = Vampire the Masquerade: 20th Anniversary Edition
They're also planning on W20 = Werewolf the Apocalypse. And depending on the success of those, possibly more from there. (Mage the Ascension would almost certainly be the next offering).
If they don't do Mage I'm going to personally write a VERY snarky e-mail to Steve Wieck.
VERY SNARKY!
|
|
Long since been covered in other threads (and other messageboards - ENWorld has great examples). A term has even popped up for it: "the tyranny of fun".
I can't believe people are still asking for "evidence" in 2012. Long since covered, d00d. Pretty much the only people that inexplicably deny the bad marketing nowadays are 'rah rah' 4e'ers and WotC apologists.
Not saying it never happened, but I've never seen any of them and my google fu is failing me. Can you point me in the right direction?
If they don't do Mage I'm going to personally write a VERY snarky e-mail to Steve Wieck.
VERY SNARKY!
I could have sworn they've already announced both W20 and M20. I wasn'd that big on those two though.
I'd like to see Demon the Fallen get revamped.
I know that W20 was announced. I must have missed the M20 announcement.
On Demon - They aren't revamping, simply compiling. I don't think that there was enough of Demon: The Fallen to compile.
VERY SNARKY!That in combination with your avatar, makes you... cute.
Sorry.
:P
You're just saying that because we share a surname.
hmph
Overall I'd say WotC's marketing of 4E was tone-deaf. But insulting? Only if you were trying to be insulted. In fact, I saw the "infamous" reveal at GenCon, and my impression at the time was "what's with the terrible accent?"
Gosh, I guess I'd better go try to figure out whether I'm a "WotC apologist" or a "rah rah 4e'er" :-P
Overall I'd say WotC's marketing of 4E was tone-deaf. But insulting? Only if you were trying to be insulted. In fact, I saw the "infamous" reveal at GenCon, and my impression at the time was "what's with the terrible accent?"
My reaction, too. Perkins and the rest were fine, and the period get-ups were brilliant. The jokes were not spot-on, but close (and grapple was perfect). The narrator guy was just totally ridiculous, though.
Also, I read the word "terrible" in a terrible French accent.
|
|
I know that W20 was announced. I must have missed the M20 announcement.
On Demon - They aren't revamping, simply compiling. I don't think that there was enough of Demon: The Fallen to compile.
Have you looked at V20? its not just a compilation. I participated in the playtest, and my friend got a preordered copy, I've read it. Its definitely more than a compilation. They changed clan weaknesses, rebalanced abilities, Changed the rules for some of the skills, changed what skills are available, etc.
I think I've mentioned that in this thread a few times.
It definitely wasnt just a compilation. It was a compilation + new revision.
I dont know about W20, but I'm pretty sure its also going to be more than a compilation.
Don't get me wrong -- there are things I think WotC handled very poorly (GSL release, PDF elimination, LFR, Essentials), but they've go a new leadership team in place -- and it's D&D.
I'm definitely going to be taking a look at what they come up with.
Edit: Though I really hope they get a clue when it comes to PDFs! :-<
I know that W20 was announced. I must have missed the M20 announcement.
On Demon - They aren't revamping, simply compiling. I don't think that there was enough of Demon: The Fallen to compile.
Have you looked at V20? its not just a compilation. I participated in the playtest, and my friend got a preordered copy, I've read it. Its definitely more than a compilation. They changed clan weaknesses, rebalanced abilities, Changed the rules for some of the skills, changed what skills are available, etc.
I think I've mentioned that in this thread a few times.
It definitely wasnt just a compilation. It was a compilation + new revision.
I dont know about W20, but I'm pretty sure its also going to be more than a compilation.
I have the PDF but I haven't read it in-depth or compared it to the revised rulebooks. I did notice that they ditched the combined discipline powers (can't remember what they're called but one was named "Ping!" and there was another that allowed you to mix disciplines to harden your protean claws).
I'm still upset over the murdering of NWoD support by those EVE people.
Overall I'd say WotC's marketing of 4E was tone-deaf. But insulting? Only if you were trying to be insulted.
The word "insulting" hasn't been used in the related conversation thread. What are you talking about, exactly?
Gosh, I guess I'd better go try to figure out whether I'm a "WotC apologist" or a "rah rah 4e'er" :-P
Pick your poison! :D
Overall I'd say WotC's marketing of 4E was tone-deaf. But insulting? Only if you were trying to be insulted.The word "insulting" hasn't been used in the related conversation thread. What are you talking about, exactly?
The marketing has been characterized as insulting, bashing, derogatory, making fun of, offensive, and so on in any number of discussions on these forums.
If I had a nickel for every person who had claimed to be personally offended by the 4e marketing...well, I could probably buy a can of Dr. Pepper or something, at least.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Watch out, I'm huge?There is also a group annoyed that the business model of WoTC seems to revolve around getting people to buy a whole new set of rulebooks/modules every few years that make the old books obsolete due to lack of support.This isn't really underhanded. It's more or less explicit, and sort of the accepted practice for tabletop roleplaying game developers. Every few years you release a new edition, incorporating changes born of the lessons you've learned over the previous edition's life cycle.
In fact, to date, no one has really demonstrated a way to successfully buck that practice.
Ahem... Call of Cthulhu.
Just sayin.
If I had a nickel for every person who had claimed to be personally offended by the 4e marketing...well, I could probably buy a can of Dr. Pepper or something, at least.To be honest Scott, I think it would likelier be a case of Dr. Pepper. From Dublin, Texas.
I really have to try me some of that one of these days.
|
|
I have the PDF but I haven't read it in-depth or compared it to the revised rulebooks. I did notice that they ditched the combined discipline powers (can't remember what they're called but one was named "Ping!" and there was another that allowed you to mix disciplines to harden your protean claws).
I'm still upset over the murdering of NWoD support by those EVE people.
Yeah, the combined discipline powers aren't there anymore, and I'm not quite sure why. I'm starying a V20 game in a couple weeks. if the players pull out a combination discipline power from a book and want to use it, I'll probably let them, likewise if there is a flavorful merit they want, but I'll have them use the v20 rules for everything thats in the v20 book.
I'm not too upset by that decision, but the number of nwod products I've liked was relatively few.
I dont care for the new setting very much as a whole, and I think the ruleset was a combination of small improvements and large setbacks, with a net result of me not being terribly impressed by it. Additionally, most of the books I liked were one-offs not tied to a game line. I liked Immortals, Inferno, War against the Pure, Danse Macabre, the two Armory Books, Dogs of War, 13th Precinct. WoD core was alright, and the Book of the Dead was okay, as was nMage. Changeling was alright I suppose: it had some cool ideas, and nVampire and Mirrors just sit on my shelf collecting dust. Those are the ones I ended up buying. Most of them (nVampire and Mirrors excepted), were at least worth the time it took to read them.
I flipped through many of the other ones, and played in some games run by other people that used them, but overall nWoD didnt impress me. While some of them were interesting to read (mostly the ones I bought, but I didnt look too much into nMage beyond the core book), and provide cool ideas to use in other systems or that they could use if they wanted to improve upon cWoD (in many cases they don't want to take changes that far), I dont see myself going back to run it or play it again; and had some seriously crappy experiences with it.
But other people really enjoyed it, including you, and I suppose in that sense its too bad its no longer getting support.
Also, an hour of searching yielded no results for me in terms of either finding insulting quotes from 4e marketing, or 4e marketing itself that was insulting.
|
If they don't do Mage I'm going to personally write a VERY snarky e-mail to Steve Wieck.
VERY SNARKY!
I could have sworn they've already announced both W20 and M20. I wasn'd that big on those two though.
I'd like to see Demon the Fallen get revamped.
Yes, M20 and W20 have been announced do to the success of V20.
Not sure about Demon, (or Changling, or Wraith, or etc. . ., which would be years away anyway), but I do know that Vince at Darker Days was talking about his Demon Revamp in #32, should you want to check that out.
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_e5wAUwdmM
^^^Video from WotC bad mouthing previous editions, and saying "4th ed is going to be the same but better!"
I am curious, could you provide a few quotes from that video that you feel are the "badmouthing parts"?
There are some humorous bits about grapple, but the worse that is said is that "the game play is deep, but some of the rules are... involved". "Involved" doesn't seem to inflamatory to me, and the laughter the grapple mention got means it hit the right chord, pointing out that grappling rules in 3.5 were somewhat complex and thus often weren't used. The developers of Shadowrun would often admit the same thing about Matrix hacking rules, but I never considered that insulting.
So, seriously I am curious, did I miss something that was badmouthing?
|
|
If they don't do Mage I'm going to personally write a VERY snarky e-mail to Steve Wieck.
VERY SNARKY!
I could have sworn they've already announced both W20 and M20. I wasn'd that big on those two though.
I'd like to see Demon the Fallen get revamped.
Yes, M20 and W20 have been announced do to the success of V20.
Not sure about Demon, (or Changling, or Wraith, or etc. . ., which would be years away anyway), but I do know that Vince at Darker Days was talking about his Demon Revamp in #32, should you want to check that out.
A. Anyone who remembers when V:TM came out is OLD
B. W20 is/was supposed to be out in 2012, that still on target? And is M20 also coming out this year or is that 2013 or something?
Well, I was 7 at that time. But there are people around here who remember Editions of D&D they played when my parents where younger than I was when I started RPGs. That's old! ^^
|
|
A. Anyone who remembers when V:TM came out is OLD
B. W20 is/was supposed to be out in 2012, that still on target? And is M20 also coming out this year or is that 2013 or something?
No offence we are tlaking about a span of 20 years 25 tops. Since when did two decades make something old. At most gamers like myself who remember the first release date are in our early to late 30s. It's not like VTM was released during earth prehistory.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
B. W20 is/was supposed to be out in 2012, that still on target? And is M20 also coming out this year or is that 2013 or something?
As I understand it, V20, W20, and M20 are designed to come out in the same order the original games where released, one year apart. More likely than not, we are looking at W20 at the Grand Masq Oct 2012, and M20 at the Grand Masq Oct 2013. White Wolfs The Onyx Path has more details, as well as other (o) WoD material comming out. Hunters Hunted 2 is the top of my list, as is the V20 Companion.
In fact, to date, no one has really demonstrated a way to successfully buck that practice.Ahem... Call of Cthulhu.
If you're measuring success by longevity, maybe. But if you're measuring success by the ability to keep a particular company alive and profitable, Call of Cthulhu isn't a great example. Unless you have some insider information about a huge Chaosium comeback that I'm unaware of, I suppose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_e5wAUwdmM
^^^Video from WotC bad mouthing previous editions, and saying "4th ed is going to be the same but better!"
Sorry, badmouthing?
That was a retrospective. And everything in that video played on common criticisms of the game during those editions. The whole point was to demonstrate that the game had evolved from edition to edition, and that the developers are in a constant process of taking in criticism and addressing it in the next edition of the game. The audience erupted into laughter at the first mention of grappling in the 3.5 scene. They all knew what was coming, because they'd all experienced that same problem.
No one was bashing 1e, or 2e, or 3e. They never said the games were bad, or that you were an idiot for enjoying them. Those things were made up by people with wildly inflamed opinions looking for new and exciting reasons to hate WotC.
I think that video certainly doesn't have any badmouthing in it, but I think a lot of D&D players took offense to it and other things like it that took the time to play up the flaws of earlier editions---even in jest---rather than simply talk about why 4e was good.
I didn't need to be told Grapple was overcomplicated or THAC0 was confusing. I know these things. I needed to know why 4E is fun in its own right (something that commercial does not touch upon beyond showing a few shiny computer tools).
There's also a subtle "we're better than you" (without explaining why), with showing the vastly cooler animation for 4e and the weirder/sillier animations for the earlier editions. You hit 4e and suddenly there's more dramatic music and shiny party and animations and... it's manipulative on a subtle level.
Whether you agree with it or not, basically some gamers' feelings were hurt by ads like that, and made them feel defensive about the earlier editions they played. It doesn't matter whether you feel they should have been, that's how they felt, and that contributed to a malaise amongst some gamers about 4e's release. Even if it wasn't blatant badmouthing, there were comparisons being made by the company, comparisons which I think should have been downplayed or avoided.
I sincerely hope WotC does not do the same for 5E, and focuses on why 5E will be awesome, and not why 4E (or editions before it) "needed improvement."
(Also: which audience when erupted into laughter? Was this shown somewhere? Just curious.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the fact that WotC forced other companies to disallow future downloadings of purchased digital materials (forever) when the presumption (and sometimes statement of sale) from those companies is that they can be redownloaded at later dates, and basically punishing people who had purchased PDF's like criminals who had illegally downloaded them.
And the fact that 4E was going to fix all the various problems of older editions (fixes = 0, they just avoided the problems at every single turn), which so bad. And yet, we all baught 3.5 over 3.0, right.
Or highlighting how much errata older editions needed just to function, but they didn't have the great playtesting that we do now, well until 4E had that same issue. What was it like a month before they released their first errata bumping everyone attack bonus by +1 at 11th and +2 at 21st because they let something so not obvious slip through all the playtesting and affect the core game. Good thing 4E is so much better than older editions.
I hated 4E after a month or 4 of playing. It. I felt that WotC had basically lied and mislead with their build up, and basically made it a childish game (childish, not child-like). BUT, the point I was trying to make, and keep in mind I am not a 4E fan in any way, is that I now feel that WotC is doing the same thing, or starting out the same way at least with 4E. 5E is on the way, and we realize how bad 4E is, it just didn't succeed as we expected, failed in _____ way, and was a mistake.
Are any of the designers of 4th Edition involved in the 5th edition design team?
|
...We've dealt with this same issue on these forums before - people claim that they "very distinctly" recall WotC bashing 3e right before 4e's release, and then are never able to produce evidence of that. Keep in mind that we were there, too, and we played 3.5 as well. I don't remember any bashing. II'm talking about how much push there was to show how bad 3E was and how much better 4E was/would be/turned out, covering up all the mistakes and blah blah blah. It happened both before and after 4e was out.I'd really like to see some evidence of what you're claiming here. Some direct quotes from WotC would be nice.
Right now it looks like you're simply passing off internet overreaction as fact.
I can remember clearly the 4E preview books, like the races preview, saying things along the lines of, "The halfling design didn't make any sense in 3E, and we've made our new halflings much cooler." (This is NOT an example of an actual quote, just a "something like"). I don't have the 4E preview books because after reading stuff like that, I decided not to buy them, but maybe someone who has copies could oblige.
I distinctly recall a LOT of early 4E marketing boiling down to, "You don't want to play 3.x anymore; it's icky and 4E is much better." And I remember reading these things directly from the 4E marketing materials, not Internet discussion (I tried to stay out of 4E discussions after awhile because they got so ugly, so fast). I just remember reading the 4E marketing stuff written by WotC and thinking, "Damn, why are they bashing my hobby so much? This isn't selling the new system to me at all."
I don't know what Beckett's got, but if I can manage to find a quote from way back in 2007-8, I'll try, but I will back up that that was going on. Hard to find stuff on the Internet that "old," unfortunately.
Note this has nothing to do with the 4E system, just the early marketing efforts.
Fortunately, I have my copy of the races & classes preview.
"One thing we got wrong in 3rd Edition was halfling size. As it turns out, someone who is barely three feet tall is really, really small. A halfling who is three feet tall and thirty-five pounds is only as big as a typical three-year-old. I have two kids, and I remember when they were that small. I pointed out to my teammates that I could not imagine how many preschoolers it would take to beat me (or any good-sized adult) in a tug-of-war."
It's certainly not "bashing" by any sensible standard - just saying that in Mr. Baker's opinion, three feet tall didn't represent a realistic height or size for an adventurer.
...We've dealt with this same issue on these forums before - people claim that they "very distinctly" recall WotC bashing 3e right before 4e's release, and then are never able to produce evidence of that. Keep in mind that we were there, too, and we played 3.5 as well. I don'tI'm talking about how much push there was to show how bad 3E was and how much better 4E was/would be/turned out, covering up all the mistakes and blah blah blah. It happened both before and after 4e was out.I'd really like to see some evidence of what you're claiming here. Some direct quotes from WotC would be nice.
Right now it looks like you're simply passing off internet overreaction as fact.
I can remember clearly the 4E preview books, like the races preview, saying things along the lines of, "The halfling design didn't make any sense in 3E, and we've made our new halflings much cooler." (This is NOT an example of an actual quote, just a "something like"). I don't have the 4E preview books because after reading stuff like that, I decided not to buy them, but maybe someone who has copies could oblige.
I distinctly recall a LOT of early 4E marketing boiling down to, "You don't want to play 3.x anymore; it's icky and 4E is much better." And I remember reading these things directly from the 4E marketing materials, not Internet discussion (I tried to stay out of 4E discussions after awhile because they got so ugly, so fast). I just remember reading the 4E marketing stuff written by WotC and thinking, "Damn, why are they bashing my hobby so much? This isn't selling the new system to me at all."
I don't know what Beckett's got, but if I can manage to find a quote from way back in 2007-8, I'll try, but I will back up that that was going on. Hard to find stuff on the Internet that "old," unfortunately.
Note this has nothing to do with the 4E system, just the early marketing efforts.
Actually, I didn't remember what the books said about halflings at all, as I noted, that was a made up quote just to provide a sense of what I was talking about. So I find it amusing that there is a quote about halflings that involves "we did this wrong in 3rd edition." It isn't bashing, no (and I didn't say it was, that was someone else's word), but it's an issue with negative comparison that got sensitive gamers' hackles up ( It's not a rational reaction, but it's how many people reacted and it didn't do WotC any favors).
(Also, as a complete aside, I'm sure if any people with dwarfism read that passage, they didn't like being told being 3 feet tall was unrealistic (and I'd bet money there are little people who could kick that game developer's ass into Sunday).)
Actually, I didn't remember what the books said about halflings at all, as I noted, that was a made up quote just to provide a sense of what I was talking about. So I find it amusing that there is a quote about halflings that involves "we did this wrong in 3rd edition." It isn't bashing, no (and I didn't say it was, that was someone else's word), but it's an issue with negative comparison that got sensitive gamers' hackles up ("what do you mean 3rd edition is wrong?" NERDRAGE. It's not a rational reaction, but it's how many people reacted and it didn't do WotC any favors).
(Also, as a complete aside, I'm sure if any people with dwarfism read that passage, they didn't like being told being 3 feet tall was unrealistic (and I'd bet money there are little people who could kick that game developer's ass into Sunday).)
Ahhh.no. I'm 6' tall, 270lb, and out of shape, but I'd happily bet $10,000 that there is no 3' tall person on the planet that can kick my ass. ;-)
If a halfling's height disqualifies it from being able effectively to defeat a human, how the heck do adventurers of any size fight dragons and giants???
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a halfling's height disqualifies it from being able effectively to defeat a human, how the heck do adventurers of any size fight dragons and giants???
That is an excellent point. Of course we all know they couldn't, but why be willing to ignore it for one, and not the other?
|
|
Ahhh.no. I'm 6' tall, 270lb, and out of shape, but I'd happily bet $10,000 that there is no 3' tall person on the planet that can kick my ass. ;-)
I'm not a big guy. I'm 5'4, and 150 lbs. I'm not in *good* shape, but I'm not really overweight - around 'normal' (though I could stand to go down a pants size or two, I wear a 30-32 right now). I'm inclined to agree with bugleyman, BUT I'll make the distinction that I would be afraid of someone 3' tall with a gun pointed at me while I'm unarmed, and of course, they might kill me in my sleep.
Ahhh.no. I'm 6' tall, 270lb, and out of shape, but I'd happily bet $10,000 that there is no 3' tall person on the planet that can kick my ass. ;-)A compelling case against halfling monks, I'll grant. But if you and some 3 foot tall man were armed with guns? Bows? While size and reach are huge advantages in swordsmanship, I'm betting you wouldn't want to put your life on the line versus some fencing master midget armed with a rapier, even if yours was longer.
That depends -- how much longer? :P
J/k -- you're absolutely right.