By the way, a post over on ENWorld reminded me that, in the vein of offering meaningful concessions with the olive branch, WotC has recently begun to open up their sponsored play areas at cons (DDXP, for one) to all editions of D&D, not just 4e. Not a huge deal, I know, but it's something.Finally, something good in this thread! Every little bit helps.
-The Gneech
That does mean something actually. It does indeed help a bit.
Any examples of 3e ad campaigns? 3e was what brought me back into the fold from years and years of unrepentant White Wolf, and I recall White Wolf's occasional anti-D&D comments/ribbing of a questionable nature("If you can't handle this, go back to killing orcs"). Did 3e ad campaigns malign 2e at all?
As I recalled there was slight made vs THAC0 and racial level limits...but it was more tasteful and it also shown exactly how 3rd ed went to improve them. So we knew what we were getting.
3rd ed marketing campaign was alot more open. 4th ed was alot more closed if you asked me. Which probably had alot to do with the shaping of the marketing stragety.
3rd ed was more positive because they could talk about what was coming.
on the other hand
4th ed was close so all they really could was talk about the negative of 3.5
As I said if either of the two teams did not know there was going be backslash...then they are stupid. It seemed to me like the 3rd ed marketing campaign seemed willing to let the pro-2nd ed people start mud slinging first...while 4th ed seemed to want to go on the attack more and preemptively.
I don't know...for sure but that is how I am remembering it.
Did the marketing team changed between the two editions?
Every time someone puts "PR" in a post, I read it as "Psychic Robot" and none of those posts make any sense. Carry on.
It could be worse you could be reading it as Putin's Reichsgard.
Even if it was satire, it could have been meant in an offensive way nonetheless. Now I'dont think that it was meant as an insult but I can understand why it could come across as such.I can see why certain people would get offended by it, but I don't think that the marketing is to blame for the offense. At best, it was a catalyst. At worst, a scapegoat.
Roleplayers are often much more invested in their hobby as most other people. And in the heated atmosphere at this time I think it wasn't the smartest move to make fun of the situation (especially in a way which could be and in fact was misunderstood).Clearly, it was not the smartest move to make, but D&D has never been known for having stellar PR. But it's telling that you didn't see anyone's opinion of WotC improve after it was pointed out to them that the ad wasn't meant in anything resembling an insulting way.
Among the mistakes that WotC made was overestimating the level-headedness of the gaming community.
Saying that the "poop on the troll" ad wasn't meant as an insult was done in the same breath as saying that canceling the sale of PDFs from previous editions that they were no longer publishing was being done to "prevent piracy."
Fans then had the choice to believe that both statements were true and WotC could do no wrong, believe that one statement was true but the other was a lie (this schizophrenia explained as the difference between WotC and corporate Hasbro), or to believe that both statements were disrespectful lies.
My personal take is that the business with the PDFs was a corporate-speak lie while the "poop on the troll" ad was a bit of nasty humor that was taken far worse than expected because too many people with decision-making power had drunk the Kool-aid.
Any examples of 3e ad campaigns? 3e was what brought me back into the fold from years and years of unrepentant White Wolf, and I recall White Wolf's occasional anti-D&D comments/ribbing of a questionable nature("If you can't handle this, go back to killing orcs"). Did 3e ad campaigns malign 2e at all?
I do remember reading a lot of previews in Dragon, which really got me amped for the new mechanics (and the new art). Also, WotC was still a shining knight in most gamers eyes at that point, having swept in and saved D&D from bankrupcy and obscurity at the not-so-graceful hands of She Who Must Not Be Named. It seemed like people who loved D&D were back in control, like the old Gygax days, and there seemed to be a lot of positive energy coming out of the WotC crowd.
One resource that the folks at WotC really should have looked at was Dragon and Dungeon. If they just could have kept it in dead tree form for another year or two they could have harnassed one of the biggest nostalgia draws of the older gaming generation and used it to pimp their edition like they did in 2000. Plus, I think they really threw away a lot of resources by dumping Paizo as a publishing partner and trying to cram the OGL genie back in the bottle. They in effect created their own biggest competitor. They could have been allies. Ah well, lessons learned.
Pooping on a troll was meant as an insult ... to trolls. Of course it is not then surprising that trolls felt insulted.
|
Pooping on a troll was meant as an insult ... to trolls. Of course it is not then surprising that trolls felt insulted.
The thing is that apparently there were also people feeling insulted which didn't qualify as trolls. There was much namecalling on both sides of the fence and if you dared to criticize anything about WotC and/or the 4E you could be sure to be called a troll or worse.
So at this time, the term "troll" was used by quite some "fans" of the 4E as a synonym for "people who don't like 4E no matter the reason and dare to say so". The criticism commented on in the video didn't qualify as "troll poop" per se ( I mean, if you loved gnomes as I do, it was kind of a bummer that they didn't got included in PHB 1, but stating this fact isn't trolling) so the lines between "trolls" and "non-trolls" were kinda blurred. And as we don't talk about the start of the marketing (which means, that WotC marketing had already made some mistakes before) it was easy to get the wrong idea about what they're saying.
The thing is that apparently there were also people feeling insulted which didn't qualify as trolls. There was much namecalling on both sides of the fence and if you dared to criticize anything about WotC and/or the 4E you could be sure to be called a troll or worse.
Similarly, those who defended the design choices behind 4e were given their own array of derisive labels - which, of course, is what led to the other caricature seen in the cartoon.
The thing is that apparently there were also people feeling insulted which didn't qualify as trolls. There was much namecalling on both sides of the fence and if you dared to criticize anything about WotC and/or the 4E you could be sure to be called a troll or worse.Similarly, those who defended the design choices behind 4e were given their own array of derisive labels - which, of course, is what led to the other caricature seen in the cartoon.
Did 4th ed posters het called kobolds?
|
There was one ad in Dungeon mag – I’m not sure if it was in the lead up to 3rd edition or if it was some Greyhawk re-release or something for 2nd edition ... anyway, it had this adventurer standing there, looking like he had stepped straight out of ‘Keep on the Borderlands’ or something and the caption read ‘What the Hell is a Baatezu?’
Despite being a big fan of Planescape, I really liked that ad, I thought it was very effective. It definitely sold the whole ‘back to old school’ vibe, there was a subtle dig at something from the current edition, but it was something that a large portion of gamers had an issue with anyway (at least with how the whole Baatezu/Tanari thing came about), it was simple, it was funny, didn’t insult anyone. It said to me, ‘we know what we HAVE done well in the past and we’re going to focus on giving you more of that’.
Pooping on a troll was meant as an insult ... to trolls. Of course it is not then surprising that trolls felt insulted.The thing is that apparently there were also people feeling insulted which didn't qualify as trolls. There was much namecalling on both sides of the fence and if you dared to criticize anything about WotC and/or the 4E you could be sure to be called a troll or worse.
"OMG wake up ppl this is just another excuse for more money"
"so why is it suddenly so damn OVERSIMPLIFIE...""and did I read right? REQUIRES MINIS OMG U CANT BE SERIOUS"
"all I wa ntto konw is WHERES TEH GNOME????? OMG WTF FFS"
Well I guess is that the kind of arguments people make, then they should feel insulted by being pooped on. On the other hand, they should probably just come to terms with their trollness.
Did 4th ed posters het called kobolds?The thing is that apparently there were also people feeling insulted which didn't qualify as trolls. There was much namecalling on both sides of the fence and if you dared to criticize anything about WotC and/or the 4E you could be sure to be called a troll or worse.Similarly, those who defended the design choices behind 4e were given their own array of derisive labels - which, of course, is what led to the other caricature seen in the cartoon.
No, but unfortunately there isn't a visually explicit way of showing "simpering unthinking minion" like there is for trolls. So they used kobolds, and rather than using their appearance, their behavior and demeanor illustrate the caricature.
But you knew that.
Pooping on a troll was meant as an insult ... to trolls. Of course it is not then surprising that trolls felt insulted.The thing is that apparently there were also people feeling insulted which didn't qualify as trolls. There was much namecalling on both sides of the fence and if you dared to criticize anything about WotC and/or the 4E you could be sure to be called a troll or worse."OMG wake up ppl this is just another excuse for more money"
"so why is it suddenly so damn OVERSIMPLIFIE..."
"and did I read right? REQUIRES MINIS OMG U CANT BE SERIOUS"
"all I wa ntto konw is WHERES TEH GNOME????? OMG WTF FFS"Well I guess is that the kind of arguments people make, then they should feel insulted by being pooped on. On the other hand, they should probably just come to terms with their trollness.
And before anyone says that "discussion" like the above examples didn't happen, it totally did.
|
|
And before anyone says that "discussion" like the above examples didn't happen, it totally did.Pooping on a troll was meant as an insult ... to trolls. Of course it is not then surprising that trolls felt insulted.The thing is that apparently there were also people feeling insulted which didn't qualify as trolls. There was much namecalling on both sides of the fence and if you dared to criticize anything about WotC and/or the 4E you could be sure to be called a troll or worse."OMG wake up ppl this is just another excuse for more money"
"so why is it suddenly so damn OVERSIMPLIFIE..."
"and did I read right? REQUIRES MINIS OMG U CANT BE SERIOUS"
"all I wa ntto konw is WHERES TEH GNOME????? OMG WTF FFS"Well I guess is that the kind of arguments people make, then they should feel insulted by being pooped on. On the other hand, they should probably just come to terms with their trollness.
Ha! I remember those ...
Of course those sort of posts happened. I’m pretty sure every edition and every web site has its share of trolls. Of course, people could and did (at least around here) make similar points / complaints (and they did go a lot further than these few humorous examples of course) with far less hyperbole, fewer acronyms and less use of the exclamation point.
I think a lot of people with generally reasonable and well presented concerns (or simply caution) feel they were tarred with the same brush as the obvious trolls.
I actually don’t believe in the old adage that ‘the customer is always right’ (because often they’re clearly not), but mocking a customer’s complaints or concerns, whether to be funny or malicious is rarely a good idea. To be clear, I don’t feel I was mocked, but it was clear that the things I personally didn’t like about what I had heard of the new edition were not of a concern to wotc / Hasbro. These advertisements demonstrated that ‘we are not listening to either the naysayers or the fans. Decisions have been made, this is the way it is going to be, everyone can deal with it.’ (I am not suggesting that the above message was the purpose of the advertising, but it is a message that came through nevertheless).
A lot of people will be fine with that sort of message (and if it worked for wotc, good for them!). A lot of people won’t. Personally it didn’t bother me, as I had already decided I wouldn’t be playing 4e (at least in the immediate future), anything beyond that point was just noise.
@Scott Betts: Just checking I left it after it got pretty clear WotC did really care about customers like me( not that they have too...) just seeing if I misses something.
I know there were poster acting irrational on both sides of the debate. And well the anonymity of the internet only adds to the general rudeness and flaming. I remember it was very emotional at the time...
Really dumb move by the WotC to fan the flames with ads like the ones they put out. But hey we all make mistakes.
We will see if WotC has learned from the past with what they do with 5th ed.
The fact that they are making a 5th edition says they havnt. They meant to make a nice product, but they also stoped making the 3.5 right when we were still collecting it, and wouldnt reprint that wich we still didnt have. They put a lot of people out of buisness because they virtually stopped the 3.5 gaming for a year or so. They tried to stop the open game licence after it was going for a while. They marketed 4.0 for the new generation and not us. They took down a bunch of the 3.5 things they had up so we couldnt use them anymore. They bacically snubbed all their old clientelle. And then people say its easy to bash with anonymity. Well, my name and email address are on my profile :)
They meant to make a nice product, but they also stoped making the 3.5 right when we were still collecting it, and wouldnt reprint that wich we still didnt have.
Who is "we", is that the royal "we"? The fact is that the later items were not selling at nearly the rate of the earlier items. Which is understandable.
They put a lot of people out of buisness because they virtually stopped the 3.5 gaming for a year or so.
Sorry, but that is a humorous complaint considering most people complained they continued to put out stuff even though they were not planning on supporting the system. Nothing stopped those other companies from continuing to put out things. If we only had some proof that would have worked, oh I don't know if Paizo had done that.
They tried to stop the open game licence after it was going for a while.
Nope, the OGL is irrevocable. They never made an attempt to pull it back because it wouldn't have worked. Now they did shut down the d20 license, and that may be what you are confusing here.
They marketed 4.0 for the new generation and not us.
Again, "us"? You got a gnome in your pocket? In fact 4e was marketed at least as much as the busy professional and those whose gaming group had moved to various parts of the country. That second group hasn't gotten their virtual game table yet as far as I know unfortunately. Still from what I have heard 4e DMs can prep a lot faster, so that is certainly a benefit for DMs with professions.
They took down a bunch of the 3.5 things they had up so we couldnt use them anymore.
A lot of their 3.5 content can be found here, maybe you get what you've been looking for.
A lot of people will be fine with that sort of message (and if it worked for wotc, good for them!).
Some folk--or at least myself--are fine with that sort of message only if it works out. That is to say, I'm fine with what appears to be unwarranted hubris and attitude if I'm proven wrong by being utterly blown away by how fantabulous something actually is.
To put it in an example that everyone has probably seen, remember judge Simon Cowell's expression when frumpy looking Susan Boyle came out, acting utterly sure of herself and her vocal talent? Remember when she proved it and the look of shock on his face?
If 4e had been fantabulous, or even as good as any of the previous editions, I might have forgiven it. Instead, well, the troll's criticisms were proven right. In order:
1. "OMG wake up ppl this is just another excuse for more money"
Yes. I wanted to play a wizard. There were no familiars in the main book in the fancy box set I'd paid for, not enough spells, and the additional content was on a website I'd have to pay a monthly subscription for even though, due to life, there might be months when I did not play.
2. "so why is it suddenly so damn OVERSIMPLIFIE..."
Yes again. Oversimplified. I was a precocious kid who was reading Middle English in seventh grade (though admittedly this was partially a conscious decision to be an enfant terrible and partially because it let me read things like "By verray force he rafte hir maydenhed" from my fully illustrated "Wife of Bath" coloring book and get away with it in class) and when I got my DMG, I adored Gygax's voluminous lists of dungeon dressing and medieval bric-a-brac, the random harlot table and so forth, and I happily looked up every word that I didn't already know.
I will also admit that 3.0 and 3.5 were too simplified for my tastes, if still basically serviceable, but 4e was just insulting. What grade level was this written at? Who was the intended audience? Whatever it was, it sure as hell wasn't me.
And beyond the prose, the rules.... Urk....
3. "and did I read right? REQUIRES MINIS OMG U CANT BE SERIOUS"
Yes again. If I wanted to play Warhammer and buy huge armies of miniatures, I'd play Warhammer and buy huge armies of miniatures.
But I don't so I won't. Ditto 4e.
4. "all I wa ntto konw is WHERES TEH GNOME????? OMG WTF FFS"
Again, yes. I like having my own homebrew worlds, and I like them basically Tolkienesque and gnomes work for that. I'd prefer Tieflings off in other stranger worlds like Planescape, and I'm not overly enthused about dragonborn either. I'd far prefer if the hornytoad folk were in an optional furry-themed book with cat girls, wolf dudes, and Reepicheep-esque swashbuckling anthropomorphic mice.
This is not to say that there aren't some things I like in 4e, but there's no idea that I can't port into a system I like better, and none of it makes up for being told that on Christmas morning you're going to get the bestest most wonderful present ever and then finding out you got one of the rocks left over from Charlie Brown's Halloween instead.
I find it a bit strange that someone complains about miniatures after 2 of the 4 reviews they made were about miniature accessories. Also I love how the implication that someone who doesn't want to play a human, dwarf, (half-)elf, half-orc, gnome, or halfling must therefore want to play a furry. Talk about not being insulting or anything. LOL.
Not even this warlock can cheer that dude up. Scott?
Not even this warlock can cheer that dude up. Scott?
Like rats from a sinking ship...
WotC needs to act, and soon. The scent of 5E in the water, whether it's true or not, is having a significant effect on things.
I find it a bit strange that someone complains about miniatures after 2 of the 4 reviews they made were about miniature accessories. Also I love how the implication that someone who doesn't want to play a human, dwarf, (half-)elf, half-orc, gnome, or halfling must therefore want to play a furry. Talk about not being insulting or anything. LOL.
I have to admit that I like maps. They're good for setting a scene, though I generally just use dice for the monsters. I also want them to remain "accessories" as opposed to "necessities."
As for redlining humans, dwarves, elves, half-elves, half-orcs, gnomes and halflings, what else does that leave but various varieties of furries and Satanic goat people?
Yes, I fully realize there's a schism in furry fandom as to whether "scalies" count as furries or as some other thing. I'm certain that the anthropomorphic crocodiles and hippos in Fantasia provokes great consternation to those furry fans who demand that their furries have fur, but also love all things Disney.
I count the hornytoad folk--ahem, "dragonborn"--as a type of furry, for ease of categorization if nothing else. The same way, I also class Toad of Toad Hall as a furry, as he's an anthropomorphic animal from children's literature, even though he is obviously an amphibian and has no fur whereas Rat, Mole, Badger, and all the weasels obviously do.
As for redlining humans, dwarves, elves, half-elves, half-orcs, gnomes and halflings, what else does that leave but various varieties of furries and Satanic goat people?
Various goblinoids races for example? I even heard that PF made a lot of people want to play goblins based on their wacky description. LOL.
As for redlining humans, dwarves, elves, half-elves, half-orcs, gnomes and halflings, what else does that leave but various varieties of furries and Satanic goat people?Various goblinoids races for example? I even heard that PF made a lot of people want to play goblins based on their wacky description. LOL.
Point.
Not even this warlock can cheer that dude up. Scott?
The guy's obviously irrational, and blaming WOTC for all his problems. WOTC doesn't owe anybody jobs, or anything for that matter. It's an unfair characterization. I wish everybody would quit beating up on WOTC irrationally.
THOSE JERKS!!!|
|
A lot of people will be fine with that sort of message (and if it worked for wotc, good for them!).Some folk--or at least myself--are fine with that sort of message only if it works out. That is to say, I'm fine with what appears to be unwarranted hubris and attitude if I'm proven wrong by being utterly blown away by how fantabulous something actually is.
You're preaching to the converted my friend. I'm just trying my best to see all these points from both sides, and not making assumptions when it comes to motivations and reactions.
Note that I think wotc is entitled to take any approach they like to advertising and game design. Obviously though they need to be prepared to reap what they sow. I don't have to agree with or like that approach, but I'm not going to get insulted by it.
|
|
Similarly, those who defended the design choices behind 4e were given their own array of derisive labels - which, of course, is what led to the other caricature seen in the cartoon.
Sure. I 've found myself often enough in your position (to defend 4E against unfair criticism) to know that this is true (which is especially funny as I don't even like 4E).
But the point I was trying to make is, that (apart from the first one) you could voice the criticism given in the video in a constructive way. Didn't matter though because you were called a troll for the criticism, not for the way you voiced it.
I don't think that WotC did this, but as they didn't exactly care to adress constructive criticism and instead produced this video, they got caught in the same corner as the trolls on their side.
They marketed 4.0 for the new generation and not us.
I don't know who you mean by "us", here (and I'm not sure you do, either), but I can tell you for a fact that they marketed 4e to both the new player and the established player. It might be helpful for you to believe that existing D&D players were ignored by WotC's marketing, but that is simply not the case.
Not even this warlock can cheer that dude up. Scott?
Like rats from a sinking ship...
WotC needs to act, and soon. The scent of 5E in the water, whether it's true or not, is having a significant effect on things.
I really wouldn't call this anything close to a "significant effect". A 3pp is lamenting the fact that it and other 3pps are having a tough time getting their 3pp 4e products to sell, and asking WotC to help them out. The reality is, of course, that there's a reason many 3pps aren't selling boatloads of product - most 3pps are not producing material of sufficient caliber to draw consumer dollars away from WotC 4e products and to 3pp 4e products. There are some that are doing just fine, and that's commendable, but WotC giving free publicity to 3pps isn't going to change the fact that these products can't sell themselves on their own merits.
As Matt James (himself a 4e 3pp who just released a product to glowing reviews) tweeted a few hours ago, "I'm reading an open letter to WotC that sounds more like a kid whining. #meh #dnd"
4e fans are, by and large, getting everything they need from a crunch standpoint from WotC via official releases. 3pp fluff materials tend to sell poorly as standalone products, and adventures are hard to get right (but can help you craft your own product line when done well). And, really, when there are so many solid opportunities to break into adventure writing for one of the big dogs of the industry (writing for Dungeon, or writing for Pathfinder Society/Superstar), it doesn't really make sense to expect that anyone unable to break into the industry through one of those avenues would suddenly be able to write worthwhile material on their own.
Not even this warlock can cheer that dude up. Scott?
Like rats from a sinking ship...
WotC needs to act, and soon. The scent of 5E in the water, whether it's true or not, is having a significant effect on things.
I really wouldn't call this anything close to a "significant effect". A 3pp is lamenting the fact that it and other 3pps are having a tough time getting their 3pp 4e products to sell, and asking WotC to help them out. The reality is, of course, that there's a reason many 3pps aren't selling boatloads of product - most 3pps are not producing material of sufficient caliber to draw consumer dollars away from WotC 4e products and to 3pp 4e products. There are some that are doing just fine, and that's commendable, but WotC giving free publicity to 3pps isn't going to change the fact that these products can't sell themselves on their own merits.
As Matt James (himself a 4e 3pp who just released a product to glowing reviews) tweeted a few hours ago, "I'm reading an open letter to WotC that sounds more like a kid whining. #meh #dnd"
4e fans are, by and large, getting everything they need from a crunch standpoint from WotC via official releases. 3pp fluff materials tend to sell poorly as standalone products, and adventures are hard to get right (but can help you craft your own product line when done well). And, really, when there are so many solid opportunities to break into adventure writing for one of the big dogs of the industry (writing for Dungeon, or writing for Pathfinder Society/Superstar), it doesn't really make sense to expect that anyone unable to break into the industry through one of those avenues would suddenly be able to write worthwhile material on their own.
What about WotC's own 4e sales being so far down?
Like it or not you are going to have to acknowledge that the rumors/hints of 5e that began circulating after the Essentials thing and mass canceling of slated production are having an effect on sales of WotC and 4e 3pps, and WotC's silence on the matter isn't helping at all.
Their customer base is now savvy, and at the first hint of a Fifth Edition they'll sit back and wait rather than buy product for a system that might possibly have all support yanked from it soon.
What about WotC's own 4e sales being so far down?
I don't know, what about it? Do you have some sales data that the rest of us don't have access to? I haven't seen anything that implies that 4e sales are "so far down". The only thing I have seen is that interviews with certain hobby retailer channels indicate that Pathfinder and 4e seem to be selling comparably well in hobby shops.
Like it or not you are going to have to acknowledge that the rumors/hints of 5e that began circulating after the Essentials thing and mass canceling of slated production are having an effect on sales of WotC and 4e 3pps, and WotC's silence on the matter isn't helping at all.
No, I'm not going to acknowledge that. I haven't met anyone or even heard of anyone who is actually saying "Huh, I was going to buy Heroes of Shadow but now that internet people who don't play 4e are circulating rumors that 5e might come out any time between tomorrow and a decade from now, I've decided not to."
Have you?
As for anything having an effect on 4e 3pps, it's not like sub-par products would suddenly be selling well even if everyone had a positive opinion of 4e and its sales.
Heeeeeere's Mikey, with part 3 of L&L.
This is perhaps the strongest indicator yet that an edition change is in the works, to my mind.
For what it's worth, I could play a Basic D&D, 1E, or 2E fighter and be perfectly happy with the lack of complexity. But I do like the idea that fighters get options that allow them to distinguish themselves from one another in combat and switch up tactics so every round isn't just "roll to hit, damage where applicable". Pathfinder has done a great job of this by introducing archetypes - easy-to-reskin variants of well-known character classes.
I don't think that non-complex rules and flavor variety are mutually exclusive, either. As an example, Basic D&D offered the variant whereby one could become a paladin, knight, or avenger upon reaching name level as a fighter, with distinct abilities accompanying those choices (though the ability to cast cleric spells muddied the concept of a pure combat-oriented character, admittedly). Unisystem's Buffy the Vampire Slayer game allows you to create characters with a wide variety of combat specializations by tweaking an easy-to-understand skill system but offering lots of combat maneuver options, to the point where some characters might be optimized for grapples and throws, while others prefer decapitations and strikes to vital organs.
In short: Give players a basic warrior class that is easy to run, but incorporate options into the build and the leveling process that make them feel like they're truly distinguished from other players running the same class.
Those anti-heroes.
I got to agree with Scott Betts here....even back in the OGL alot of the 3pp products were just terrible. And with 3.5 changes and 4th ed alot of them got angry at having to update their stuff....many of which did not have the money to do so. So alot of the competent ones started to do their own stuff...or in the case of Pazio just kept to the OGL stuff.
Personaly...I thought the OGL and the GNL(?) was a good idea on paper and helped WotC alot out in certain ways....but the RPG industry took a big hit in innovation and creativity...everything was d20...
Though I can understand why people might think WotC's 4th ed sales are down...as Pazio's is up. It is one way to interpert the sales figures....as in Pazio is taking some the 4th ed bussiness. Though a more positive way is that both attracting new people to the hobby.
Though this is pure speculation on my part it would suggest that I might have been right in that WotC should have kept producing 3.5...though every time I even suggested that over at the WotC boards I got called crazy...but if both Pathfinder and 4th ed are doing well...that they would be raking in the money.
Is it just me or was there two poll questions?
This seemed to be what the poll was about:
'Your fighter loses all his or her feats, skills, powers, and non-weapon proficiencies. Yet, your standard swing with a sword/shot with a bow is effective enough that you don’t feel overshadowed by any of the other characters in the group. How do you feel about that? '
With the answears corrsponding with it.
But the question above the polls was...
'How much player content would you feel comfortable reading and incorporating into your campaign each year? '
Which is a very different question and the answears make no sense with.
There seems to be some sot of error here...
They are definitely working on 5e at this point when they start asking questions like that. It's not a matter of if, but when, they formally announce it. Regardless of whether its sooner or later, the announcement is definitely coming.
I think he misses an important point while examining changes that have occurred over time. The number of individual steps for character creation can be misleading when you consider that character creation itself is just step one of the game. Further steps include actually playing, and periodically leveling up. By focusing the issue on one small part of the game, it can be easy to miss the relative complexity, or lack there of, of the other parts, and, significantly, who has to handle that complexity. I can say after playing 3 different variations of DnD, 2nd ed, 3.x, and a bit of 4E, that all of them have the same level of complexity in actual play. The differences come in when you break that down to different parts of play. Some systems are easier to level characters in than others; some are easier to start out in than others; some spread the burden equally between player and DM while others put the burden squarely on the DM; each works best in actual play when the people playing them apply very different expectations for each system.
I got to agree with Scott Betts here....even back in the OGL alot of the 3pp products were just terrible. And with 3.5 changes and 4th ed alot of them got angry at having to update their stuff....many of which did not have the money to do so. So alot of the competent ones started to do their own stuff...or in the case of Pazio just kept to the OGL stuff.
Personaly...I thought the OGL and the GNL(?) was a good idea on paper and helped WotC alot out in certain ways....but the RPG industry took a big hit in innovation and creativity...everything was d20...
Though I can understand why people might think WotC's 4th ed sales are down...as Pazio's is up. It is one way to interpert the sales figures....as in Pazio is taking some the 4th ed bussiness. Though a more positive way is that both attracting new people to the hobby.
Though this is pure speculation on my part it would suggest that I might have been right in that WotC should have kept producing 3.5...though every time I even suggested that over at the WotC boards I got called crazy...but if both Pathfinder and 4th ed are doing well...that they would be raking in the money.
I always felt 4th ed should have been a separate miniatures game myself.
Is it just me or was there two poll questions?
I think someone screwed up the editing and left the question from last week when they cut and pasted.
Interesting observation. When I go to second market stores such as Half Price Books, it's a rare occasion for me to find a Pathfinder resource there. 4e, on the other hand, its volumes are growing.
And certain 3.5 books, such as the Player's Handbook, are being marked up to be sold at the MSRP despite the fact it's being sold used at a half priced book store.
Another thing I've noticed -- with the closing of the two Borders stores here in my neck of the woods (Columbus, OH), the prices on hardcovers were slashed by 25% as of last Friday. 4e books are plenty, but one store had a Bestiary 2 and a GMG while the other did not have any on the shelves.
I'm sure someone will be able to explain this away with trends and math and [impactful] statistics with nary a hand wave, but I doubt that it's only my locality that reflects this.
When there is something new and released as 'open', it's almost always ripe for explosion and thus up to the consumer to dilute what's best for them through the glut that has been amassed in the market. PCs. Music genres. Reality shows. Sitcoms. Actors. Etc.
It's all about winning! Duh!
Though this is pure speculation on my part it would suggest that I might have been right in that WotC should have kept producing 3.5...though every time I even suggested that over at the WotC boards I got called crazy...but if both Pathfinder and 4th ed are doing well...that they would be raking in the money.
Crazy? More like, INSANE. I mean, it's NEVER worked to produce TWO versions of D&D at the same time, and it never WOULD HAVE worked.
I always felt 4th ed should have been a separate miniatures game myself.I got to agree with Scott Betts here....even back in the OGL alot of the 3pp products were just terrible. And with 3.5 changes and 4th ed alot of them got angry at having to update their stuff....many of which did not have the money to do so. So alot of the competent ones started to do their own stuff...or in the case of Pazio just kept to the OGL stuff.
Personaly...I thought the OGL and the GNL(?) was a good idea on paper and helped WotC alot out in certain ways....but the RPG industry took a big hit in innovation and creativity...everything was d20...
Though I can understand why people might think WotC's 4th ed sales are down...as Pazio's is up. It is one way to interpert the sales figures....as in Pazio is taking some the 4th ed bussiness. Though a more positive way is that both attracting new people to the hobby.
Though this is pure speculation on my part it would suggest that I might have been right in that WotC should have kept producing 3.5...though every time I even suggested that over at the WotC boards I got called crazy...but if both Pathfinder and 4th ed are doing well...that they would be raking in the money.
Well I always viewed it as more basic D&D...and 3.5 more advanced. And that could be the trend we are seeing. 4th ed might be attracting all the new players...but as players master it they look for something a little more indepth...a little more complex and 'graduate' to Pathfinder or even go back to old 3.5.
I know people will take issue with that...but even the designers said that alot of the elements to 3.5 that were removed for 4th ed was not because they were bad...or wrong...but too hard for new player to grasp...they wanted to bring the game back to the ground floor so people could get on. I personaly think they misjudge it badly...but that is only a opinion.
Anyway this all just good fun speculation.
Though this is pure speculation on my part it would suggest that I might have been right in that WotC should have kept producing 3.5...though every time I even suggested that over at the WotC boards I got called crazy...but if both Pathfinder and 4th ed are doing well...that they would be raking in the money.Crazy? More like, INSANE. I mean, it's NEVER worked to produce TWO versions of D&D at the same time, and it never WOULD HAVE worked.
I believe Paizo said that even if the GSL had been more desirable at the beginning, that Paizo would never have been interesting in producing versions of products for 4e and 3.5 (or ultimately their own in-house system). They would have picked one system and focus all of their resources on that.
Funny how Paizo is applauded for that as a good business sense and WotC is ..., well we know.