Well, I read through the PHB for 4E in a hobby shop the other day and while there were some nice toys, I'm holding on my copies of 3.5 Ed. At least until Paizo's version comes out in print. I've been enjoying, for the most part, how Pathfinder has been coming along. All the lovely references to Lovecraft in their bestiary, what they chose to do with my favorite class of Ranger as opposed to what WotC did. I have seen one book from Mongoose that looks interesting that I may retrofit to Pathfinder RPG in the form of a kind of special forces book that looks interesting. As far as I am concerned Pathfinder is preferred over WotC for what I see as the best vision of what D&D should be. A part of me is still angry at them for the death of Dragon and Dungeon, magazines for which I was planning to renew my subscriptions. In a word I felt betrayed. I play rangers because I want some spell casting ability, not much but a little. My rangers are more or less militant druids, a style of play that Paizo, not WotC, allows me to play. As far as I'm concerned, I was abandoned a year or more ago when my favorite publications were killed in favor of an electronic format. R.I.P. D&D
I think you have to look at 4e's pedigree. It's not BECMI. It's a direct line back to 1e. At least, that's what they've been trying to evoke by putting it in the same edition line. I really can't see divergent lines as being nearly as relevant as the main line it sits in.
I disagree. I don't think there really is any main line + divergent lines anymore. When WotC took over TSR they decided D&D was just D&D and that the idea of basic versus advanced was splitting market share to no purpose.
Now 3.x was a clear successor to 1E and 2E in terms of fluff. For 3.x its valid to say that if you were a fan of BECMI or the (excellent) Rules Cyclopedia then you were not going to get a whole lot of support. However I think thats essentially just creator bias in those that made 3.0 and not some kind of official position. We get different creator bias for 4E and it would seem that Mike Mearls, at least, is a big fan of OD&D.
In addition 4e has a ton of roleplaying fluff, advice, and content.
I can't see that at all. Check out the beholder entry (one of D&D's great iconic monsters) -- compare the write-ups in 3.5 and 4e.
If 4e has a 'ton,' previous editions shipped it in on supertankers.
|
Greyhawk is no longer the basic D&D setting. Instead they put one in that they happen to like. They've done what most setting designers have done and stolen people's favorite things from other settings. Names. Places. Things of that nature. And put them together with the intent of showcasing them. Frankly I'm glad that Greyhawk is no longer the 'basic' D&D setting. In 3rd Edition it got a bum rap because of it's position. So many things that should have been expounding on Greyhawk were instead made 'general'. Why? So you could drop it into any setting you like.If player Abandonment is based on the core campaign setting, which I've -rarely- if ever used, I find it a strange argument indeed. Because D&D is a system, not a setting to me. Sure there's the marketing issues of multiple PHBs and such. There's the question of miniatures being a now all but core...
Assuming that no-one feels abandoned because of your personal taste in the game is not the way to make an argument.
Wizards did have fans, they had people who trusted what they could do.If a group of those people say they feel abandoned, then they have been abandoned, there is no argument. If they liked Greyhawk, the Realms, Vancian magic, gnomes, the planes, the magazines, whatever. The point is, Wizards changed things and some people who like those things no longer care for Wizards because Wizards is not offering what they want from the game. People like spending their money on familiar things, and wrongly or not, they feel betrayed when they can no longer give their loyalty to something.
Whether WotC did it intentionally is another matter (and in many cases, they probably have acceptable losses for 4th Edition based on market assessments, so I would think sometimes it was intentional).
|
Anything and everything a corporation does is for the purposes of making money.Not really. Most things, yes, but say "everything" and you're guilty of both a limited imagination and underrating the employees of many corporations.
Nope. Everything a company does goes towards the bottom line - to make money.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Nope. Everything a company does goes towards the bottom line - to make money.
Besides the trivial case (non-profits), I have another no-brainer: anonymous corporate donations, and not the political kind. Note that tax deductions for donations don't normally save you any money - they just reduce the cost of the donation itself.
I'd argue that in general, charitable donations by corporations, in particular those that support the arts, don't make any money either, but that one is at least debateable (goodwill is difficult to measure).
Now getting into underrating employees: any time an employee does the right thing - particularly when they go against policy - you're classifying it as "for the profit of the company", presumably attributing it to at least somewhat cynical motives of increasing PR. I'm attributing some of that to altruism.
In addition 4e has a ton of roleplaying fluff, advice, and content.I can't see that at all. Check out the beholder entry (one of D&D's great iconic monsters) -- compare the write-ups in 3.5 and 4e.
If 4e has a 'ton,' previous editions shipped it in on supertankers.
He's talking about the first two chapters of the PHB, as well as the majority of the non-rules part of the DMG, i.e. the things all 4e haters seem to ignore for some strange reason.
He's talking about the first two chapters of the PHB, as well as the majority of the non-rules part of the DMG, i.e. the things all 4e haters seem to ignore for some strange reason.
4e hater. Yep, there's nothing like throwing around perjoratives to strengthen your argument.
Of course, it's not like there are any fawning 4e fanboys that ignore all criticisms, regardless of their validity.
He's talking about the first two chapters of the PHB, as well as the majority of the non-rules part of the DMG, i.e. the things all 4e haters seem to ignore for some strange reason.4e hater. Yep, there's nothing like throwing around perjoratives to strengthen your argument.
Of course, it's not like there are any fawning 4e fanboys that ignore all criticisms, regardless of their validity.
Validity?! Brining up little nitpicky points is valid? Oh sure maybe some of them are true, but most of them are just trying argue about all those little vestiges from 3.5 that aren't there anymore.
And let's not talk about Pathfinder fanboys. They might feel all safe on the Paizo forums, but the rest of the gaming community have a lot of valid arguments that aren't just nitpicks, don't get me started.
4e hater. Yep, there's nothing like throwing around perjoratives to strengthen your argument... Of course, it's not like there are any fawning 4e fanboys...
Validity?! Brining up little nitpicky points is valid? Oh sure maybe some of them are true, but most of them are just trying argue about all those little vestiges from 3.5 that aren't there anymore.
The main point, which you deftly avoided, is that you brought this discussion back down to the level of name-calling. Thank you for that contribution :/
And again, just because "little vestiges" aren't important to you doesn't mean they aren't important to others. Nor are "little nitpicky points" necessarily little or nitpicky to others. Nor does it mean that those opinions are not valid.
And let's not talk about Pathfinder fanboys...
Fine with me. The question is: can you stop?
4e hater. Yep, there's nothing like throwing around perjoratives to strengthen your argument... Of course, it's not like there are any fawning 4e fanboys...Validity?! Brining up little nitpicky points is valid? Oh sure maybe some of them are true, but most of them are just trying argue about all those little vestiges from 3.5 that aren't there anymore.The main point, which you deftly avoided, is that you brought this discussion back down to the level of name-calling. Thank you for that contribution :/
And again, just because "little vestiges" aren't important to you doesn't mean they aren't important to others. Nor are "little nitpicky points" necessarily little or nitpicky to others. Nor does it mean that those opinions are not valid.
And let's not talk about Pathfinder fanboys...Fine with me. The question is: can you stop?
I haven't even started about Pathfinder, I'm just talking about 4e here. My problem with the nitpicking is there's people who, because of said vestiges, refuse to believe 4e is a good game. Hell there's things from 3.5 that I miss, but I don't go trying to make whole arguments out of it and blow stuff out of proportion.
And I hardly think that 4e hater is name calling. You're the only one getting offended by it.
|
|
4e hater. Yep, there's nothing like throwing around perjoratives to strengthen your argument... Of course, it's not like there are any fawning 4e fanboys...Validity?! Brining up little nitpicky points is valid? Oh sure maybe some of them are true, but most of them are just trying argue about all those little vestiges from 3.5 that aren't there anymore.The main point, which you deftly avoided, is that you brought this discussion back down to the level of name-calling. Thank you for that contribution :/
And again, just because "little vestiges" aren't important to you doesn't mean they aren't important to others. Nor are "little nitpicky points" necessarily little or nitpicky to others. Nor does it mean that those opinions are not valid.
And let's not talk about Pathfinder fanboys...Fine with me. The question is: can you stop?I haven't even started about Pathfinder, I'm just talking about 4e here. My problem with the nitpicking is there's people who, because of said vestiges, refuse to believe 4e is a good game. Hell there's things from 3.5 that I miss, but I don't go trying to make whole arguments out of it and blow stuff out of proportion.
And I hardly think that 4e hater is name calling. You're the only one getting offended by it.
This seems to be a communication breakdown.
Back when the pre-release of 4th Edition was underway, a lot of 3rd Edition players (and some older editions too) felt slighted by the marketing campaign. So they complained, and the 4th Edition and WotC supporters said "Marketing isn't the game, give it a chance."
Then when the early rules came out, the anti-4th Edition crowd said "This doesn't feel like D&D." And then some of the pro-4th Edition group said "You can't make blanket statements. Play the game and give actual arguments."
Then the game came out, people played it and still didn't like it. They made statements to that effect, including specific arguing points. And some pro-4th Edition people said "Stop nitpicking."
Every time an person who dislikes 4th Edition expresses their opinion of the game, someone jumps in and dismisses their arguments out of hand. Give up. You can't make someone like something. The anti-4th Edition crowd has made up its mind. Vice versa.
I am pretty sure the CWM is not going to turn around and go "Hey, you guys are right, this game DOES suck! D'oh!"
It is human impulse to complain about something you have stock in when you feel that thing threatened, but things can be done tactfully. I'll leave you with this thought:
It is harder to sell something than it is to convince people to dislike something.
It is harder to sell something than it is to convince people to dislike something.
QFT. It's beginning to sound like people are shouting at brick walls. Has anything been settled? All the arguing does is alienate folks. We are ALL gamers, pen and paper even, a dwindling group at best. Can we not put aside our anger and just play nice? Ignore the troll baiting, just let it pass. All your shouting and arguing is contributing NOTHING except to give the boards a nasty feel. Are we Gleemax? Please let's just let the anger die and go back to doing what we ALL enjoy. Pen and paper gaming.
|
|
It is harder to sell something than it is to convince people to dislike something.QFT. It's beginning to sound like people are shouting at brick walls. Has anything been settled? All the arguing does is alienate folks. We are ALL gamers, pen and paper even, a dwindling group at best. Can we not put aside our anger and just play nice? Ignore the troll baiting, just let it pass. All your shouting and arguing is contributing NOTHING except to give the boards a nasty feel. Are we Gleemax? Please let's just let the anger die and go back to doing what we ALL enjoy. Pen and paper gaming.
Here here. I thought it was pretty cool when I was DM on D&D Gameday for 4th Edition. I realized I disliked it, but when one of the 12 year-olds said "these monsters are cool, where can I get some", it was so cool.
More gamers equals more games.
I haven't even started about Pathfinder, I'm just talking about 4e here. My problem with the nitpicking is there's people who, because of said vestiges, refuse to believe 4e is a good game. Hell there's things from 3.5 that I miss, but I don't go trying to make whole arguments out of it and blow stuff out of proportion.And I hardly think that 4e hater is name calling. You're the only one getting offended by it.
You may call it nit-picking. Some of us refuse to gloss over the details for the new shiny.
For what it's worth, 4e might be a decent general FRPG. But it's the details that determine whether or not it's D&D.
Nope. Everything a company does goes towards the bottom line - to make money.
Not always true. There are cool companies out there that will make something that they think is "damn cool"...even though they *know* they will loose some money on it. Case in point: Kenzer & Co. Two products off hand that I know they lost money on was the Hackmaster Coloring & Activity Book, and the Hackmaster GM Screen (and *possibly* the 3e Kalamar GM Screen). Why did they make them? Because they thought they were just too damn cool not to. Especially the GM Screen. Dave himself has told us they ate some coin on that one...but it was just too kick ass to not put it out that they felt they'd be doing their customers/fans a disservice.
So, there is at least one company out there that will make something for sale that they know (or have a good idea) that they will not be making money...and in fact loosing it.
That said, every time I try and think of WotC taking that route I start to giggle, smile, shake my head and think, "hehehe...yeah, and then monkeys might fly out of my butt..."
|
|
Nope. Everything a company does goes towards the bottom line - to make money.Not always true. There are cool companies out there that will make something that they think is "damn cool"...even though they *know* they will loose some money on it. Case in point: Kenzer & Co. Two products off hand that I know they lost money on was the Hackmaster Coloring & Activity Book, and the Hackmaster GM Screen (and *possibly* the 3e Kalamar GM Screen). Why did they make them? Because they thought they were just too damn cool not to. Especially the GM Screen. Dave himself has told us they ate some coin on that one...but it was just too kick ass to not put it out that they felt they'd be doing their customers/fans a disservice.
So, there is at least one company out there that will make something for sale that they know (or have a good idea) that they will not be making money...and in fact loosing it.
That said, every time I try and think of WotC taking that route I start to giggle, smile, shake my head and think, "hehehe...yeah, and then monkeys might fly out of my butt..."
Cool companies cultivate that image in order to satisfy their customers who will buy their stuff so they can make money. Sure they may be genuinely cool people but they need to make money in order to be cool AND stay in business. At the end of the day the companies that loose sight of the bottom line fail and go out of business. That is why they call it the bottom line.
I like the new rules but I'm finding Wizard's module writing to be terribly weak and I'm tempted to say they are abandoning DMs. With everything they've said about making it easier to DM - I hoped, naively I guess, that they would also put out some stuff for a tired DM to pull out and do a great game.
On the other hand, the new minis... They look like some serious fun if you're a battlemap lover you are certainly not being abandoned here, although I still get irritated at some of the really crappy commons they sneak in. My 2c.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Cool companies cultivate that image in order to satisfy their customers who will buy their stuff so they can make money. Sure they may be genuinely cool people but they need to make money in order to be cool AND stay in business. At the end of the day the companies that loose sight of the bottom line fail and go out of business. That is why they call it the bottom line.
The bottom line represents net income (as opposed to gross). It's called the bottom line because it's the last line on a typical balance sheet. Revenue is sometimes called the top line because it is found on the first line of a typical balance sheet.
Knowing is half the battle...
|
|
Cool companies cultivate that image in order to satisfy their customers who will buy their stuff so they can make money. Sure they may be genuinely cool people but they need to make money in order to be cool AND stay in business. At the end of the day the companies that loose sight of the bottom line fail and go out of business. That is why they call it the bottom line.The bottom line represents net income (as opposed to gross). It's called the bottom line because it's the last line on a typical balance sheet. Revenue is sometimes called the top line because it is found on the first line of a typical balance sheet.
Knowing is half the battle...
Right ... I already knew that ... and if you loose sight of your net then you go out of business.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Right ... I already knew that ... and if you loose sight of your net then you go out of business.
If you "knew that", why did you say it's called the bottom line because if you lose sight of it, you go out of business? Because that isn't why it's called the bottom line.
Hasbro is a big company that has to think of things in a big company way, so marketing, production cost, distribution are things on their clipboard. Smaller companies are motivated by something else--love of the craft. Ask N. Robin Crossby how much money he has made on Harn. It's the way it works--nothing to argue about.
Our group read the 4e rules, set a date and played. The way we saw it, 4e is not D&D in the classic sense, but a new game. It feels more geared to younger players--kind of superheroish, or amime maybe. By making all the character classes so alike, something is gone. We gave it a chance. It has its good points, just like any other game. If you like it, play it. After more expansion of the rules comes, maybe it will get another try. Until then, we are going to try Pathfinder.
The point is, try to be constructive, don't lose your temper when somebody does not like your favorite thing. Using our different likes and viewpoints is how we improve our game. Enjoy!
|
|
Our group read the 4e rules, set a date and played. The way we saw it, 4e is not D&D in the classic sense, but a new game. It feels more geared to younger players--kind of superheroish, or amime maybe. By making all the character classes so alike, something is gone. We gave it a chance. It has its good points, just like any other game. If you like it, play it. After more expansion of the rules comes, maybe it will get another try. Until then, we are going to try Pathfinder.
My friend and I still play the old Marvel FASERIP, and we both agree that 4th Edition would be a tremendous system to build superheroes in - everything is tougher, so the battles are longer even though people are way more powerful than ordinary folks, and the new power structure is ready-made for superpowers. Even the races could be tweaked to support "power backgrounds".
If the GSL wasn't so restrictive, I would be tempted to do something myself, but as it stands I am not paying for books only to use them to make a new game.
I am not paying for books only to use them to make a new game.
Hmm, now you're making me feel stupid for plopping down money on these physics and chemistry textbooks here...
|
|
It seems much (MUCH) more likely 4e was devised as a money making venture to me. Especially when you weigh in the GSL into the equation.
Look WoW has over ten million subscribers at the moment and that figure is going up. TEN MILLION. Is it so unlikely that wotc want to try to run off some of that herd?
There are many clues that point to money-making being the main (only?) engine driving 4e imo, for example;
The increased reliance on minis. (This is a licence to print money as far as rpgs are concerned.)
The price wotc will be charging for DDI.
The obvious visual references and rule additions aimed at WoW fans.
Heavier reliance on future supplements to fully round out the much less complete core rulebooks.
I do believe this to be true. WoW killed my entire D&D group wholesale. One day I was a DM, the next day the wives were saying it was either D&D or WoW. WoW is too powerful to ignore. If D&D doesn't get close to being on par with it, WoW could eventually swallow up D&D as a snack to legitimize itself as the fantasy authority. To be honest, D&D should be sitting where WoW is now, but it isn't. Blizzard is the best game software company out there and it didn't happen overnight. They have literally kept the cream that they create for years and years. Blizzard programmers are employees of unparalleled cohesion and gift. You don't find people like that in a couple of years, it takes a decade. I believe that is why D&D software never really does well, because they keep scrounging up people and trying to create the vision (that Blizzard has clearly created) when the real job should be to find/create the group of programmers with the talent (and keep them!) The digital side will flounder if the talent and incentives are not there as they would be for a real success like Blizzard.
I think WotC's concern over the profits made by Blizzard is a real danger. At this moment, I think Blizzard could succeed in the endeavors outlined by WotC in far better credibility and quality. I doubt Blizzard would try such a thing (being that pen and paper is a clear break from programming). However, I doubt they would get it completed anytime faster than WotC; however I think WotC would cave into pressure and a release shoddy buggy version while Blizzard would not.
Overall, if money is pouring out the windows of one company and the other has broken windows and spiders, it is only a matter of time before the victorious kicks open the door of the vanquished. It is a symbolic thing that companies do (acquire their enemies secrets and legitimize control as an authority in its gendre).
Cheers,
Zuxius
In addition 4e has a ton of roleplaying fluff, advice, and content.I can't see that at all. Check out the beholder entry (one of D&D's great iconic monsters) -- compare the write-ups in 3.5 and 4e.
If 4e has a 'ton,' previous editions shipped it in on supertankers.
Compare either to 2nd edition for just about any monster you can name. Its odd but I can forgive 4Es crap MM apparently becuase I'm getting used to getting crap in this department, oh well.
If a group of those people say they feel abandoned, then they have been abandoned, there is no argument.
If people really feel "abandoned", I think they we're under some pretty big illusions regarding their previous relationship with WotC. It's a company. They aim to please their prospective customers, from a business POV and, dare I say it, because they do care about RPGs, but they were never some nurturing parent that sheltered their millions of precious diceflingers all over the world or whatever. Cut it out with the hysterical drama already.
Nobody's really equating this with abandonment by a parent. But it used to be that people expected a certain amount of customer service from corporations or, at the very least, some consideration for long-time customers who have supported them over the years. Saying they're a corporation does not remove that expectation.
|
I've come to think that 4e has some really strong selling points as a game. The entry learning curve is much less steep for new gamers. That is an important issue, because the core of the gaming community that cut its teeth on Gygax's brainchild are rapidly approaching middle age. The problem is that the MMORPG phenominon has overcome many of the obstacles of playing a pencil and paper RPG. To go the pencil and paper route, you need a group of friends to play with, you need an active imagination, and you have to be willing to do at least basic math constantly while playing. MMORPG's eliminate all that. You don't need friends, just a computer. You don't have to do math, the computer does it for you. You don't need an imagination, you have flashy graphics. So for many people inclined to play a fantasy RPG, games like WoW represent the easiest place to do that.
Now back to 4e. If the FRPG market can't find a way to start attracting new young players, eventually the genre will die with the glut of its core fan base when they reach old age. A big part of attracting new players is lowering the entry curve so they don't just set the book down right off the bat because it is hard to understand. Now that said, 4e has the potential to be a rich and complex game. The core books focused on putting together a balanced and easy to understand core mechanic. Choices have been reduced so that new players don't become overwhelmed. The system is elegant in how well it is balanced. So it works well for bringing in that new blood and for making the classes more or less equal in what they do. That said, the balance and lower learning curve have created their own problems.
After playing a few sessions of 4e with some friends, I found that all the classes feel exactly the same. It devolved to the point that everyone just described what they were doing with saying "I attack with *blank*" where blank just equals a whatever power they are using. Mechanically, there is no difference. A fighters exploit is impossible to differentiate from a Wizards spell except for the flavor text. Damage does not scale well with level, and at the higher levels (say late Paragon to Epic tier) everything has a TON of hitpoints. So battles turn into 20 round slug fests as noone has the hitting power to end the battle quickly. Since everyone is doing the same thing, after awhile noone bothered to say flavor text anymore and it basically turned into 5 guys saying they attack with their ability, rolled a d20, and then rolled Xd6 damage dice over and over and over again. No variation. No different effects. Nothing. That blurring of class lines really makes 4e boring to me. Not having many choices means that once you have mastered the rules that there is a frustrating lack of options for making your character unique. My Wizard is basically the same as any other wizard with a few different bonuses depending on my implement and different energy types depending on my spells. Ditto any of the classes. There isn't really a mechanical differentiation between the classes.
Another problem of 4e is that in order to reinvent the foundations of what D&D are, they had to murder or mutate many of the elements that were definitive of what D&D was. They rearranged the cosmos. Changed Demons to rogue elementals and devils all into rogue angels. In many ways it was like they made official someone's very heavily modified houserules as THE rules for the whole game. They took beloved settings and completely robbed them of what made them special. The Realms has become an unrecognizable freak that now relies on having Drizzt on the cover to sell itself. Greyhawk was finished off after years of no support for the games "core" setting. On and on it goes.
So whats the point of talking about all this. 4e is good at what it tried to do. For many people that makes it a great game. I think that is good for those players. For many others though, the changes amounted to the public death of a game they loved for decades. That is where the schism has arrisen. On the one side, there are the players who love the way 4e has fixed what they thought were unbearable problems with D&D. On the other, there are those who loved the roots of the game and felt betrayed by seeing all those elements trashed with no explanation better than "those elements sucked" from WotC. The PR as much as the rules change alienated those people because when they started to complain, they were told to shut up or ridiculed for not jumping on the fan boy band wagon. Instead of trying to reach out to the gaming community, they were told that if they didn't just love 4e no matter what that they could just go "insert expletive" themselves. The result is the most bitter rift between two sides of an edition war that I have ever seen in any previous iteration of the game. For a long time that meant that 4e folks could tell 3.5 folks that they could either take their medicine or not play the game, because there wasn't a good alternative. Then Paizo opted to go with PFRPG instead of 4e, and the 3.5 alternative was there and supported by a company with a track record of making good products under the Dragon and Dungeon Magazine publications (whose murder is another major point of anger for many of the core fan base).
So where does it go from here? I used to think that eventually both sides would come to be mutually tolerant and even supportive of the others views. However, it appears that the 4e folk still feel the need to trash 3.5, trash PFRPG, and constantly try to force the 3.5 people to drink of the awesomeness that is 4e. Further, the 3.5 folks still feel the need to trash 4e, trash every detail of the game that is different from D&D's roots through the first 3 editions, and constantly try to force the 4e folk to repent of their scandolous affair with the "insert degrading female oldest profession expletive" that is 4e and come back and join the PFRPG revolution against "the man" at WotC.
Personally, I just want the darn war to stop littering every messageboard I go to that relates to fantasy role playing games. Every single thread on the topic is either "4e is so awesome that I just can't understand why all you idiots can't see that if it had a male fallus that it would be Brobdingnagian in size" or "4e sucks so hard that operation vaccu-suck from Space Balls looks like a joke by comparison". Enough is enough. The pro 4e folks have 4e, so why can't they be happy about it and leave those who hate 4e and do like PFRPG alone? The pro 3.5 people have PFRPG, so why can't they be happy about it and leave those hate 3.5 and do like 4e alone?
No matter how much either side wishes it, both iterations of the game will exist. Neither side can force the other to play their game instead of the other game. The arguments are all personal, vicious, biased, and pointless on both sides. These are games. Play the one you like, have fun, and leave the other group alone. If you can't do that, then why play the games at all? Games are supposed to be fun, not like a war between zealots on either side of a relgious crusade.
Its time to move on. Good gaming to all!!!
|
If a group of those people say they feel abandoned, then they have been abandoned, there is no argument.If people really feel "abandoned", I think they we're under some pretty big illusions regarding their previous relationship with WotC. It's a company. They aim to please their prospective customers, from a business POV and, dare I say it, because they do care about RPGs, but they were never some nurturing parent that sheltered their millions of precious diceflingers all over the world or whatever. Cut it out with the hysterical drama already.
I do feel abandoned. It is not to you to decide what each person should feel. Each emotion in the dictionary can be applied to any situation we find ourselves in...The abandoned I feel towards WotC isnt the same Id feel if my friends left me at a concert say, and drove off leaving me with no way to go home...or the same abandonment Id feel if my family all cut me off from their loving support.
Just as I can feel anger for 4e supporters who keep sneaking into the 3.5/Pathfinder threads and trying to criticize what we are talking about and trying to dictate what our emotions should be....but thats not the same anger Id feel f my employer didnt pay me or someone punched me in the face...all emotons have dgrees of intensity. The degree doesnt change the emotion nor lessen its reality.
As Ive said before...I am a passionate person. I do not approach anything half heartedly...and Ive invested much dinero and mucho time and even mucho mucho 'heart'...in D&D...I do have every right to expect the game company to provide for my needs...if they choose not to, thats their right. The results of that are my right to feel abandoned and to take my gaming needs to another company who I feel does provide for my needs.
I wish you 4e folks would stay in your own corner and enjoy your game and stop telling folks that our view is wrong because you say so. You wont find me going and posting in a 4e 'support thread' saying youre wrong.
nuff said
I have heard from a more than a few people here that Wizards has abandoned their fans with 4e.
This entire question is very analogous to what Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) did with Star Wars Galaxies (SWG).
Note quite two years into they decided they wanted to get a bigger market share (of online gamers). So they completely redesigned the game, in search of a different demographic, and in the process they completely alienated a large segment of their existing customer base.
WOTC has done the same thing. They started down this path with the decision to cancel Dragon & Dungeon Magazines. Then continued with the manner in which they handled the release of 4E, including the abrupt announcement at Gen Con, termination of Living Greyhawk, etc.
My $$ and support will go to companies like Paizo (and others) that communicate with their customers and show some loyalty back to those that fork over hard earned money for their product.
For me, this has very little to do with comparisons of rulesets. It's more about respect for customers and considering EXISTING customers as part of the business model.
.. thoughtful post ...
QFT Brent. Pathfinder and 4e are both here to stay, and the sooner we let the anger go, the better off the entire community will be. Each one has its fans, and they should mutually respect each other. We all play pen and paper RPGs, let 4e and the various iterations of OGL goodness coexist. Insults and vitriol solve nothing.
|
|
I've come to think that 4e has some really strong selling points as a game. The entry learning curve is much less steep for new gamers. That is an important issue, because the core of the gaming community that cut its teeth on Gygax's brainchild are rapidly approaching middle age. The problem is that the MMORPG phenominon has overcome many of the obstacles of playing a pencil and paper RPG. To go the pencil and paper route, you need a group of friends to play with, you need an active imagination, and you have to be willing to do at least basic math constantly while playing. MMORPG's eliminate all that. You don't need friends, just a computer. You don't have to do math, the computer does it for you. You don't need an imagination, you have flashy graphics. So for many people inclined to play a fantasy RPG, games like WoW represent the easiest place to do that.
Now back to 4e. If the FRPG market can't find a way to start attracting new young players, eventually the genre will die with the glut of its core fan base when they reach old age. A big part of attracting new players is lowering the entry curve so they don't just set the book down right off the bat because it is hard to understand. Now that said, 4e has the potential to be a rich and complex game. The core books focused on putting together a balanced and easy to understand core mechanic. Choices have been reduced so that new players don't become overwhelmed. The system is elegant in how well it is balanced. So it works well for bringing in that new blood and for making the classes more or less equal in what they do. That said, the balance and lower learning curve have created their own problems.
After playing a few sessions of 4e with some friends, I found that all the classes feel exactly the same. It devolved to the point that everyone just described what they were doing with saying "I attack with *blank*" where blank just equals a whatever power they are using. Mechanically, there is no difference. A fighters exploit is...
well said Brent! I couldnt agree more.
|
After playing a few sessions of 4e with some friends, I found that all the classes feel exactly the same. It devolved to the point that everyone just described what they were doing with saying "I attack with *blank*" where blank just equals a whatever power they are using. Mechanically, there is no difference. A fighters exploit is impossible to differentiate from a Wizards spell except for the flavor text. Damage does not scale well with level, and at the higher levels (say late Paragon to Epic tier) everything has a TON of hitpoints. So battles turn into 20 round slug fests as noone has the hitting power to end the battle quickly. Since everyone is doing the same thing, after awhile noone bothered to say flavor text anymore and it basically turned into 5 guys saying they attack with their ability, rolled a d20, and then rolled Xd6 damage dice over and over and over again. No variation. No different effects. Nothing. That blurring of class lines really makes 4e boring to me. Not having many choices means that once you have mastered the rules that there is a frustrating lack of options for making your character unique. My Wizard is basically the same as any other wizard with a few different bonuses depending on my implement and different energy types depending on my spells. Ditto any of the classes. There isn't really a mechanical differentiation between the classes.
Another problem of 4e is that in order to reinvent the foundations of what D&D are, they had to murder or mutate many of the elements that were definitive of what D&D was. They rearranged the cosmos. Changed Demons to rogue elementals and devils all into rogue angels. In many ways it was like they made official someone's very heavily modified houserules as THE rules for the whole game. They took beloved settings and completely robbed them of what made them special. The Realms has become an unrecognizable freak that now relies on having Drizzt on the cover to sell itself. Greyhawk was finished off after years of no support for the games "core" setting. On and on it goes.
Well explained. This is consistent with what I've heard from those who've played 4e.
If a group of those people say they feel abandoned, then they have been abandoned, there is no argument.If people really feel "abandoned", I think they we're under some pretty big illusions regarding their previous relationship with WotC. It's a company. They aim to please their prospective customers, from a business POV and, dare I say it, because they do care about RPGs, but they were never some nurturing parent that sheltered their millions of precious diceflingers all over the world or whatever. Cut it out with the hysterical drama already.I do feel abandoned.
...
I wish you 4e folks would stay in your own corner and enjoy your game and stop telling folks that our view is wrong because you say so.
I prefer 3E to 4E, actually, and have always been open about that. I just find the hysteria (on *either* side) aggravating.
Being abandoned would mean that WotC actually set out to drive you away from D&D and especially from their own products. They would have had to make the conscience decision that they didn't care for you as a customer and a fan anymore. Obviously this is not the case: they made some conscious decisions about where they wanted to take D&D, and you decided you don't want to go along. If anyone's being abandoned here, it's WotC.
|
|
You guys still there ?
This debate is done, and will only find a resolution in sales figures.
(Of course, I know my side will win).
Seriously, it's not even funny anymore even for me.
Unless you want to start something really weird on the subject ?
/ THREADJACK !
Hmmm : let me try something : "I hate 4e because they disrupted the carefully laid background that was laid in 3e about my favourite race : dragonborn !"
I hate it how they nerfed MY choice race and dumbed it down so that even FR fans have a reason to use them !
WOTC : you dropped the ball on this. Death on 4e !
Your turn now.
I wish you 4e folks would stay in your own corner and enjoy your game and stop telling folks that our view is wrong because you say so. You wont find me going and posting in a 4e 'support thread' saying...
I bet you don't find many of the regulars here doing dive bombs of the 3.5 forums either. I suspect that what you really have is some self elected 'I'm a 4E commando' from WotC or Enworld doing drive by attacks but I doubt many of them otherwise hang out at Paizo's 4E forum.
The other group that appears to make pro 4E posts on the 3.5 forums are the prima donnas. Those guys that came along when they heard that 3PRG was going to fix 3.5. They show up argue for their favourite house rule and argue against their preconceived views of whats wrong with 3.5 and are horrified when everyone play testing 3PRPG does not agree with them. In a fit of pique they make some kind of post like 'You guys are dumb and not fixing what is clear to me is whats wrong with 3.5 so I'm off to play 4E nyah, nyah, nyah. Do you see these guys participating in the discussions on Paizo's 4E forum? I bet you don't.
In other words there is no point in telling the pro 4E 'posters' here to stay in their corner if they don't have anything positive to say - I think your preaching to the choir in this regards. Since I suspect that the 4E regulars here are basically staying in their corner if they don't have anything positive to say.
However if we want to go to a 3 strikes your out model I'm down with that. Post something trollish on the wrong forum and you get a warning. 2nd time you get a time out. 3rd time your banned from all Paizo forums. Its a tad extreme but I don't think it'd really bother most of the 4E regulars here. It might be a little more noticeable in the pathfinder forums.
|
|
Being abandoned would mean that WotC actually set out to drive you away from D&D and especially from their own products. They would have had to make the conscience decision that they didn't care for you as a customer and a fan anymore. Obviously this is not the case: they made some conscious decisions about where they wanted to take D&D, and you decided you don't want to go along. If anyone's being abandoned here, it's WotC.
Or it could mean that people feel they made a decision that changed the game against their tastes without consultation or sufficient justification, and then made fun of previous editions (and by extension, players/creators who like them). If it wasn't conscious, it was at the very least ignorant - and that is still abandonment.
A bunch of balanced arguments.
Well said! I have actually found a great number of 4th Edition supporters on these forums to be very civil. A few bad apples seem to spoil the whole bunch some times, but this isn't actually the case. I wanted to touch on something though, as I read your article:
I would like to hear what a 4th Edition supporter thinks about those questions. It just seems that more people would be happy if 4th Edition was called "Pathfinder RPG" and Pathfinder was called "4th Edition D&D". Everyone gets what they want, and no-one gets upset.
Maybe Paizo should swing a deal with Wizards once PRPG takes off? ;)
Well said! I have actually found a great number of 4th Edition supporters on these forums to be very civil. A few bad apples seem to spoil the whole bunch some times, but this isn't actually the case. I wanted to touch on something though, as I read your article:
If the people who are happy with 4th Edition are not bothered by the changes to many things, were you unhappy with previous editions? By extension, if you were unhappy with previous editions, does that mean you actually didn't like playing D&D but like RPGs? And if this last point is true, why do you need a "new" version of D&D - there could have been something great already out there, like True20, Rolemaster, Heroes, etc). I would like to hear what a 4th Edition supporter thinks about those questions. It just seems that more people would be happy if 4th Edition was called "Pathfinder RPG" and Pathfinder was called "4th Edition D&D". Everyone gets what they want, and no-one gets upset.
Maybe Paizo should swing a deal with Wizards once PRPG takes off? ;)
I am happy with many of the changes in 4E. I've played DnD for many years (15 of them) and was very happy when 2E switched to 3E. I saw the change as a positive, made for the betterment of the game. I'm also very happy with the switch from 3E to 4E, again as I see it as a betterment of the game.
Liking 4E and 3E is not an either-or proposition. But I can say that as good as 3E was, I think 4E is better. :)
That said, I think you may have your figures reversed re: the size of 4E's and Pathfinder's relative fanbases. But since neither of us really have any numbers, it's pointless to try and debate that point.
Cheers! :)
I bet you don't find many of the regulars here doing dive bombs of the 3.5 forums either. I suspect that what you really have is some self elected 'I'm a 4E commando' from WotC or Enworld doing drive by attacks but I doubt many of them otherwise hang out at Paizo's 4E forum.The other group that appears to make pro 4E posts on the 3.5 forums are the prima donnas. Those guys that came along when they heard that 3PRG was going to fix 3.5. They show up argue for their favourite house rule and argue against their preconceived views of whats wrong with 3.5 and are horrified when everyone play testing 3PRPG does not agree with them. In a fit of pique they make some kind of post like 'You guys are dumb and not fixing what is clear to me is whats wrong with 3.5 so I'm off to play 4E nyah, nyah, nyah. Do you see these guys participating in the discussions on Paizo's 4E forum? I bet you don't.
In other words there is no point in telling the pro 4E 'posters' here to stay in their corner if they don't have anything positive to say - I think your preaching to the choir in this regards. Since I suspect that the 4E regulars here are basically staying in their corner if they don't have anything positive to say.
However if we want to go to a 3 strikes your out model I'm down with that. Post something trollish on the wrong forum and you get a warning. 2nd time you get a time out. 3rd time your banned from all Paizo forums. Its a tad extreme but I don't think it'd really bother most of the 4E regulars here. It might be a little more noticeable in the pathfinder forums.
I certainly agree. For anyone who actually goes to the Pathfinder forums, are any of the trolls regulars on these boards?
I'd be willing to try a three strikes you're out policy, but I don't think Paizo wants to manage their boards that much, perhaps unfortunately (since ENWorld banned Edition War threads it has been a good bit more palatable I've found ...)
Cheers! :)
|
|
without consultation or sufficient justification
I honestly think this is more of a problem with some people thinking the fans hoenstly should have been consulted. WotC have market data, research data, anecdotyl data, playtest data, and the experiance of all their employees to draw upon, in addittion they own DnD outright, their legal ownship of the material is unquestionable.
As stated in my original post (which you edited out), I mentioned that this is how people FEEL they have been treated, and being a company with market-research, Wizards should have seen this coming.
So they either ignored it, or they missed the mark slightly on tastes.
Either way, the people who feel hurt have a right to.
I would also like to point out that Wizards is all grown up, they don't need people defending them, after all, it is just business.
"Just business" is the attitude that led to global warming.
|
|
So they either ignored it, or they missed the mark slightly on tastes.
Either way, the people who feel hurt have a right to.
Very clearly they do not care. They are foguring that players will migrate to the new edition like they always have. If we switched from 3.0 to 3.5, you can bet we'll bite down hard on the juicy bait laden hook of 4.0. I think they have missed the mark.
The largest single issue that has alienated the people I know who are sticking with 3.5 exclusively is the way the sacred cows of previous editions have been made into hamburger. Vancian magic, alignments, the traditional races and classes, changes in the armor types, rejection and cannibalization of the old settings, changes to languages, changes to cosmology and a host of other issues really make some folks melt down. I am annoyed by some of this but recognize this lets the design team create forma fresh slot and not worry about contraduicting ls canon and getting called out by the players, who quite often know the old source material better than some of the new team.
4.0 is a hyper simplified recruitment platform. In 3.5 you had to be to ride this ride. In 4.0 you only need to be this high to ride the ride. It's certainly a much easier system and I have had an easier time getting newbies to play and enjoy it. However, I see a chunk of folks migrating to PFRPG and other alternatives.
I am DMing PFRPG in CoCT and 4.0 for Keep on the Shadowfell and some converted Paizo stuff. Both are fun although Shadowfell is a bit... bland. Both are different. I wish 4.0 had been given to Lisa and her team to build. I can't help but think they would have given us something better than both. As it is, they have done a great job with PFRPG. I can't help wonder how much they would have rocked if they had the R&D budget Hasbro approved for WOTC.
|
|
Being abandoned would mean that WotC actually set out to drive you away from D&D and especially from their own products. They would have had to make the conscience decision that they didn't care for you as a customer and a fan anymore. Obviously this is not the case: they made some conscious decisions about where they wanted to take D&D, and you decided you don't want to go along. If anyone's being abandoned here, it's WotC.
No. This is where you are missing the mark. Communication is a two way street, but the burden of Understanding is always placed upon the one doing the speaking not the one doing the listening.
Any Company that is looking to produce something for a market base is the speaker to the purchasers listening. The burden of making sure their message was received in the manner they wanted it to be received was squarely on the shoulders of WotC...not on my nor anyone else 'purchasing back'. If WotC wanted to 'keep' this market share, they would have made sure they 'spun' things the correct way....
As an example, roll back the clock to when 3e was brought out...they did a better than 8 month marketing campaign in the pages of The Dragon (oh wait they cancelled that publication ....) gradually unveiling and providing interesting reasons why...and showcasing why it was better....getting feedback in letters as they went along...
Yes with 4e they did some of the same on their forums....but not near in the same manner....nor in the same broad reaching method.
WotC didnt even try to spin the changes....I dont believe they made a conscious decision...I believed they were so arrogant in their approach, they just assumed everyone would follow...and Ill bet that a few of their designers are now saying "oops".
As Ive said elsewhere, I am perfectly happy that created a game system designed to recruit new players to RPG's. I am also acceptable with the idea they are a corporation and need to make money.
But once again, it is my right to 'feel' anyway I want, and it is my right to choose to not line their coffers with gold. WotC made a conscious decision of the direction to take their business, and my view differs from theirs greatly.
I dont see 4e as D&D...sorry, I dont. To me a Pathfinder is D&D...for a rose by any other name is still a thorny bush.
|
|
WotC have market data, research data, anecdotyl data, playtest data, and the experiance of all their employees to draw upon, in addittion they own DnD outright, their legal ownship of the material is unquestionable.
They consulted
Did they namby pamby ask if everyone thought exception based design was a good idea and that they would still love and respect them in the morning after sleeping over?
No, but that's not consulting, that's pandering...
"They are throwing away tradition" vs "They are removing barriers to entry"
"They are just making money" vs " They wanted a new edition "
"They didn't have to make a new edition" vs "they have every right to do whatever the hell they want with their own property and product line"
If a business wants to not lose customers they do 'Cater to them'. Thats not called pandering...thats called marketing. With the sheer numbers of folks that are turning away from WotC...No matter whether they are selling lots of books NOW....Any business lost is bad for business...lost dollars are never desired....so with the number of folks turning away for greener pastures, Id say their 'pandering' as you put it....Their Marketing (as it should be called) was poor indeed.
The issues that you use show how little you truly understand...
"They are throwing away tradition" = "They Are Changing things that didnt need to be changed that made D&D, D&D" vs "They are removing barriers to entry" (?? there were barriers?) = "We want to ride on the tradition of the name...but not the tradition of the game" (I put forth...WHY DIDNT THEY JUST CREATE A NEW GAME? AND NOT CALL IT D&D?!)
"They are just making money" (noone really begrudges them making money....sheesh) = "Their Marketing Department made some really boneheaded mistakes" vs " They wanted a new edition " = "They're arrogance really showed with how they did this"
"They didn't have to make a new edition" (once again...noone cared if the created A NEW EDITION...) = "This isnt D&D" vs "they have every right to do whatever the hell they want with their own property and product line" (and here we show your arrogance equals theirs...) = "We know you'll buy it...." (sorry charlie...only the best tuna's work for starkist....)
Logos, you really need to try to read what we are saying...before commenting. Because you really have no clue what the issues really are.
|
|
I have to agree a bit with Dread and Tadkil:
Wotc's marketing of 4e has been subpar, and thats part of the problem.
They assumed and went and thought we'd follow, not thinking about tradition at all. The bungling of the termination of Dungeon and Dragon magzines brought out real ire in the fans, and I dont think they were expecting as much hate on it as it brought down.
And the "we have something super cool coming to replace it in the future" really didnt help. They should have had something right THEN to replace it.
Public relations just kept going down hill after that with a segment of the fans. The needless chainsaw to all of D&D's past becuase "its stupid symetry" or whatever silly reason they gave out didnt help anything.