Today I finally realized where my dissatisfaction with 4E is coming from.
It's not the rules changes. Looked at objectively (from a standpoint of 3.5 not existing), a lot of what I've seen points to 4E being a really great roleplaying system. A lot of work is going into addressing common problem areas that have been in the game for ages (some of which I'd like to see improved, others I think don't place much importance on personally).
It's not the flavor changes. Some things in the old canon are kind of silly, and it looks like a lot of the changes they've made are changes I've been slowly moving towards for years. Plus, heck. Changing fluff is easy.
I realized what was up when I read this on WotC's OGL FAQ page:
"Innovation happens at the edges of the envelope, rather than at the core. Changes to the core require a general consensus from large numbers of people to be successful, otherwise they'll just be ignored or "fixed" to maximize compatibility.
In fact, one of the biggest groups affected by this force will be the Wizards of the Coast tabletop RPG Research & Development team. When the time comes to make a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, they'll have to make a very persuasive case to the market to adopt any changes to the core rules they want to make!"
It's not R&D's job to make that case. It's Marketing's job to make that case. And they dropped the freaking ball. When 2E switched to 3E, care was made to emphasize the similarities as much as the changes. This time the emphasis is on the changes. I've been following things very closely, and I was suprised as heck to see the word "Bigby" still attached to one of the spells.
Also, the information wasn't doled out in hidden areas requiring registration, it was done in the pages of Dragon magazine. To get your "old" content you had to also get the "new" content.
Doubtless someone in WotC's marketing department thinks that the people complaining loudly are just making noise (good for sales). But it's hurting brand confidence in the serious hardcore consumers and pitting one group against another in the same market. That's bad. That loses hardcore consumers, which are costly to replace. *Keeping* your hardcore following is comparatively easy: make them FEEL like you know what they want, and that you're going to keep giving it to them.
I haven't been made to feel like Wizards knows or cares what gamers want lately. The development team says they know, and I believe them, but the presentation's been so bad it's taken me ages to believe them. If the emphasis had been on "you will still be able to play the game the way you like to play it, in spirit if not in exact mechanics" rather than "we're making these changes for your own good" I would have been championing 4E from the beginning as I did 3E.
And it doesn't seem like they've changed tracks at all; I still hear "You will play the game in the settings we provide, with the rules we provide" unless I look directly at the actual changes.
You might be one of the many people who feel like 4E has been presented perfectly: everything said and done has just made you want to buy the product more. And that's fine. But that fact that so many people are so emotionally distraught over it should still indicate a fubar. You can't please everyone, but if 1/4-1/2 of the vocal consumers are going batcrap crazy, something's wrong.
The reason I like Paizo so much is that for the last two years they've shown that they care about their consumers. I didn't use every article in Dragon, and I didn't like every adventure in Dungeon. Heck, I'm just stealing bits out of Pathfinder until I have all the adventure path in front of me. But overall everything they do makes me feel like I'm being listened to, even though I've never actually said much until now.
If the people higher up the chain at WotC would or had taken a good hard look at that kind of customer relationship and how to foster it (it exists with many other 3rd party companies), rather than relying on brand loyalty, things might be very different. Including their bottom line.
Again, this isn't an anti-4E rant, and it's not a pro-4E rant. I respect both groups' opinions, and why shouldn't I as a fellow gamer? We're all just trying to have fun in the ways we like best. I'm just getting something off my chest, so sorry if this has shown up several times before.
|
Well, I'll definitely agree that marketing, or what passes for marketing at WotC, dropped the ball. Instead of making people excited about the new edition, they just ticked them off, and convinced their older fan-base that 4E is about a short-term money grab instead of a legitimate effort to improve the game.
You know... maybe the presentation of some of the articles, books, and other previews is indeed what causes a sense of trepidation in me when I consider 4e. (I consider myself 4e Neutral, by the way, though I've posted in defense of both sides and against either side before.)
And I think you hit something that I can relate to: I felt comfortable with the changes to 3e and 3.5. Tenser was still there. The cosmology was still there. Pelor was still there. There were differences, sure, but there were constants in the mix that made me feel comfortable to the change.
The moments that I've had that cause me to worry about whether I'll like 4e or not have been the moments when we found out that the gnomes aren't in the PHB (yes... they're in the MM, but the feeling I get is that they will not be mechanically equal to the core PC races), which affects Eberron and the dragon-marked houses in ways I can't even begin to work out in my head.
Or when the bard, druid and barbarian was taken out of the PHB, and the impact it would have on Golarion or the Forgotten Realms. No bards? What does that mean to the traveling nomads that entertain across Varisia? No barbarians? What does that do the the people at the Spine of the World?
From many accounts, 4e is a fun game to play, but what will that really mean to me, personally, when I finally get the game? I don't know yet. And at times it is a little unnerving.
I've said it before, but for me it's not about the new edition as much as the volume of material that's available for 3.5 (which I have) that I haven't gotten to play yet.
I'll be ready for a new edition around 2015, so 5E may be for me. :)
(Oh, and I hate the fluff changes to the core & Realms as well. I mean, how dare they invalidate my Fiendish Codices?!?!)
WotC marketing has done a rather poor job with 4e. I remember a discussion on WotC's boards back in September that had both pro-4e and anti-4e posters agreeing that the marketing was bad.
Unfortunately, WotC doesn't seem to recognize that there is a problem and is proud of the plan based on this article at GamingReport.com.
|
|
WotC marketing has done a rather poor job with 4e. I remember a discussion on WotC's boards back in September that had both pro-4e and anti-4e posters agreeing that the marketing was bad.
Unfortunately, WotC doesn't seem to recognize that there is a problem and is proud of the plan based on this article at GamingReport.com.
The adage tells us that, 'any publicity is good publicity.'
I'm sure they'd much rather have fans all aflutter and divided into armed camps hurling spears at each other than completely uninterested and wandering off to play GURPS. Just as Britney would rather have paparazzi freaking out about her shaving her head than be sitting next to Pat Benetar wishing the paparazzi remembered her name.
I'm sure they'd much rather have fans all aflutter and divided into armed camps hurling spears at each other than completely uninterested and wandering off to play GURPS.
Then why are they suppressing negative posts on their own boards? Just to throw us off the track?