Some pretty harsh insults for someone doing a job that they are passionate about. I think that kind of reaction might just lend Mike a little more fortitude in his convictions.Yep, the bile meter here can get pretty high. It seems this place is the niche where all the 4E hate clusters.I agree that the 4E haters need to tone it down a few notches. They do a disservice to their "cause" by making personal attacks rather than making valid points in order to back up their stance.
Just as this site has its anti-4E trolls, EN World has a large wolf-pack looking to bash those who criticize 4th edition. I got dogpiled the other day by several posters who attacked me for daring to voice a negative opinion about 4th edition. Not that I can't handle it, but it was pretty crappy to get personally attacked for speaking my mind.
Sadly, it looks like the edition wars are in full swing and publishers like Paizo (and people out to discuss their favorite hobby) are getting caught in the middle.
Doesn't bode well for avoiding a fragmented market...
And if you think personal attacks and trolling are limited to the anti-4e crowd, you're not just playing in a fantasy world, you're living in one.
There's enough Internet-accpetable bad behavior to go around on both sides of the aisle. For whatever reason, it seems to be somewhat split on both sides of the aisle on these boards. At rpg.net and ENWorld the pro-4e crowd has been particularly vicious.
Can't speak about Gleemax as I don't frequent those boards.
And if you think personal attacks and trolling are limited to the anti-4e crowd, you're not just playing in a fantasy world, you're living in one.There's enough Internet-accpetable bad behavior to go around on both sides of the aisle. For whatever reason, it seems to be somewhat split on both sides of the aisle on these boards. At rpg.net and ENWorld the pro-4e crowd has been particularly vicious.
Can't speak about Gleemax as I don't frequent those boards.
That's exactly what I was saying. Both sides are getting ridiculously belligerent over this. Over at EN World those who support 4th edition go out of their way to make 4th edition pessimists feel unwelcome by belittling them and dismissing their opinions.
In the end, it's the hobby as a whole that will lose out because this kind of nonsense will push people away from forums and, eventually, away from the game.
|
And yet you dwell here.Some pretty harsh insults for someone doing a job that they are passionate about. I think that kind of reaction might just lend Mike a little more fortitude in his convictions.Yep, the bile meter here can get pretty high. It seems this place is the niche where all the 4E hate clusters.
Funny thing, that. I once did a Myers/Briggs test and came out enfp subtype champion. That means i like to stick my face in the fan and keep it there.
My goal was not to have Mike's name dragged through the trash. I too am not happy about 4E BUT with that said I think that some of the designers ARE trying to please the game community and not just feed their egos and churn out drek for WoTC. When I read what Mike said I thought to myself "Hey maybe this might just be an okay edition!"
I'd offer Mike my hand if I ever met him as a token of respect.
Just as this site has its anti-4E trolls, EN World has a large wolf-pack looking to bash those who criticize 4th edition.
I use to be an ENWorld regular until I started sitting on the fence about 4E. When I started to voice my concerns I got dog piled on and my threads locked. Granted that was when ENWorld was shutting down anything that resembled a non-positive 4E thread. Around that time, my interest in Paizo products was going from casual interest to more interested.
But yes, I must agree. I to am not thrilled with all the words of those that hate the new edition. I'm not thrilled with it, but I have long since said that I am sure it will be a fun game; its just does not sound like what I want in a D&D game.
Over all I think we can agree that amid the fan base of D&D players 70% are not happy about 4E. Of that 70% half will 'wait and see' what 4E holds before purchasing and the rest will not play 4E.
WoTC has got to know that the fan base isn't happy and of course they are trying their best to prove that 4E is going to be a great product (which is unlike 3E that was welcomed by a majority of fans).
The message boards on Gleemax/ Wizards and EN World prove that people are passionate about the game and the changes. I think Mike addresses this in his comment. Of course with any online forum you get a handful or folks who just want to stir up trouble and are not invested in the topic. They will pick a fight with you about any topic just to "look cool". These angst ridden crack midgets disagree with everything and remind me of the Planescape "Chaosmen". Thankfully they are rare on this site.
I'm really certain I don't like much of what I've seen of 4th edition, and especially 4th edition Realms, but I've gotten tired of personal shots at designers as well. I'm not talking about specifically targeting things that designers have said, or that they are in charge of. And I'm not talking about wondering what the hell WOTC is thinking in general, no matter who made a give decision.
Its taking one guy and making him the poster child for everything that people don't like. Mearls has been working on monsters, but he gets pasted with being the evil genius behind the whole 4th edition "theme." And maybe its just hard to distinguish between them at times, but Mearls also gets pegged with a lot of negative comments on the podcast that were actually Noonan's statements. I've found Mearls is pretty straight forward and careful to say that he sees things this way or that way, but Noonan is a bit more likely to make broader statements about what D&D is or isn't or what D&D players want as a whole than Mearls is.
While I'm at it, Rich Baker isn't the evil mastermind that changed all of the Fluff of D&D either. He isn't the head of the "story" team, he is just on it. While other designers have been talking about how we should trust them because D&D is cool and fun and better, Rich has, rightly, known that some things aren't going to go over well and wanted some facts on the table to discuss, even early on, so that discussions were about facts and not speculation. I'm not saying he probably hasn't had a hand in some (or many) of the things I don't like, don't get me wrong. But he isn't the sole architect either.
Plus I'm getting tired of every article that has anything controversial in it about the "fluff" being attributed to Rich when half of them, at least lately, have been written by people like Bruce Cordell. Rich was in on the initial design, two years ago, that came up with the idea that FR should kill off major NPCs and advance the timeline, but the specifics have been hashed out since then, and Rich isn't even on the FR design team right now. The more FR's changes get fleshed out at this point, the less they have to do with Rich Baker.
So yeah, I'm tired of One Guy being responsible for the sum total of what people don't like about 4th edition. Its a group effort, and I'm betting there is more going on that we can even start to glean at this point. Maybe when the 40th anniversary of the game is upon us, we'll get a retrospective book that lets us in on a bit more . . .
The only thing I will say about Mearls is that I do think he is reflexively dismissing critics by saying that if they change anything, they would be under fire. On the other hand, I think that for every one person with a valid concern, 10 more dog pile and blow that concern out of proportion or turn the concern into a personal attack of some kind. I'm not saying here, per se, but in general.
|
Plus I'm getting tired of every article that has anything controversial in it about the "fluff" being attributed to Rich when half of them, at least lately, have been written by people like Bruce Cordell.
I feel bad KE, because I know this is one of those things that I did, albeit by accident. I started the Magic in the 4E Realms thread, and attributed the article to Rich. In my own defense, WotC initially had Rich Baker listed as the writer on the Website - probably just a simple error on their part. They corrected the problem by the next day, but I had already started the thread, and someone else had already noted the difference. Just so you know, there was no malicious intention on my part.
I feel bad KE, because I know this is one of those things that I did, albeit by accident. I started the Magic in the 4E Realms thread, and attributed the article to Rich. In my own defense, WotC initially had Rich Baker listed as the writer on the Website - probably just a simple error on their part. They corrected the problem by the next day, but I had already started the thread, and someone else had already noted the difference. Just so you know, there was no malicious intention on my part.
I had noticed that, but its less about something like that, which is just an understandable mistake (and Rich wrote the first countdown article, so that likely added to the confusion), than it is about people looking at things that Rich did write and then assuming that he made all of the decisions included in the article.
"Rich Baker blew up Halruaa," or "Rich Baker killed off Helm," or whatever else. I'm betting with every one of the decisions, one person may have had the idea, but a couple people agreed, and a few may have even disagreed. Its pointless to get upset at one person over, even though I think its perfectly valid to post concern over the decision itself.
So I'm sorry if that seemed like it was aimed at you AZ, I didn't mean for it to be.
|
|
While I'm at it, Rich Baker isn't the evil mastermind that changed all of the Fluff of D&D either. He isn't the head of the "story" team, he is just on it. While other designers have been talking about how we should trust them because D&D is cool and fun and better, Rich has, rightly, known that some things aren't going to go over well and wanted some facts on the table to discuss, even early on, so that discussions were about facts and not speculation. I'm not saying he probably hasn't had a hand in some (or many) of the things I don't like, don't get me wrong. But he isn't the sole architect either.
Chris Perkins actually came out and defended Rich (long after Rich had already been tarred and feathered, I might note) saying that Rich wasn't the decision-maker, just the self-appointed mouthpiece. To assign blame, talk to Chris Perkins (a paraphrase of his managerly act).
Now, Rich Baker has not, to my knowledge, ever put "facts on the table to discuss" - in fact, his early posts said something along the lines of "this is how it is, suck it up because no amount of whining is going to change them at this point." If you choose to be the mouthpiece, you'd better be ready to take the return fire. And Rich is. While I despise what he and others have done to the Realms, at least he's got some balls.
If people complain about Hasbro's influence, they are told to stop making it out like some corporate conspiracy. When it gets personalized down to the people who are actually making the design decisions, someone comes back with "please don't blame the designers! Think of the children!" Well you know what? Someone has to be held responsible for the failures as well as the successes. You can bet that every designer will be happy to accept his or her share of the success... how many will actually take responsibility for their part in a failure?
Rich was probably more willing to talk with people on message boards than most of the other designers, was willing to actually mention facts, when other designers weren't, and as answered questions in the Ask the Realms designers thread and his question thread at Candlekeep. He has done things that I disagree with. Heck, I was very upset when he pretty much came out and said that WOTC wants new blood, and if the Realms were done the way the "old guard" likes it, the setting might die in five or ten years because its not growing fast enough for them. But he has actually engaged people that wanted to talk to him, and has been ripped to shreds over it.
I don't know why it helps to assign blame. We don't know the full details of the decision making process at every level, and we probably won't for a long time, if ever. We can let the company know what we don't like, and we can vote with our wallets, but assigning blame usually only serves to piss off the person assigned with the blame, rather than getting a point across.
As far as corporate influence, I don't think there is a problem with saying that Hasbro influences this decision, the problem is with oversimplifying what they have done to contribute. The guys at WOTC have said this new edition was their idea, not a mandate from Hasbro. I believe them. I also think that Hasbro has told them that "all of our other divisions make X, you guys make X-Y, and we want you to make up that difference."
I think this has been going on for a while, and other things they have tried have failed to push them up to X, so the next logical boost that will buy them some time and get corporate off their backs is to change editions, so that the swell from that will boost them up to X while they try to figure out how to sink the hooks in for a stable, long term income. That's why Rich can talk about FR still being popular, but not growing enough for them, means they are keeping the line but trying to goose it.
I also know for a fact that Hasbro has been frustrated that they have the Dungeons and Dragons name, and that the name has huge name recognition, but yet, they can't do anything but produce a line of products that barely scrapes by. They said as much in a PC Gamer article three years ago. So I'm sure there is some kind of tension about why D&D isn't more than what it is.
I guess my point is, sure, if someone says, "this was my idea," or a given product like an adventure is written clearly by someone, sure, criticize them because they were responsible, when it comes to the direction of a campaign setting or a whole game system, it really doesn't, and couldn't, boil down to one guy, and to try and peg anything on one guy misses the point.
It is clear to me Wizards has decided D&D needs a new audience. They are designing this game for that audience. Blessings on them, and Mearlsie, bgut I'm not part of that group.
You know, I keep hearing this over and over again--from people outside of Wizards. Never, in the entire time I've been at Wizards or working on 4th Edition, has anyone ever mentioned anything about finding a new audience or "firing" the old audience. Never. Not one single time.
The fact of the matter is that 4th Edition has been designed with the hopes that D&D players that exist now enjoy it. Just because there are significant mechanical differences in the editions does not mean that one edition or another is "not D&D." The differences between 2E and 3E were huge, mechanically; did that mean that 3E was designed to find a new audience with 3E? I don't think so. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, 3E did a great job of bringing old players back into D&D, players that had tired of D&D as a game or just as a storytelling venue.
What really matters is the experience. When I sit down at the gaming table, it's the experience I take away from it that makes it D&D. That is what is important, and that's what the people working on the game are trying hard to capture in 4E. You can disagree with whether or not adding dragonborn or taking out the barbarian makes it not D&D, but I think the scope of what D&D is will always be much larger than a few secondary races or classes.
Just because there are significant mechanical differences in the editions does not mean that one edition or another is "not D&D." The differences between 2E and 3E were huge, mechanically; did that mean that 3E was designed to find a new audience with 3E? I don't think so.
What really matters is the experience. [...] You can disagree with whether or not adding dragonborn or taking out the barbarian makes it not D&D, but I think the scope of what D&D is will always be much larger than a few secondary races or classes.
I believe that most of those who feel "left behind" by the 4th edition changes are not overly concerned by the addition of new races, the removal of some classes, or some mechanical changes (e.g., the new defenses).
I would guess that they are more worried by the deeper changes in all the surrounding fluff (planes, magic schools, wizards' implements, fighters' "pseudo-magical" powers, dragons' alignments, devils & demons, and so on). Those changes can actually modify the experience around the table.
Rodney wrote:
What really matters is the experience. [...] You can disagree with whether or not adding dragonborn or taking out the barbarian makes it not D&D, but I think the scope of what D&D is will always be much larger than a few secondary races or classes.
Dalvyn wrote:
I believe that most of those who feel "left behind" by the 4th edition changes are not overly concerned by the addition of new races, the removal of some classes, or some mechanical changes (e.g., the new defenses).
I would guess that they are more worried by the deeper changes in all the surrounding fluff (planes, magic schools, wizards' implements, fighters' "pseudo-magical" powers, dragons' alignments, devils & demons, and so on). Those changes can actually modify the experience around the table.
Eileen wrote:
And in my opinion, here lies the problem. Everyone defines D&D differently and it is the responsibiity of the designers to understand this. Rodney suggests that what D&D "is" goes beyond a few secondary classes and races, this is true....Dalvyn states that it is the fluff changes in which people are more upset about. I agree with both statements. In regards to these areas WOTC has chosen to go a different direction and as far as I'm concerned, failed me in creating a D&D game. It doesn't matter if the game is mechanically or fluff superior. It is precisely these things and more which seperate D&D from all of the other fantasy RPGs out there. So to me, without this "standard" they have created a new game and attached an old title to it. It may be the new D&D game by title and still have a lot of the same aspects, but then so do the 1001 other fantasy RPGs on the market. By eliminating these factors, D&D has become just another game. I do not measure D&D by the volume of books, the sales, etc. I measure it by the content of the game. Remove to much content and what do we have....just another fantasy RPG.
|
You know, I keep hearing this over and over again--from people outside of Wizards. Never, in the entire time I've been at Wizards or working on 4th Edition, has anyone ever mentioned anything about finding a new audience or "firing" the old audience. Never. Not one single time.
What about all the hype about appealing to women to play the game?
What about all the hype about making it easier for people to learn the game?What about all the marketing being based on telling people how cool the new game is, and how much cooler players of the new edition will be than players of the old edition?
What about the almost total lack of addressing the supporters of 4E who are saying the new game is meant to appeal to different players?
I am not trying to hold you accountable for any of that.
I might suggest you pass it along to someone in marketing that when fan supporters are starting threads with titles like "4E is not 4E" on the company message boards and no one from the company wanders by to say "Hey now! That is just not right. 4E is for everyone!" that it does more than a little to create a powerful impression that the plan is very much to fire the old audience and find a new one.
You know, I keep hearing this over and over again--from people outside of Wizards. Never, in the entire time I've been at Wizards or working on 4th Edition, has anyone ever mentioned anything about finding a new audience or "firing" the old audience. Never. Not one single time.
I don't doubt any of that. And I'll spare you the question of if you would be informed if that was a decision.
But it is hard to believe. Please note, I am not claiming your lying. But with the marketing, the general unprofessionalism, and the apparent disregard of customer opinion (I am not talking about disagreeing with customer opinion, I am talking about an almost flippant disregard to customer opinion), it is hard to swallow that the design crew - taken as a whole - really cared about keeping the old audience.
And, admittedly, I wasn't paying attention to the Star Wars Saga switch (I have foul thoughts about D20 Star Wars, sorry), I suspect the switch to Saga Edition came with a significantly less amount of "world shattering" changes. Not to mention a great deal less "division of 'loot'" among continuing core sourcebooks.
And I could go on.
Mr. Thompson, I respect you and your attempt to temper reactions. But I believe your best course of action is to wait it out and let all of the "haters," or "anti-4th Edition" people see the product.
Until that happens, there is no chance of opinions being grounded.
I am not trying to hold you accountable for any of that.
I might suggest you pass it along to someone in marketing that when fan supporters are starting threads with titles like "4E is not 4E" on the company message boards and no one from the company wanders by to say "Hey now! That is just not right. 4E is for everyone!" that it does more than a little to create a powerful impression that the plan is very much to fire the old audience and find a new one.
Sam has a point here, Rodney. If there is a glut of misinformation, and misrepresentation of 4th edition.. and I'm prepared to accept that as true..
Only WOTC can stop that.
Even if it means kindly correcting and amending the comments of 4th Ed's fans and loyal supporters.
|
|
It is clear to me Wizards has decided D&D needs a new audience. They are designing this game for that audience. Blessings on them, and Mearlsie, bgut I'm not part of that group.
You know, I keep hearing this over and over again--from people outside of Wizards. Never, in the entire time I've been at Wizards or working on 4th Edition, has anyone ever mentioned anything about finding a new audience or "firing" the old audience. Never. Not one single time.
It's an easily determined constant that it costs a lot less to keep your current customers than to entice new customers. This seems to be the biggest failure of 4e.
The fact of the matter is that 4th Edition has been designed with the hopes that D&D players that exist now enjoy it. Just because there are significant mechanical differences in the editions does not mean that one edition or another is "not D&D." The differences between 2E and 3E were huge, mechanically; did that mean that 3E was designed to find a new audience with 3E? I don't think so. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, 3E did a great job of bringing old players back into D&D, players that had tired of D&D as a game or just as a storytelling venue.
You (they?) can hope all you want. 3.x is still the most popular roleplaying game in the world. That's how people actually are able to advertise their products as having some level of compatibility without actually naming the game. It's not broken beyond repair. It might be tapped for sucking the money out of the customers, though, and I don't think *anyone* could rationally argue that finance accounts for less than 80% of the reason for this new edition. (I personally would attribute 15 of the remaining 20% to the egos of the designers, but that's just me.) That is the huge difference this time around - they not only have to figure out how to sell the new edition, but they need to somehow convince the people who have made 3.x the best selling p&p RPG in the world that they need to play something different.
Mechanics mean nothing. Except when the mechanics define a style of play. The mechanics of 3.x facilitate a Sword And Sorcery style of fantasy. From everything I've seen (and I know I haven't seen it all, but presumably those things released have been released to entice me to the new edition) the new edition is geared to a different genre of fantasy. I am not a fan of WoW, Final Fantasy, or anime games. I have no interest in my fighters and rogues being able to do SUPERnatural things, when they should be doing fightery and roguey things. The fact that the actual feel of the classes and races has been fairly consistent for this long, and now some designers decided it should be all different and still wear the D&D logo is what causes people to say "4e is not D&D". You could make a Supers game (which 4e seems to be leading to) and still call it Dungeons and Dragons on the cover... that doesn't mean it feels anything like the D&D we've become accustomed to and dumped enough money into to make it the most successful RPG ever.
What really matters is the experience. When I sit down at the gaming table, it's the experience I take away from it that makes it D&D. That is what is important, and that's what the people working on the game are trying hard to capture in 4E. You can disagree with whether or not adding dragonborn or taking out the barbarian makes it not D&D, but I think the scope of what D&D is will always be much larger than a few secondary races or classes.
You are exactly right. And when you change, fundamentally, what the genre feels like and has felt like for 30 years, why would I want something new and different? I am obviously enjoying the experience I have with the current edition (or 2e, or 1e, or AD&D) or I wouldn't still be playing it. If I want Fantasy Supers one day I might check out 4e. Until then, I will stick with what I already enjoy until it's no longer feasible. Then I will find something that is as close to that as possible so I can recapture that experience again. 4e won't be it.
I think this is what people mean when they say it feels like the "old guard" is being fired. No respect nor consideration seems to have been given to what people already enjoy about D&D.
And just for the record, and to make sure KnightErrant doesn't think I'm pinning everything on a single person who isn't even involved enough in the process to have any influence over what we're talking about, I am not directing my displeasure at you directly, Rodney. I can respect your point of view (and I hope you can respect mine).
I would guess that they are more worried by the deeper changes in all the surrounding fluff (planes, magic schools, wizards' implements, fighters' "pseudo-magical" powers, dragons' alignments, devils & demons, and so on). Those changes can actually modify the experience around the table.
Oh, I understand that. Is the Great Wheel cosomology really what makes D&D what it is, or is it the elements of that cosmology, like having planes associated with gods and devils, what makes D&D what it is? Are the magic schools so ingrained in what is D&D that they can't be altered, or are they just a convenient way of dividing spells up? Martial powers aren't pseudo-magical, though they may be superhuman sometimes, but when hasn't that been the case for a figher? Is the change from "good" to "unaligned" going to transform a gold dragon into something not D&D, or is it going to let the DM choose whether to use the traditional version of the gold dragon vs. their own interpretation? My purpose isn't to refute your points here, but rather to illustrate that I think that, in all these changes, there is more than just a simple, black-and-white view of what makes them "D&D." I think it's perfectly possible to capture the "D&D-ness" of a particular element without being afraid to change the details and produce something that is both familiar and conducive to good adventures. Many will likely disagree, but I have my doubts that changes to the erinyes are fundamental, game-altering elements.
What about all the hype about appealing to women to play the game?
What about all the hype about making it easier for people to learn the game?
What about all the marketing being based on telling people how cool the new game is, and how much cooler players of the new edition will be than players of the old edition?
What about the almost total lack of addressing the supporters of 4E who are saying the new game is meant to appeal to different players?
D&D can't be broadened in appeal without ceasing to be D&D? I would question the perception that there is a lot of hype about appealing to women with 4E; I mean, there was Shelly's book and articles, but that's not really anything to do with 4E's design. I mean, heaven forbid we try and reach out to female gamers, but that's not really speaking much to 4E's design. Likewise, making the game easier for people to learn doesn't mean the game becomes any less D&D, but it might mean one would find better-written introductions, more explanatory text behind creating a character, or a DMG designed to provide both understanding of the rules and the best way to take on the role of the DM.
Also, I'd like you to point me at some of this marketing based on telling people how much cooler you'll be if you play 4E than 3E. I really would. That sounds like a whole lot of jumping to conclusions right there. Just because one says, "Hey, I think this system works better than it did under the other system" doesn't mean that it's any kind of insult at players of the old edition. That almost strikes me as an intentional misinterpretation designed to back up a pre-existing bias. Just because I say, "Hey, I think we designed a pretty good character creation system for Saga Edition" doesn't mean that I'm telling you that if you still play D6 Star Wars you're uncool or dumb.
As for jumping on 4E "fanatics" all I can say is there aren't enough hours in the day to patrol every forum and jump into every thread. No one at Wizards has ever said that 4E isn't 4You (I can only assume that's what you're referring to).
But it is hard to believe. Please note, I am not claiming your lying. But with the marketing, the general unprofessionalism, and the apparent disregard of customer opinion (I am not talking about disagreeing with customer opinion, I am talking about an almost flippant disregard to customer opinion), it is hard to swallow that the design crew - taken as a whole - really cared about keeping the old audience.
While I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to unprofessioanlism or flippant disregard to customer opinion, I will say this: every single day we have conversations about player reactions to certain material. "I want to make this change to this monster because I think it benefits the game in ways X, Y, and Z." "Well, OK, but does that fundamentally alter the perception of the monster?" "Gee, you're right, maybe we should make it a new monster." I've been in on that conversation many times.
Thing is, until very recently we've been quite limited in what could be said. Even now it's still limited, but we're rapidly approaching launch so more and more can be said. Likewise, there are times when yes, some decisions have been made because it was felt that decision benefits the game even if it might be unpopular at first. I think any professional designer would tell you that if they based every game design decision on fan opinion, the game would either come out terrible or never get finished.
Moreover, the opinion that Wizards doesn't listen to the fans can be proven to be false. Many decisions have been made with fan reaction in mind; see Rich Baker changing "Dragon's Tail Cut" for just one example, and more can be had. It's easy to view the people working on your game as faceless stormtrooeprs who don't give a crap about you or your opinions, but I don't think it's fair to ignore all of the times when things are done precisely to please fans.
Mr. Thompson, I respect you and your attempt to temper reactions. But I believe your best course of action is to wait it out and let all of the "haters," or "anti-4th Edition" people see the product.
Until that happens, there is no chance of opinions being grounded.
Er, OK. The whole reason I've been posting more lately is because people on these forums have been saying, "Gee, it sure is nice having you back, you should post more." So if my best course of action is to shut my wordhole and just let people stew, that's going to piss just as many people off. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, but I do prefer open minds, and if I open a few by being here and they still don't end up liking 4E, meh, at least I'm not one of those faceless stormtroopers who never interacted with the fans. ;)
Sam has a point here, Rodney. If there is a glut of misinformation, and misrepresentation of 4th edition.. and I'm prepared to accept that as true..
I wouldn't say there's been a glut of misinformation. I would say that not seeing everything in context has caused some people to jump to conclusions, but...uh, well, that's why I'm posting here. :)
The mechanics of 3.x facilitate a Sword And Sorcery style of fantasy. From everything I've seen (and I know I haven't seen it all, but presumably those things released have been released to entice me to the new edition) the new edition is geared to a different genre of fantasy. I am not a fan of WoW, Final Fantasy, or anime games. I have no interest in my fighters and rogues being able to do SUPERnatural things, when they should be doing fightery and roguey things. The fact that the actual feel of the classes and races has been fairly consistent for this long, and now some designers decided it should be all different and still wear the D&D logo is what causes people to say "4e is not D&D". You could make a Supers game (which 4e seems to be leading to) and still call it Dungeons and Dragons on the cover... that doesn't mean it feels anything like the D&D we've become accustomed to and dumped enough money into to make it the most successful RPG ever.
It seems like the biggest misconception is that the martial characters are going to be doing supernatural things. At heroic and paragon tier at the very least, these heroes do just the kinds of things that heroes have always done in D&D. Thinking of what the martial characters do as superheroic is probably not the best way to go. Rather, look at abilities like Power Attack, Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, shield bash, Spring Attack, etc. for the kinds of abilities you're going to see on fighters, rogues, etc. At epic tier things get a little crazier, but not any more crazy than a 6' tall character taking on a dragon the size of a house and winning. The impression that the martial characters are going to be doing supernatural things seems to come from Bo9S; while Bo9S was certainly a mechanical inspiration, it does have a stronger wuxia feel for the swordsage, and that seems to be what people remember the strongest, though the martial characters in the PHB don't behave much like that. They can do some pretty incredible stuff, but not any more incredible than, say, Whirlwind Attack or Spring Attack. For example, I've been working on some martial abilities for Conan-like fighters: tough, brawny guys with big weapons who hit you with their sword then kick you to the ground, or the ability to send a foe staggering with a headbutt.
I guess what disturbs me Rodney is that these people (the very ones posting that you are in conversation with right now, including myself are telling you "This is what makes up D&D". And the bottom line is....your not listening. This is exactly the issue with WOTC as well. An occasional bone throw is not listening its appeasing. There is a difference.
It is clear to me Wizards has decided D&D needs a new audience. They are designing this game for that audience. Blessings on them, and Mearlsie, bgut I'm not part of that group.You know, I keep hearing this over and over again--from people outside of Wizards. Never, in the entire time I've been at Wizards or working on 4th Edition, has anyone ever mentioned anything about finding a new audience or "firing" the old audience. Never. Not one single time.
I can then only assume that there have been meetings and/or memos that you haven't been privy too then.
When Chris Perkins talks about incorporating stuff from MMORPGs and even adapting the vocabulary from those games into the new edition, with the specific intention to appeal more to current MMORPG players*, how is that not seeking to "find a new audience?"Putting in new character races because they are "cool" and leaving behind core races and classes that have been with us for almost the entire run of D&D isn't trying to appeal to a different audience than the "old audience?"
* From the interview with Chris Perkins:
"...we have a steady stream of new players coming into it and they don't necessarily know how to build a party, but if we explain it in MMORPG-like terms it makes it very easy, very quickly."
Edit: I promised Erik Mona, so here:
Consider yourself stabbed with a soft cushion!
When Chris Perkins talks about incorporating stuff from MMORPGs and even adapting the vocabulary from those games into the new edition, with the specific intention to appeal more to current MMORPG players*, how is that not seeking to "find a new audience?"
Expanding an audience and finding a new one are two different things entirely. I can make a game more accessible without removing the very things that made it appealing to other fans. Additionally, game design never takes place in a vacuum, so taking inspiration from non-RPG genres helps promote the flow of ideas and can lead to a better game. Look, I think many European board games have a lot to teach us about general game design, but that doesn't mean I'm looking to turn Star Wars into a themed version of Settlers of Catan. I can appreciate the resource management aspect of the game without trying to include a card-drawing mechanic in 4th Edition. Just because one draws inspiration from one source doesn't mean they're trying to replicate a particular type of gameplay. A game designer's job is to look at fun games and say, "What makes this fun?" while putting a critical eye to the philosophies and mechanics that make it fun.
Putting in new character races because they are "cool" and leaving behind core races and classes that have been with us for almost the entire run of D&D isn't trying to appeal to a different audience than the "old audience?"
If every race had been kicked out and the race list had been built from the ground-up, then I might agree with you, but I think there are compromises to be made. In fact, I think there's an argument to be made that the inclusion of the tiefling and dragonborn highlight areas where the design examines the playstyle of existing customers. The half-dragon is a popular archetype in 3E, so is it so hard to believe that including a half-dragon-esque race came out of listening to the existing audience? Tieflings have been popular ever since 2nd Edition; is it such a stretch to think that their promotion to core race was a combination of popularity and game design needs?
Edit: I promised Erik Mona, so here:
Consider yourself stabbed with a soft cushion!
Certainly better than pistols at dawn.
I guess what disturbs me Rodney is that these people (the very ones posting that you are in conversation with right now, including myself are telling you "This is what makes up D&D". And the bottom line is....your not listening. This is exactly the issue with WOTC as well. An occasional bone throw is not listening its appeasing. There is a difference.
I'm sorry you feel that I'm not listening to you. I'd rather think we may be disagreeing. Thus far, it seems to me like what's been happening is some people have said, "These are my concerns" and I've said, "Here's something I think could alleviate those concerns." If I disagree about the results of those concerns it doesn't mean I've dismissed them, it just means I disagree. We can do that without being disrespectful to one another.
|
|
When Chris Perkins talks about incorporating stuff from MMORPGs and even adapting the vocabulary from those games into the new edition, with the specific intention to appeal more to current MMORPG players*, how is that not seeking to "find a new audience?"
Expanding an audience and finding a new one are two different things entirely. I can make a game more accessible without removing the very things that made it appealing to other fans.
You probably shouldn't use "I" when talking about these things... we know that you aren't necessarily responsible for 4e but if you take some level of ownership then you are setting yourself up as a target. :)
In any case, while it is, indeed, possible to make a game more accessible without removing the very things that make it appealing to other (existing, I assume you meant) fans, that doesn't seem to have been what happened with 4e - as I'm sure you're learning based on reading some of the threads here and some on other boards (when they survive the moderation process).
As Eileen noted... if I am an existing customer, and I say this doesn't look, smell, feel, or play like D&D, and the company answer is "You're wrong, it does so, you just don't understand anything yet" then I have some choice words for said company. I may not speak for the entirety of D&D players, but you would think that with the volume of feedback similar to that the company (and desigers) might have given it some consideration. There is no way it will appeal to everybody, but they definitely could have made it appeal much more to the existing fans while STILL making the changes they felt necessary to entice new fans. They didn't seem to choose this route, though, so you're reading about the backlash of those decisions now.
You probably shouldn't use "I" when talking about these things... we know that you aren't necessarily responsible for 4e but if you take some level of ownership then you are setting yourself up as a target. :)
Sorry, replace all "I" with "generic game designer" for a more accurate version of my point.
As Eileen noted... if I am an existing customer, and I say this doesn't look, smell, feel, or play like D&D, and the company answer is "You're wrong, it does so, you just don't understand anything yet" then I have some choice words for said company.
If that's the impression you've taken away from my posts, then I apologize. I mean no such insult when I say, "That impression seems to be based on only partial information." If you say 4th Edition doesn't feel like D&D, I respect that you've formed that opinion based on the previews, but my counter-argument would just be to ask you to take a look at the finished, completed product.
Additionally, I think we can disagree about the feel of D&D without it being me saying, "No, you're wrong." I think that's the most cynical and hostile interpretation. If you say, "This doesn't feel like D&D" and I say, "I think it does because of X" that doesn't mean I've dismissed you, it just means we're having a discussion. If I have been insulting anywhere, I'm more than happy to apologize for that.
I'm sorry you feel that I'm not listening to you. I'd rather think we may be disagreeing. Thus far, it seems to me like what's been happening is some people have said, "These are my concerns" and I've said, "Here's something I think could alleviate those concerns." If I disagree about the results of those concerns it doesn't mean I've dismissed them, it just means I disagree. We can do that without being disrespectful to one another.
Agreed and there was no disrespect offered in my post. I do not intentionally post that way, instead I choose to walk away from the converstation. I was to the point because the point was being missed.
While I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to unprofessioanlism or flippant disregard to customer opinion,
This is but the most recent example, but Scott Rouse posting this thread over at ENWorld would be an example of unprofessionalism and flippant disregard to customer opinion. (The Memo to all Designers and Developers.)
Yes, I am aware it is an attempt at humor. And I really don't hold it against Mr. Rouse personally... But it isn't really a great way to win over your disenchanted fans. And I admit, I could very well hold people to a higher standard than is customary.
Er, OK. The whole reason I've been posting more lately is because people on these forums have been saying, "Gee, it sure is nice having you back, you should post more." So if my best course of action is to shut my wordhole and just let people stew, that's going to piss just as many people off.
I see I wasn't completely clear in my point. It happens more often than I care to admit...
I meant to stop trying to change peoples opinion on 4th Edition. Please, continue your discussions. They are most welcome. It is just if you continue to try and defend 4th Edition before your "opponents" have seen it... That just continues the perception that WotC isn't listening. I know. It is unfair. But when some one feels wronged, even if it isn't true, a response of something like "you aren't wronged, you'll just have to trust me, and wait and see" comes off as patronizing. And that only fuels the bad blood.
I fully admit that it is a matter of perspective. Until the people that feel wronged or violated get a chance to see 4th Edition, there is very little that can be done to change that opinion. And trying to change that opinion, at least directly, only makes the matter worse.
This is but the most recent example, but Scott Rouse posting this thread over at ENWorld would be an example of unprofessionalism and flippant disregard to customer opinion. (The Memo to all Designers and Developers.)
Yes, I am aware it is an attempt at humor. And I really don't hold it against Mr. Rouse personally... But it isn't really a great way to win over your disenchanted fans. And I admit, I could very well hold people to a higher standard than is customary.
Hmmmm.....interesting post by Mr. Rouse. My opinion has once again been lowered. This individual is fortunate he doesn't work for me, he would be in the office very quickly. This posting is exactly the type of thing that makes me feel confident about having removed WOTC from my list of company's I am willing to do business with. Humor intended or not, there is a right and a wrong....this is wrong.
|
|
As Eileen noted... if I am an existing customer, and I say this doesn't look, smell, feel, or play like D&D, and the company answer is "You're wrong, it does so, you just don't understand anything yet" then I have some choice words for said company.
If that's the impression you've taken away from my posts, then I apologize. I mean no such insult when I say, "That impression seems to be based on only partial information." If you say 4th Edition doesn't feel like D&D, I respect that you've formed that opinion based on the previews, but my counter-argument would just be to ask you to take a look at the finished, completed product.
Additionally, I think we can disagree about the feel of D&D without it being me saying, "No, you're wrong." I think that's the most cynical and hostile interpretation. If you say, "This doesn't feel like D&D" and I say, "I think it does because of X" that doesn't mean I've dismissed you, it just means we're having a discussion. If I have been insulting anywhere, I'm more than happy to apologize for that.
No, I've not felt that from you at all so don't worry. :) It's the rest of the PR that has been so badly handled. Is there a marketing department at WotC? Whose idea was it to let the designers make official-sounding comments without vetting it through the PR department first? That person should take some classes or something.
However, I can only assume that the theory behind releasing what has been released already is that it's the best bits, or the most representative bits, of what the new system will be. You don't create a new car that you're hoping will appeal to a huge market, then spend the year leading up to its release only talking about the catalytic converter and the really cool rivets used in its construction. You highlight all the "sexy" bits. If it's the "sexy" bits that have been released, then that's what I have to judge the rest of the system on. Suggesting that I wait and see the whole thing together isn't really going to help if I already dislike what I've already seen. The best it could do is impress me so much that I will play in spite of the fact I already dislike important parts of the game. And if I have to spend more time fixing (relative to my own tastes) 4e than it would take to fix 3.5 (a little tweaking here and there wouldn't hurt it, for sure), then why switch? If even these small reveals are so contentious in the existing customer base, how can the whole thing together be something that will heal that divide?
I will explain, quickly, my process since hearing about 4e.
"Cool, that might be interesting." (I used "cool" long before 4e did)
"Are you sure what the designers are saying is right?"
"Hm, it might still be neat to see how they handle X and Y."
"What the hell is Rich Baker on?"
"I can't believe that they really believe their own reasoning for this."
"OK, I can't take any more of this foolishness from WotC."
"I still think I'll pick up the books and have a look. I know I won't play this as my main system, but it could be one of those 'backups' like GURPS or something."
"OK, if they're doing that to the Realms, I vow to never spend one nickel on WotC products from this day forth. I may not even sully my computer by downloading such garbage."
"I can't believe they are treating their customers this way."
And it goes downhill from there. With me, and as I think it is with many of the people who have proclaimed against 4e at this point, it's as much a matter of principle as it is a distaste with the revealed changes. It's too late, at least with me, to try to convince me that this is anything other than a huge money grab (see my percentages above... 80% money, 15% designer ego, 5% making fixes to the system). Ironically, it was the designers being allowed to mouth off to the customer base and the ridiculous changes to the Forgotten Realms that lost me as even a prospective customer of 4e.
This is but the most recent example, but Scott Rouse posting this thread over at ENWorld would be an example of unprofessionalism and flippant disregard to customer opinion. (The Memo to all Designers and Developers.)
I think that's really more of an example of being able to laugh at yourself. I don't think there's really much arguing that the word "cool" gets tossed around a bit too much. My other favorite overused word around the office is "interesting" which seems to be reaching "cool" proportions. The same goes for the whole tiefling/gnome flash video; criticism gets leveled at Wizards, so the humorous response is really more to lighten up the situation than dismiss it.
I see I wasn't completely clear in my point. It happens more often than I care to admit...
I meant to stop trying to change peoples opinion on 4th Edition. Please, continue your discussions. They are most welcome. It is just if you continue to try and defend 4th Edition before your "opponents" have seen it... That just continues the perception that WotC isn't listening. I know. It is unfair. But when some one feels wronged, even if it isn't true, a response of something like "you aren't wronged, you'll just have to trust me, and wait and see" comes off as patronizing. And that only fuels the bad blood.
First of all, I don't think anyone who disagrees is my opponent. Civil disagreement is just fine by me, and just because you don't like a system doesn't mean I see you as my adversary. As for stopping trying to change peoples' opinions on 4E, well, I don't know what to say. I suppose I could relegate myself to being opinionless, but that doesn't seem to promote much discussion. I like 4E (obviously, this comes as a great shock) and I want other people to at least give it a fair shake. My only crime is loving too much!
In all seriousness, if I'm not going to participate in the discussion with my honest opinions, I'd might as well not even bother posting. If anything I've said so far comes off as patronizing, I'm sorry, but that's one of the reasons I've tried to limit myself to discussions where I can say more than "trust me."
|
|
The same goes for the whole tiefling/gnome flash video; criticism gets leveled at Wizards, so the humorous response is really more to lighten up the situation than dismiss it.
Personally I think the gnome should have stayed in the PHB, and the Tiefling in the MM. However, I thought that the gnome was hilarious in that video. :) The tiefling... well, I found her very annoying.
"Do you have a lair? I have a lair!"
"It's like trick or treat, but all treats!"
Whoever did the voice did it very well. :)
I do find that there are people who will pick way too much at even the slightest hint of anything that isn't exactly what he or she wants to hear. That really does detract from the valid concerns others have about the new system. I certainly didn't see the video as mocking of those people who disagree with the switch of the core races.
I can be the most foulmouthed son-of-a-gun around, but I still think that the bleeped profanity is out of place in them, though.
Anyway, that was off topic. Cool.
I see I'm still not being clear. And my attempts at correcting that are making the matter worse...
I retract everything I have posted. Not in a spiteful manner, but in an attempt to end all the damage I am causing.
I think it might still be safe to say that I was not offended by anything you have posted Mr. Thompson. And I did not mean to suggest you were being adversarial. I couldn't think of a better word to describe the people you were having discussions with.
|
All I will say is this. I will give the Core Books a VERY through read before I buy at Hastings or Books-a-million. If I am impressed I will give them a try. However if my first impression is the same as when 3E came out I will wait it out for a while. I never bought a single 3E product. I got back in with 3.5 and have enjoyed it. In the end I am keeping an open mind and I am going to give it a try.
By the way, thank you for responding Rodney even if you can't answer all of our questions.
In all seriousness, if I'm not going to participate in the discussion with my honest...
Good advice in general! Thank you for coming back to the discussion.
|
|
I think that part of the "not being listened to" problem comes from the way companies do their market research. I have been a party to a number of research projects at several large corporations. When research is conducted - be it qualitative or quantitative - we always uncover interesting trends. We often find that the problems we thought we had based on customer feedback or communication on a discussion group turned out to be either minor problems or there were bigger problems that were not making it to us through our normal channels of communication.
Wizards - if the did solid research - undoubtedly heard a wide variety of concerns. Many of those concerns may have been very different than those expressed here. They may have in fact been opposite opinions. The changes they made may have come from a large cross section of their customer base.
Just because a change in a product does not reflect your own personal preference does not mean that your opinion was reflected in the majority opinion.
When we make changes based on research we test them to see if they are acceptable. I am sure Wizards is doing this through play testing. I am sure they got positive and negative feedback from play testers and made changes.
It seems to me hat this was not a game created by a bunch of ego maniacs that do not care what other people think. It just may not be the game that any of us individually would have envisioned as a solid 4E.
Personally, I think the biggest problem with the edition change over is the way it was handled far far away from the eyes of consumers.
I know I'm living in a fantasy world (ha!) here, but it would be great if WotC didn't have to keep it all so underwraps, like they are inventing the next ballistic missile and letting info slip early might give the Commies the edge.
It's hard to work from a place of honesty and customer support when things are sealed up tighter than a summoning circle.
I'm sure there are reasons for that aspect of the process, but it's definitely an obstacle to people liking the labors of WotC's skilled designers.
I know if I was designing a new rpg, I'd want the public in on the whole process as much as possible, but yeah, I'm not a big company, so therein lies the rub.
The biggest problem I see is that gaming shouldn't be a multi-million dollar industry. It should be good times for everyone involved. But hey, you can't put the genie back in the toothpaste.
This is the fiscal, political and corporate reality we live in. What can you do?
|
|
Personally, I think the biggest problem with the edition change over is the way it was handled far far away from the eyes of consumers.
I agree that we could have had a bit more substantial preview material but I would also say that we have more access to the process with this edition than the last. Heck - Races & Classes could very well have been called The Making of 4E.
Let me jump in and add my thoughts:
- Rodney thanks for stopping by and sharing your insight.
- I am greatly interested in 4e -- it seems right up my alley. I enjoy the concept of more combat actions and an altering of the current magic system.
- Changes to the story of D&D do not bother me, as I run a homebrew.
- I was a bit worried if the fighter was going to get supernatural on us, but you hint that is not the case and that things fighters do are not above and beyond the realms of 'fantasy possibility'. Yay!
- My only concern remaining is -- will 4e allow us to tell the same stories as 3.5? I imagine yes. But let's say I want my group to face a displacer beast . . .not a displacer beast for each member . . .I hope that options for this are accessible and simple in the new encounter system. For me it is the mechanics of the encounter system that really aid in the telling of a story.
- Keep up the good work, and again thanks for the insight.
My only concern remaining is -- will 4e allow us to tell the same stories as 3.5? I imagine yes. But let's say I want my group to face a displacer beast . . .not a displacer beast for each member . . .I hope that options for this are accessible and simple in the new encounter system. For me it is the mechanics of the encounter system that really aid in the telling of a story.
In my opinion, yes. I mean, the Wednesday night "playtest" game I'm in is another Chris Perkins campaign. Chris is one of the best DMs of all time (far and away the best DM I've ever played under), and Chris has had no difficulty thus far enthralling all of us with another incredible story. I believe Erik has played in a Chris Perkins game before, and I know Jeff Alvarez has, so one of those guys can tell you how much CP knows his stuff.
As for the displacer beast thing, yeah, of course you can. In fact, just this week I was working on converting some monsters from "normal" monsters to "solo" monsters, designed to fight the whole group. The guidelines are right there in the DMG, and they work just fine.
|
|
D&D can't be broadened in appeal without ceasing to be D&D? I would question the perception that there is a lot of hype about appealing to women with 4E; I mean, there was Shelly's book and articles, but that's not really anything to do with 4E's design. I mean, heaven forbid we try and reach out to female gamers, but that's not really speaking much to 4E's design. Likewise, making the game easier for people to learn doesn't mean the game becomes any less D&D, but it might mean one would find better-written introductions, more explanatory text behind creating a character, or a DMG designed to provide both understanding of the rules and the best way to take on the role of the DM.
Also, I'd like you to point me at some of this marketing based on telling people how much cooler you'll be if you play 4E than 3E. I really would. That sounds like a whole lot of jumping to conclusions right there. Just because one says, "Hey, I think this system works better than it did under the other system" doesn't mean that it's any kind of insult at players of the old edition. That almost strikes me as an intentional misinterpretation designed to back up a pre-existing bias. Just because I say, "Hey, I think we designed a pretty good character creation system for Saga Edition" doesn't mean that I'm telling you that if you still play D6 Star Wars you're uncool or dumb.
As for jumping on 4E "fanatics" all I can say is there aren't enough hours in the day to patrol every forum and jump into every thread. No one at Wizards has ever said that 4E isn't 4You (I can only assume that's what you're referring to).
Again, not to try putting this on you . . .
Whether or not the game is being broadened in appeal or changed in appeal is the problem. The perception among too many people is that the game is being changed in appeal. If that is not intended, then it means there is a major failure in the marketing of 4E.
Given a number of posts from WotC personnel, including up to Scott Rouse, it seems that this is not a failure, but what is intended. They are rejecting any criticism.
As for whether the system is being portrayed as "cooler" than 3E or not, I would start by suggesting you read the Races & Classes preview book, and seeing how many times the word "cool" is used in it.
Then read the Ecology of the Fire Archon article, where the author manages to use the word six times.
Then peruse a reply from Scott Rouse to a thread in Concerns and Criticisms about the lack of e-zine material where he describes their efforts as trying to do something "cool", and describes people complaining about the lack of content as "whiners".
Then check out the thread on ENWorld where Scott Rouse takes time away from getting the DMG ready for publication to publish a "humorous" post in the form of a fake internal memo "acknowledging" how WotC writers have been overusing the word "cool", and giving a list of synonyms they are to use instead.
Someone *cough* is very much promoting 4E as "cool", and presenting that "coolness" as a reason people who are embracing it should feel they are better than any critics, and entitled to attack them.
Finally, I would not expect WotC employees to scan every forum, every where.
I would sort of expect them to scan their own forums, particularly after all the effort they went through to hire a Community Liaison, select Volunteer Forum Leads, and revise the entire forum structure.
When that is combined with posts like the one I reference above, it seems even more likely that people believe that 4E is not for a large segment of the current market.
So again, I am not trying to put responsibility for this on you. There is a major failure in marketing and public relations on the WotC 4E forums, a failure that starts with the Brand Manager, proceeds through the Community Liaison, and settles with supporters of the new system.
Nobody seems to want to listen to complaints raised there. I am just hoping that if perhaps you mention it to them, someone will realise that posting messages similar to yours on their own boards would go an immense way to correcting the poor image that is being built for them there, and consequently spreading to other places.
Rodney - Thanks for the quick response. I figured your answer, but it was nice to hear.
Samuel - You say as much, and you are right . . .gamers cannot lay all of the marketing blame on the designers. If you have a gripe with the marketing, I can understand that. I don't, but it is obvious there are some who do. Unfortunately, the past marketing strategy cannot be altered. ON the bright side, you do have to commend those WotC employees who are making outreaches on the boards in an attempt to open a dialouge. That in and of itself is taking a page out of the Paizo playbook and doing so to good effect.
What I am trying to say is that, though the marketing may have turned you off or out, at least they seem to be taking measures to try to reach those gamers that were off-put by it in a more mature manner . . .like Rodney on these boards or Andy trying to explain the internal e-mail to freelancers.
Bottom line (for me anyway) is that marketing does not dictate what kind of game it is going to be. Yes, you may have to seperate some fat and gristle from the steak of what they are saying, but I tend to think that steak (4e if my horrible metaphor is lost) looks succulent.
So here is to hoping that the next version of D&D is a grade A steak.
EDIT: FAILED MY SPELLING CHECK
We all find out in June if our worry and dread is justified.
Bottom line (for me anyway) is that marketing does not dictate what kind of game it is going to be. Yes, you may have to seperate some fat and gristle from the steak of what they are saying, but I tend to think that steak (4e if my horrible metaphor is lost) looks succulent.
So here is to hoping that the next version of D&D is a grade A steak.
You are correct that marketing doesn't dictate what kind of game it will be. Much like critics don't dictate how much you enjoy a movie.
But to touch on your metaphor for a moment (granted, you aren't happy with the metaphor), steak - food more accurately - is something of a necessity. Gaming isn't. And more importantly, there are quite a few choices out there for both. So while marketing doesn't dictate the game, it does dictate if I will even consider it. And, at least for these boards, many of the posters here are the only ones in their group who care / know about 4th Edition. So capturing our curiosity or interest is a good thing. It may mean additional sales that approach exponential increases rather than linear.
And if the marketing appears to be insulting long enough... Then that fills us with the opinion that we aren't even wanted or welcomed. And that goes a long way to creating the backlash that we see.
|
|
In all seriousness, if I'm not going to participate in the discussion with my honest opinions, I'd might as well not even bother posting. If anything I've said so far comes off as patronizing, I'm sorry, but that's one of the reasons I've tried to limit myself to discussions where I can say more than "trust me."
Your posts do not come off as patronizing, at least not to me.
They do appear as though you were unaware of just how bad the situation had gotten in regards to 4E and the perceptions people were picking up from other WotC employees.I would also not hold that against you, because as you note, 4E is not your department.
Past that, and most importantly for me, you are at least presenting simple, personal replies. It is not likely to change my mind about 4E, but it will go amazingly far to salvage my view of WotC.
We're here because we like Paizo. If people are here because they hate WotC, then they are here for the wrong reason.
I came for the female elves in chainmail bikinis.
Boba Fett? I didn't see Mike as a mercenary bounty hunter. More of an passionate senator of the old Republic trying to cull the fears of the public. Of course 4E could be the birth of the Empire in D&D?
If so, let's hope that 5E is Luke bringing back the sanity.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 8
|
Rodney,
Thanks for all the attention you are giving here as you have on the Star Wars forums in the past, btw it seems like we may be missing you there.
In my case, my disenchantment with WOTC as a whole came with the announcement of the drastic D&D Minis change, without porting all existing miniatures. To be honest, I've amassed a horde of minis, I played competitively in order to get a secondary use from them and double their worth TO ME. I would buy dozens of boxes, but I only bought 1 Night Below booster, there weren't many mini's in the set I wanted for RPG purposes; that was the last mini's booster I've bought.
Personally, I've thought that everything put out from the RPG department of WOTC during 2007 was garbage, EXCEPT Star Wars SAGA! Good show there, you almost renewed my faith in WOTC. Putting that much blood, sweat, tears, play-testing into one product for an overly critical fan base and having it rock was great. Starships of the Galaxy, also great. I stopped running D&D to run a Star Wars game that felt like Star Wars, wonderful. In fact it got me so pumped again that I felt that I could DM D&D again after a 8 month hiatus. Thank you.
For my uses, 4e is unnecessary. I doubt I will be converting, much less any time soon. I don't need or really want a better D&D. Its kinda like my 73 Superbeetle, runs great, I can zip along at 70+ MPH and have great gas mileage. Its 35 years old, and works better than many cars on the road today; how many cars made today do you think will be working in 10 years?
Thanks again for the great job with SAGA, keep it up as that is the only product that WOTC is getting my money for anymore.