IT MAY BE THE OLDEST RIDE IN THE PARK, BUT IT'S STILL GOT THE LONGEST LINE - WHOOO!!!!
(anyone know who said that?)
(and yes, I've been playing for over 2 dozen years - and never regretted it)
Whew! Just sat down and read all 13 pages and I'm so glad I FINALLY get to respond!
Some of my thunder was stolen by Dangerdwarf's comments as I was originally planning on commenting what short memories all you self-professed oldtimers have. Everything that is happening now is nothing new for WOTC and their evil marketing/PR department. In fact, as much as it's a bitter pill to swallow - their insulting, illogical marketing schemes have proved highly sucessful in the past and bear no evidence of reasons to be abandoned.
Let me focus for a moment on the OP and say that I, personally, have no hate for 4E nor much respect for those who can't channel their passions a bit more constructively. This is not to say that I don't share their passion for the game and for the abominable way WOTC is handling this whole situation, it's just that it needn't be repeatedly expressed in what I personally view as a childish, unproductive manner.
Now, to my point about WOTC and their lousy PR...
Probably some of the reason that I'm not a 4E hater is that my heart is still deeply scarred by the whole 2ndE/3.x debacle. I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and wasn't particularly ruffled by the transition from 1st ed. to 2nd. Part of this was probably because when 2nd ed came out the company didn't bash its valued fanbase or insult its original edition. I'm not sure what percentage of gamers abandoned the hobby with 2nd ed or continued to faithfully play 1st ed, but for me the game continued in its "traditions" and was lots more fun to play. Part of the reason that I was so offended when 3.0 was introduced was because WOTC marketed it as the *only* fun and "cool" (that lovely word) way to play. They spent 90% of their energy and focus (completely made-up statistic) insulting 2nd edition and saying what total and utter crap it was. They were, IMO, very interested in "dumbing down" the whole gaming process with their incessant claims that THAC0 and other mechanics were just too complicated for anyone to use. The direction many now decry as disappointing and computer-based was very much in motion with 3.0. WOTC had the exact same philosophy then that they are exhibiting now - this whole "let me tell you how you *should* be playing. Your way is not cool or fun. Our new-fangled way is the only *real* way to have fun and to be the versatile character that every cool person really *wants* to be. What? You say this doesn't appeal to you? Well, that's because you're stupid and old and your opinions are irrelevant. Go away!" All I wanted back then was a little respect for the traditions of the game, the mythology, the "feel" as it is so often referred to recently on these boards but all I got was scorn and derision. I, personally, don't want or need everyone to have access to magical abilities. I don't want my dwarves to be wizards or nonthieves to have thieving abilities. But the thing I found most offensive was the entire attitude of WOTC that old grognards like me were an anachranism and that anyone with a brain or any "coolness" whatsoever would never play such a broken system as 2nd ed. There were admittedly some parts of 3rd Ed that I was mildly interested in but their blatantly antagonistic marketing and philosophy made me reject the idea of joining the bandwagon. Just like the current arguers, I thought, "Why do we need a whole new edition? Why can't we just incorporate some of these sleeker mechanics without overhauling (and insulting) the system I love?" But WOTC was determined to launch 3.0 and couldn't care less if they offended significant portions of their fanbase. I thought it ludicrous that they would so insult their faithful fanbase in a bid for merely "potential" new customers. I sat back smugly and said - "This whole thing will blow up in their faces! Ha Ha! They'll be crawling back to me begging for forgiveness!". When they had to release 3.5 just to correct all the mistakes that their "cool, faster, easier, simplier, perfect" 3.0 had,I was laughing confidently. Surely, they'd abandon this whole foolish scheme and return. But... hey, you know what? They never did. I sat and watched my favorite RPG go on nicely without me. In fact, their whole crazy scheme seemed to work out for them in the end. They *did* draw back many players who had left the hobby! They *did* draw in a significant portion of new, younger players who had never been a part of the older systems so beloved to me! They did do just fine without my hard-earned dollar to support them. In fact, they thrived without me. I was sure they were killing my beloved hobby but instead they had people proclaiming them heroic for actually *saving* it!
Now, I'm proud to say that I still play 2nd edition exclusively; but I also recognize I am in an obvious minority. In fact, the first time I ever posted on these boards was in a thread debating the pro's & con's of 3rd edition vs. 2nd. Players who loved 3.x would scream about how broken and lousy 2ndE was and how stubborn and stupid we were not to at least "give it a chance" and me and my ilk screamed back that change for the sake of change was pointless and damaging to the game as a whole. Ultimately, not much came of it. The vast majority happily play 3.5 (at least for now) and an ever-shrinking minority cling desperately to earlier editions. I skipped the entire 3.0 version and only within the past two years did I purchase the newest editions of the 3.5 PHB and DMG (strictly for reference). My group even did a trial run of 3.5 (we played 2 sessions) but agreed we liked our old faithful version better. I have seen the bulk of my copatriots eventually cave to the "dark side", which incidentally doesn't seem quite so "dark" anymore. Those who swore they'd never convert to 3.x have now been playing the latest version for years and happily so. This too shall pass.
And that's pretty much my thoughts on this. Both to the haters and those puzzled by their passion - it'll all smooth out after a while.
I don't personally have much use for WOTC and their tactics so I try my best to minimize the amount of income that finds its way to their door but I don't blame them for wanting to make money or for appealing to a younger audience (always the bread-n-butter for their product, as much as we grognards refuse to acknowledge) or for wanting to horn in on the unknown billions of dollar industry that is WOW and similar video games. I think they'll probably be fairly successful in this venture. I don't think it's the "death of DnD" just a different path for a hobby supported by a wide variety of consumers.
So, to those of you sitting back waiting for 4.x to crash and burn and for WOTC to humbly seek you out ... I wouldn't hold my breath. It's been 8 years and I haven't seen a glimmer of that train yet.
|
Well, with all respect this is obviously in the eyes of the beholder.
I was won over and treated with great respect by WotC employees when 3.0 was about to hit. Even became friends with a couple of them. I never in my life saw the WotC PR machine of 1999 act anything like that of today. I was there too, and I was helped ushered into the new game, not insulted or had to put up with my old favorite being picked on.
Simply, we obviously had VASTLY different experiences.
-DM Jeff
I have to agree with DM Jeff.
I didn't see the abysmal marketing back then. Perhaps I was wearing rose colored glasses, or maybe I wasn't looking in the right places.
It could also be compatibility. 3.5 may just resonate with me as much as 2nd Edition resonates with you, Lady Aurora.
|
I agree. I didn't see anything similar to WotC's currently horrid PR in the 2nd edition to 3rd edition switch. All of my info then came from the countdown to 3E articles in Dragon. In fact, Dragon was the only reason I even knew about 3E prior to it's release. Maybe, I'm looking at it through rose-colored glasses as well, but the marketing didn't seem so insulting and amateurish then. They showed you some mechanics, explained how they worked, and gave some examples. In short, they gave you enough info, so that you could make an informed decision about whether you thought the game would be worth trying. I believe the same was true with 3.5. It seems to be a completely different story with the 3.5 to 4.0 transition. They tell you something in 3.5 is horrible, that it's so much better in 4.0, but give you little to no info as to why it's better. Pretty much all you get out of them is "Trust us. It's cool". That gets annoying really fast.
My experience was similar. I had quit playing D&D shortly after 2nd edition came out. Not because of marketing or it being a poor game, but because I found another game I enjoyed more. After seeing the rules bloat which developed for 2nd edition, I was glad I didn't go there.
I had collected Dragon Magazine for several years already and continued to do so even when I wasn't playing D&D. This is how I learned about 3.0. After being absent from D&D for several years, it was through the Dragon Magazine articles that I chose to accept and prepare for 3rd edition.
As I recall it, virtually all of the articles were presented in a positive way. The only thing that really turned me off was some of the art. At this point, we started a D&D campaign at the later end of 2nd edition and switched it over when the books for 3rd edition came out.
I recall enjoying the articles. I thought they were well thought out and don't remember them as dumbing down the game; insulting to previous editions; removing the expected content from the core three books; or changing all of the fluff in order to eliminate usage of previous edition books.
In fact, one thing I do recall was that the initial books costs $20.00 each in order to help people make the switch with less financial burden. Sure I didn't save tons of money, that wasn't the point. The point was to help me feel good about purchasing the game all over again.
I knew 3rd edition would suffer the rules bloat that 2nd edition did and had decided that if I chose to play, I would be making a lot of purchases, and I did. I also went into it believing that for me, spending this kind of money on a game would be the LAST time as well. It is nothing more than foolish to spend thousands of dollars on a game over the next 7 years just to turn around and start all over again.
In my opinion, 3rd edition was filled with broken promises. Greyhawk being the primary one. This sat very poorly with me. I also got very tired of the book format. Each book had...prestige classes, spells, magic items, and just a few rules.....over and over and over again. This in my opinion was a huge downfall for 3rd edition. I now use about 10% of the material....98% of that material, comes from the core 3 books.
The marketing has changed throughout 3.0 and 3.5. In my opinion, it is because personnel have changed. Every place I have ever worked was only as good or bad as the people employed. I think when 3rd edition got started, WOTC did have good employees there. Somewhere along the line, things changed within the company and those changes occurred because people changed. With different people a significant amount of greed set it. I would continue, in this direction but it would be counter productive and I've said it all before anyway.
So, no, the WOTC of today is not the same company it was 7-8 years ago, and it shows!
For me, it was hard to be upset with the 2E -> 3E switch since without WotC, there might not *be* a D&D since TSR so poorly managed it in the 90s.
Also, since part of the idea behind 3E was to fix what had driven people away in 2E (and that includes some from my own gaming group who found 2E lacking), I was much more enthusiastic for 3E. (And I liked the "back to the dungeon" mantra.)
Alright, time to put my 2 cents in...
I agree with what some others have said; it's the timing. Quick rundown:
time gap between 1E and 2E: 15 years ('74 - '89),
time gap between 2E and 3E: 11 years ('89 - '00),
time gap between 3E, 3.5E, and 4E: 3 and 5 years respectively?!?
3E came out in 2000, then we get the 3.5E "upgrade" only 3 years later, which admittedly fixed some nagging issues with the rules. Now, barely 5 years after that, a whole new edition?! It does seem a little like a bottom-line issue. WotC's motivation isn't what's best for the game, or it's consumers, but it's wallet. Which begs the question; how much of this is WotC, and how much is big boy Hasbro pulling the stings?
I'm not enthused by this new pantheon they've cobbled together, smushing everything into one generic mush, or the tweaking of the cosmology, simply because of this "we got nothing better to do" mentality WotC seems to have right now. However, I'm not all that freaked out by what's being done with the campaign settings, especially FR, which is my "home away from home" type setting. So Halruaa was destroyed and everything's whacked out. I can roll with that. Besides, creatively I can place my campaign anywhere in the FR's history. Before the spellplague, during, after, whenever. I have enough sourcebooks and a good enough memory to know pretty much all I need concerning the history of Faerun.
Overall, I am being lenient concerning 4E. I wasn't very pleased with 3E when it was anounced, but after seeing the rules, and reading the PH, I was hooked. What I've seen of the rules so far (like the 4E pit fiend) hasn't really given me the warm fuzzies, but then again it's still a work-in-progress. I'll wait until I can peruse the finished product before I render a decision as to my thumbs up or thumbs dowm for 4E.
DogBone
I will grant you that this whole hide/seek ridiculousness that WOTC is pulling is new. I think we saw a glimpse of this terrible policy when they cancelled the printed versions of Dragon & Dungeon magazines. It was like "We're chucking out this profitable and incredibly useful resource for our beloved game and replacing it with something else. This something else is cool, trust us. But we're not going to provide you with anything but the barest hints about what our mysterious 'something else' is."
After a time, they did reveal this digital initiative, but hiding it before that point was just plain stupid, IMO. It hints at no product confidence or at least terrible preparedness to play such childish games with the fanbase's emotions.
We're seeing this same cloak & dagger routine repeated for 4E. Did they learn nothing from the magazine backlash?
I don't deny that the 1999 Dragon mag articles went a long way in smoothing the road for the 2nd/3.0 conversion. They were well-written, IMO, and fairly clear about what they were doing and what it would look like. That's not my complaint. My complaint, in part, is that they initially ignored and then became beligerent about honestly expressed concerns about the traditions, the "feel", and the basic future of the game. It got so bad that they threw subtly out the window and pretty much bluntly said, "Get on board or shut up." I think I would've been much more satisfied if they had said from the beginning, "We're coming out with a new edition as a neccessary business plan. We know that it will offend some and that not all the changes we make will appeal to everyone but we'd appreciate your input and we're excited to tell you about our plans." Instead, they played this game where they presented the new edition initially as a hypothetical and while tolerating nay-sayers for a short time, essentially responded to the resistance of a new edition by a significant portion of their fanbase with "Well, this is what we're doing. Deal with it." If a whole new edition was really what their market research had lead them to, then why not showcase those studies or release the pertinent data? Simple. Because it was all about their business plan and not an interest in what might be good for the game itself. Now, in hindsight, this seems like a moot point because ultimately the introduction of 3.x accomplished both goals. It's wise to remember though, that their success in that venture was not a given at the time.
It amuses me that so many posters on this board seem to circle around to the "they're only doing this for the money" complaint. I'm sorry to offend but... wake up and smell the coffee, people! WOTC is a company like any other and though I personally think their ethics are lacking, it is not inherently evil for them to have a business plan focused on making money. I admit that back during the 2nd/3rd conversion, I didn't fully understand this concept since my emotions had me all riled up. Here's how it works (I know others have posted this same thing on this very thread but here it is again for your convenience...) WOTC makes the most money on their core books, especially the PHB. The problem with books is that they can last for the lifetime of the consumer. Revisions, errata, splatbooks, modules, upgrades, etc sell to a certain percentage but everybody engaged in this hobby is going to buy the current PHB (in theory). So the only way to rake in serious bucks is to release a NEW set of core books at regular intervals. This new set can't just have new artwork and a sprinkling of new/revised rules. That won't get every last member of the targetted audience to purchase your product. It has to be radically different, so different that a hobbiest feels compelled to purchase it or be "out of the loop".
Many people on these boards complain that many of the changes, especially to fluff, seem to be changes for the sake of change. I believe this is absolutely true. Like I said, they HAVE to make it radically different in order for people to feel compelled to buy.
The argument that the time intervals between these new editions is steadily shrinking is a valid one. Obviously, WOTC's financial situation and the strength of the hobby controls this. I'm not sure what we, as gamers, can really do about that (besides complain impotently).
In regards to comments about imagining this investment would be the last, that's all wishful thinking. I'd like diamonds and a horse but, hey, ain't gonna happen! And to the question of why we as gamers should invest hundreds/thousands of dollars into a product that will be totally reenvisioned/rereleased in less than a decade... well, it's not a great answer but... because that's the "nature of the beast" with DnD marketing. WotC might suck as a company but no other company would do it any differently.
The marketing has changed throughout 3.0 and 3.5. In my opinion, it is because personnel have changed. Every place I have ever worked was only as good or bad as the people employed. I think when 3rd edition got started, WOTC did have good employees there. Somewhere along the line, things changed within the company and those changes occurred because people changed. With different people a significant amount of greed set it. I would continue, in this direction but it would be counter productive and I've said it all before anyway.
While I agree with the heart of what you're saying here, I don't agree with the wording. IMO, it feels that 7 years ago, the R&D department, the OGL believers and similar ran the show. Now, it feels that the legal team, the accountants, and a larger corporate entity runs the show. As I'm sure with everywhere else, "good" people work there now and "not as good" people work there now. And I'm sure the same was true 7 years ago. But, being an engineer by day, I have my own opinion of accountants and lawyers and large corporate entities and how they behave after engineers and developers and researchers took something and made it great. (Read a dilbert comic to find out what that opinion is. No offense Sebastian.)
Quite possibly true DMcCoy, In all possibility, we both may be correct. Somewhere, something has changed with the people responsible.
|
But, being an engineer by day, I have my own opinion of accountants and lawyers and large corporate entities and how they behave after engineers and developers and researchers took something and made it great. (Read a dilbert comic to find out what that opinion is. No offense Sebastian.)
Don't forget Bob the dinosaur !
...I have my own opinion of accountants and lawyers and large corporate entities... No offense Sebastian.
He can't take offense. Signing on that dotted line in his own blood was a decision Sebastian made himself.
Just kidding :P
Quite possibly true DMcCoy, In all possibility, we both may be correct. Somewhere, something has changed with the people responsible.
My theory is that Hasbro stepped in with an ultimatum -- produce a certain return-on-investment or else!
Certainly the entire D&D business model has changed profoundly.
|
Also, since part of the idea behind 3E was to fix what had driven people away in 2E (and that includes some from my own gaming group who found 2E lacking), I was much more enthusiastic for 3E. (And I liked the "back to the dungeon" mantra.)
They even had a conversion manual to take 2e characters and make them 3e.
And now? It's time for an update. The 3rd edition system is pretty much complete. What were they suppsoed to do? Print another ten books like Nine swords and Incarnum? Introduce endless new classes and crazy power systems to the game until there are so many crazy, unbalanced systems that no one can remeber them all? Do you want them to just keep churning out the splat books until the Complete series actually has to make "The Complete Riding Dog"?
Personally, I would have liked to see a few 3.5 regional hardcovers for the the other continental regions of Toril such as Kara-tur, Zakhara and Maztica... with a light smattering of unique classes, feats, spells, items and NPCs... with rich, juicy, fleshy timelines and cultural, location and NPC descriptions to match.
But alas, while I agree some aspects of FR did need adjusting and could have aquired that adjustment gradually over time (to phase out the dominance of the chosen for example)... I didn't appreciate watching the setting get data mined, stripped down and overwritten.
If 4E were not an overwrite of things that came before, and presented as a new alternative for the Delve playstyle (offered with its own settings) -- then sure, the more the merrier.
|
|
I read the preview book a couple of days ago. After reading it i was
left with a couple of questons. 1.I thought 4E was susposed to make it easyer to play different races. But they said in there they were going to get rid of a lot of the races. What gives. 2.They said they were going to get rid of gnomes and add tieflings and a type of lizard man (forget the name).I dont get the reason for that. 3. They seem
to be tying all the races and classes into this new setting they came out with. What happend to giving us the information to make our own setting. If this means I have to buy new source books too I wont learn it. If this means I am out date so be it. I buy the books for ideas and flavor not to be told what i can and can't do.
I dont like the new Tieflings of Genasi. Planetouched have been my favorite races. I liked the human but for a small touch of the planes flavor. I really dont like the new monsterous look of them. I dont like a lot of the flavor and lore changes to the new edition. Im pretty ambiguous to the rules themselves. I liked 3.xE and I dont really see 4E as better or more intuitive.
BTW, Benoist Poiré are you the Odhanan I used to know from Enrill.Net and Myth-Drannor PbP?
Thread necromancy is frowned upon around here as 4E doesn't yet have a Necromancer class to do it within the rules.
I dont like the new Tieflings of Genasi. Planetouched have been my favorite races. I liked the human but for a small touch of the planes flavor. I really dont like the new monsterous look of them. I dont like a lot of the flavor and lore changes to the new edition. Im pretty ambiguous to the rules themselves. I liked 3.xE and I dont really see 4E as better or more intuitive.
BTW, Benoist Poiré are you the Odhanan I used to know from Enrill.Net and Myth-Drannor PbP?
well the flavor of 4e is dull to me as well epic fail. Many do enjoy the rules and maybe if the GSL stops being epic fail as well 4e players will get some 3pp love.
Thread necromancy is frowned upon around here as 4E doesn't yet have a Necromancer class to do it within the rules.
Ba-dum *bing*
Try the veal!
I wouldn't say that I hate 4th edition, but I certainly have no plans to play it in the near future. Maybe all they wanted from me was the initial investment of buying the player's guide, dungeon master's guide, monster manual, etc?
Why I don't "like" 4th edition:
1 - I've been spoiled by the depth of Paizo's modules. So far the modules I've seen haven't really captured my imagination. A lot of this has to do with...
2 - The "points of light" campaign policy favored by 4th edition. Its just not that compelling.
3 - Forgotten Realms gets nuked. Never played there, but it sure pissed off a lot of people, and sounds much more radical than the Greyhawk Wars update.
What I'm actually pissed about:
1 - No warning that 4th edition was coming out.
2 - 4th edition not coming out in 2010 (the earliest I would have expected it.)
3 - The end of Dungeon and Dragon as a physical monthly magazine. They were the only magazines I ever subscribed to, and I want to be able to hold them in my hands.
I am a 35+ year old, highly educated, rather successful, family man that has been playing the game since the red box (although I skipped most of 2e). Absolutely nothing, and I mean not one single thing, has encouraged me to be interested in 4e. Old and set in my ways? Maybe.Dude.
I just turned 40 and I am SO looking forward to 4E. I don't think its about age.
I am 37 and also have played since the red box. All the editions had there failings and I mean ALL. Most 2nd ed campaigns finished at 14th level. 3rd and 3.5 ed fell to bits about the same level as the spellcasters began to rule each encounter with increasingly impossible spells whilst the Rogue either wiped the floor with Melee opponent or found the enemies AC way too high to hit.
4th ed is very different in certain ways and I would only run it with a couple of houserules but the same is true of 3.5 ed, I ran the first 3rd edition game and took it to 25th level and saw the holes. 3.5 improved a few things but still the holes were there. I now find my time is short and I want a game that I can get on with, play and enjoy without having to deal with complicated NPC builds and other time consuming options.
I am not an edition bigot. I hate all versions of D&D equally.
Thread necromancy is frowned upon around here as 4E doesn't yet have a Necromancer class to do it within the rules.
But that would be my biggest problem with the game. Namely, that the 4th Edition we have now is "incomplete" - So instead of being options "spat books" PH2, DMG2, PH3, DMG3, etc. are intergral parts of the system.
Damnit. Let this stupid thread die the ignoble death it so richly deserves, you miserable wooly rat-beast.
Where else am I going to troll?
Damnit. Let this stupid thread die the ignoble death it so richly deserves, you miserable wooly rat-beast.I just hate 4e because Sebastian plays it. *shrug*
Good enough for me
I regret having ever started this thread. I don't know, maybe I was feeling too much Christmas spirit at the time.
Please, please, please, it was dead once - let it die again.
I regret having ever started this thread. I don't know, maybe I was feeling too much Christmas spirit at the time.
Please, please, please, it was dead once - let it die again.
No.
:P
I regret having ever started this thread. I don't know, maybe I was feeling too much Christmas spirit at the time.
Please, please, please, it was dead once - let it die again.
But, But...zombie thread.....ummm brains
Firstly, why do people get so upset? Dumb question really as there has been plenty of explanation for it. But, honestly, what's the big deal? So the game has changed. So what? So it has a different 'feel'. Keep playing what you like. AD&D had too much fluff, 3.5 not enough fluff, 4th Ed has no fluff, etc etc etc. How many people have forgotten the fine print of DnD that says, "...if you don't like a rule change it." No one is forcing anyone to play 3.5, or stopping them playing AD&D or making them convert to 4th Ed.
Secondly, all this opinionated clap trap about WotC doing this and that, "they are just greedy business people out to gouge us for our money" talk. Hey, guess what...they are a business, their purpose is to make money and they are GOOD AT IT. If you can't afford the books or you have some moral dilemma with the comapny, don't play. they couldn't give a rats about you taking your money elsewhere because there is no profit margin in selling the same old stuff for years. What are they gonna do? Keep printing splats for FR, GH et al for AD&D? Nope, because there's no money in it. I'm ecstatic that 4th Ed is here becuase now I can buy my earlier edition books real cheap! It's great.
I think the only relevant complaint I've read is that "support" for earlier editions has stopped. I would've loved Tolkien to write another 50 novels but he's gone too, so now I'll read someone elses book. It's a shame - that's life.
Lastly, I played my first game of 4th ed on the weekend. Have to say that alot of what I have read on these boards was true for me both positive and negative. I'll continue to play both it AND 3.5. Might even get some kind of hybrid going. I'm always up for new ideas. It just blows me away that for a hobby filled with really smart people, there is so much angst about things when all you have to do is have fun however you want to. No one has wrecked your hobby. All those older books are still there - they still have their pro's and con's. Get over it and roll the dice.
Guess that could count as a thread hijack.
Don't know what yer talking about mr. OP, I LOVE 4E. My prep time has practically disappeared, Character creation is a snap, Encounter design is a breeze, and my players (all rabid 4E haters) now love it!
Let the haters hate, it's what they do.