How was WotC burned "in several ways" by the OGL? As far as I can tell 3.X was wildly succesful. It revitalized a weakened brand and did amazingly well. As far as I can tell, WotC was burned by abandoning the OGL and basically telling 3PP: "We don't need you."
If 3PP had been brought on board from the beginning, Paizo and other 3PP may have helped build 4E by filling the gaps and niches that WotC couldn't be bothered with.
I don't know. It's pretty hard to argue with the idea that it was the OGL that ultimately allowed Paizo to become WotC's most significant direct competitor in the tabletop games market.
I mean, yeah, WotC chose to ditch the OGL, but the fact that it was there in the first place is really what ended up costing them in the end. It's never good business to lock yourself into a situation that you can't remove yourself from without serious consequences.
|
I don't know. It's pretty hard to argue with the idea that it was the OGL that ultimately allowed Paizo to become WotC's most significant direct competitor in the tabletop games market.
Wrong. The OGL has existed for 8 years and in that period no company that produced standalone games based on it got ever close to WotC (True20, Spycraft, M&M, old-school clones etc). From the business side, OGL was never a problem for WotC, until...
...it was a perfect storm of catastrophic business, marketing, communication, design and PR mistakes of WotC that contributed to a situation where Paizo became their biggest direct competitor. Sure, the OGL was a factor, and so was Paizo's uncanny timing and ability to sense the wind of change blowing, but still the biggest factor was WotC tripping over it's own legs.
I don't know. It's pretty hard to argue with the idea that it was the OGL that ultimately allowed Paizo to become WotC's most significant direct competitor in the tabletop games market.
Wrong. The OGL has existed for 8 years and in that period no company that produced standalone games based on it got ever close to WotC (True20, Spycraft, M&M, old-school clones etc). From the business side, OGL was never a problem for WotC, until...
...it was a perfect storm of catastrophic business, marketing, communication, design and PR mistakes of WotC that contributed to a situation where Paizo became their biggest direct competitor. Sure, the OGL was a factor, and so was Paizo's uncanny timing and ability to sense the wind of change blowing, but still the biggest factor was WotC tripping over it's own legs.
You can list all of the other factors that you like, but it doesn't change the fact that if WotC hadn't created and released the OGL license, Paizo would have had a much more difficult time becoming such a powerful direct competitor. In this respect, creating the OGL did ultimately end up biting them in the butt.
|
|
I know it's a recent trend *looks over at the Enworld* to say that the evil OGL did that, but frankly, if WotC handled the 3->4 move with just a slight more brains involved, we would be now discussing Pathfinder 4ed APs.
I'm pretty sure that if we asked Peter and Ryan back in 2000 about the possibility of a 3PP launching an OGL game that would be a direct competitor, both gentlemen would smile and say: "Dude. We factored that in. We have the brand name. We have the tradition. We have the market position. We have the community. What could possible have to happen for that to shake up?".
Alas, they were wrong.
|
The place to tell WotC why they've lost you as a customer would be in an email or letter to their customer service.
I'm not interested in communicating with their customer service and I seriously doubt that an email written that way would reach their destination.
A post to the forums ostensibly addressed to WotC is just a cry for attention, and is less likely to be seen by anyone who matters there than a well-worded email is.
A post to the forum invites other people to chime in with their opinion which is creating a lot more feedback as if I write them an email or a letter. And unluckily for them I hold them to the same standard Paizo has set on these boards which serve a vital function in the communication between officials and customers. If this isn't possible over at WotC then it's just another reason why they lost me as a customer.
But this is all theoretically spoken and not really important (especially, it's not on topic). The fact is, that with their decision against the OGL, they cut their connection to me as a player. Before, I made some expeditions in other system variants, but it was clear that D&D was the basis to which I could easily return everytime I wanted.
Without the OGL and 4E not being to my taste, D&D has become just another of the many rpg systems which I have no reasons to give a try when they eventually do a new edition. It's true that the OGL allowed Paizo to fill the niche, but the fact that it allowed Paizo to become a significant competitor shows how big this niche was. And those losses weren't the fault of the OGL
Wrong. The OGL has existed for 8 years and in that period no company that produced standalone games based on it got ever close to WotC (True20, Spycraft, M&M, old-school clones etc). From the business side, OGL was never a problem for WotC, until......it was a perfect storm of catastrophic business, marketing, communication, design and PR mistakes of WotC that contributed to a situation where Paizo became their biggest direct competitor. Sure, the OGL was a factor, and so was Paizo's uncanny timing and ability to sense the wind of change blowing, but still the biggest factor was WotC tripping over it's own legs.
Exactly. Sure, they hate the OGL because they can't take it back, no matter how hard they try. And the OGL did help.
Still, this could have gone more than one way: Had wotc not failed so badly as they did, they could have had Paizo as a supporter for their new game. And they could have had all the fans Paizo has as customers for their game.
Instead, they thought it would be a good idea to piss off supporters and fans.
The OGL contributed to the situation, but wotc's incompetence was a much bigger factor. (The biggest factor is Paizo's competence).
wizards did have a hand in creating their biggest competitor, but the OGL is only the tip of that iceberg.
wizards should look what Paizo is doing and learn.
Firstly, I don't understand why so many people are mad with WotC? Was there some sort of public announcement defaming 3e/v3.5 and putting 4E on the pedistal? I don't remember any such thing occuring to be honest. It's not as if WotC said "Hey, the previous products we've been creating for the past 8 or so years now all suck in comparions to 4E and you should go out now and buy it you drooling minions!!!"
Secondly, why are people taking the change to the game model so freakin' personally?! It's like they're invisioning corporate monsters at WotC's HQ singling out someone specifically and saying "Hahaha, puny mortal. Your favorite edition will now die and there's nothing you can do to stop us!!! Muhahaha!!!" Or send out personal letters stated why v3.5 was stupid, broken, and impossible to run and the only way to be "Kewl" was to buy 4E.
I'm pretty certain none of the above situations occured and people were just mad that the edition they were spending $100s of dollars on (myself included) wasn't going to be expaned on further. Plain and simple. But to be perfectly honest, I don't really see too many aspect of v3.5 that they could've expanded on that would garner more $$ in the long run. Another "Races" supplement or "Complete" book wouldn't have done much to boost sales IMO. And adding additional rules (like the Tome of Magic or Tome of Battle) just fuel animosity within the fan-base because some people feel this or that is "broken".
Not to excuse such treatment, but starting a topic on why you prefer game A over game B on game B's message boards is pretty clear baiting. Imagine if someone came here and posted a topic in one of the Pathfinder RPG subforums about how they prefer 4e over Pathfinder. Wouldn't that strike you as a pretty pointless topic, aside from encouraging people to lash out in response?I agree it does happen on this site but at the same time I see a topic calling C4 the best edition ever and little negative reaction.
I daresay that relatively few people give a damn about C4. People give a damn about WotC, 4e, Paizo, and Pathfinder. Alas, frequently far more of a damn than they ought to.
I know it's a recent trend *looks over at the Enworld* to say that the evil OGL did that, but frankly, if WotC handled the 3->4 move with just a slight more brains involved, we would be now discussing Pathfinder 4ed APs.
I'm not sure that's the case, and neither are you, I would hope.
Firstly, I don't understand why so many people are mad with WotC? Was there some sort of public announcement defaming 3e/v3.5 and putting 4E on the pedistal? I don't remember any such thing occuring to be honest. It's not as if WotC said "Hey, the previous products we've been creating for the past 8 or so years now all suck in comparions to 4E and you should go out now and buy it you drooling minions!!!"
No, but they did engage in marketing. Not to rehash old topics, but some people saw the marketing done for 4e and heard more or less exactly the quotation you used above instead of what was actually being said.
|
Not to excuse such treatment, but starting a topic on why you prefer game A over game B on game B's message boards is pretty clear baiting. Imagine if someone came here and posted a topic in one of the Pathfinder RPG subforums about how they prefer 4e over Pathfinder. Wouldn't that strike you as a pretty pointless topic, aside from encouraging people to lash out in response?
No. I may not have been clear, but I was talking to a person that enjoys 4e, PF and 3.5 AND prefers to play 3.5.
It is not like he will be going in as a troll, just a fellow player on the 4e "Gen Diss"* boards to create a discussion. He can be polite and articulate and not flame any things at all.
Yet he will get attacked for his choice of 3.5. Many will be just passing shots at him for his choice. Some will be nasty. But they will be there.
Not all that long ago a poster went on the 4e Gen Diss, and I believe he came here also, to talk about the differences between PF and 4e to decide which game he was going to play. I am not sure how the thread went here, as it was before I left those boards and came here, but there there were enough comments bashing the system produced by Paizo.
While here I have not seen the level of vitrol that exudes the whole set of boards of there.
*Those boards are so filled with hatred and poison I tend to find the only reason they get posted on is to "Generally Diss" others. I was one of those while there. I found I was not a nice poster while there. I gained many bad posting habits which I am trying to eradicate.
Firstly, I don't understand why so many people are mad with WotC? Was there some sort of public announcement defaming 3e/v3.5 and putting 4E on the pedistal?
Actually, there was.
I don't remember any such thing occuring to be honest. It's not as if WotC said "Hey, the previous products we've been creating for the past 8 or so years now all suck in comparions to 4E and you should go out now and buy it you drooling minions!!!"
There was an ad where they did nothing but badmouth the old editions. They didn't offer anything about 4e except that it fixes all the glaring problems with older editions (and their fans).
A lot of people didn't like that one.
And then there was this comic where they basically called the 3e fans trolls and symbolically crapped on their heads.
The comic shows a troll (the D&D critter, though the context leaves no doubt what definition of troll they were going for) sitting in front of a computer, mumbling about things like "too simplified" (basically all the complaints 3e fans had about the new game), and then a red dragon flies past and poops on his head.
The apologists will be hard on my heels, saying that they only insulted the trolls and that nobody has the right to be insulted by Our Coastal Overlords, of course, but he symbolism was quite clear. You can find both spots on youtube.
Secondly, why are people taking the change to the game model so freakin' personally?!
In part because roleplayers tend to really like their preferred game.
Mostly, though, because wotc did an outstanding job of screwing up the whole transition, apparently going out of their way to insult or annoy people (but that doesn't have to be malice, it could just as well have been crass incompetence). They did step on many toes and made (and still make) a good example of how not to do things.
|
The comic shows a troll (the D&D critter, though the context leaves no doubt what definition of troll they were going for) sitting in front of a computer, mumbling about things like "too simplified" (basically all the complaints 3e fans had about the new game), and then a red dragon flies past and poops on his head.
[...] You can find both spots on youtube.
I never saw that one, do you have a link?
And then there was this comic where they basically called the 3e fans trolls and symbolically crapped on their heads.The comic shows a troll (the D&D critter, though the context leaves no doubt what definition of troll they were going for) sitting in front of a computer, mumbling about things like "too simplified" (basically all the complaints 3e fans had about the new game), and then a red dragon flies past and poops on his head.
The apologists will be hard on my heels, saying that they only insulted the trolls and that nobody has the right to be insulted by Our Coastal Overlords, of course, but he symbolism was quite clear. You can find both spots on youtube.
In your description of you left out the MAJOR part of the video where 4e fans & apologists where depicted as sycophantic kobolds, the dragon even pooped out a kobold. The video was making fun of 3e fans and 4e fans as well as themselves it's just that the 3e trolls took way too much offense.
I do have to agree with you that WotC has made mistake after mistake after mistake in the roll out and management of 4e D&D.
And then there was this comic where they basically called the 3e fans trolls and symbolically crapped on their heads.The comic shows a troll (the D&D critter, though the context leaves no doubt what definition of troll they were going for) sitting in front of a computer, mumbling about things like "too simplified" (basically all the complaints 3e fans had about the new game), and then a red dragon flies past and poops on his head.
The apologists will be hard on my heels, saying that they only insulted the trolls and that nobody has the right to be insulted by Our Coastal Overlords, of course, but he symbolism was quite clear. You can find both spots on youtube.
In your description of you left out the MAJOR part of the video where 4e fans & apologists where depicted as sycophantic kobolds, the dragon even pooped out a kobold. The video was making fun of 3e fans and 4e fans as well as themselves it's just that the 3e trolls took way too much offense.
I do have to agree with you that WotC has made mistake after mistake after mistake in the roll out and management of 4e D&D.
The animation has a fair old number of layers, it is certainly possible to say that you think that the kobolds represent 4e fans, and it is in fairness all rather funny in a puerile sort of way.
However, whatever their intentions might have been, WotC with that Animation did throw petrol on the edition war, it was just one of a great many choices they made in that period that built up a really rather large amount of bad blood towards them.
The very fact that they either didn't realise that the cartoon would be taken that way, or that doing so, they went with it anyway, is just one of the examples of their unwillingness to play nice at that time.
Ok, I just watched the cartoon and I thought it was pretty hilarious, lol. Sure someone already upset with the discontinuation of the v3.5 line might take offense to the "Troll" complaining about 4E but the complaints are so off the wall (complaining about using minis? As if 3E didn't promote it strongly? *bah*) that it looks like whining than a legit concern.
I guess I just don't see all the mistakes WotC has made with the fan-base as some people do. I can agree that continuing the OGL for 4E might have been a good but we'll never really know.
I'd be interesting in hearing what some people consider mistakes WotC made with the release of 4E. I'm not tryint to open closed wounds or start another war, just trying to understand what was preceived as wrong as opposed to right.
Edit: SO I just watched the D&D 4E Teaser and I can sorta see why some people would get mad because they point out flaws of the previous editons. But those already invested in those editions already know about those flaws, like grappling in 3e for example. But still, even as I'm a fan of 3e I can easily understand and relate to those sorts of sessions of confusion about the rules. Hells, I've have yet ti play with someone who build Grapple-based character let alone do it without the recommended feats. It's too much of a hassle IMO.
|
|
Red Dragon interview link
Thanks for the link, I found it quite funny and a jab back at the edition wars, but yes as an official output of WotC I could see it may cause some offense to those who made similar complaints about 4e (too simplified, requires minis etc).
EDIT: For those interested the comments being made by the troll are:
OMG wake up ppl this is just another excuse for more moneygrab and I for one will not b...
so why is it suddenly so damn OVERSIMPLIFIED!
You can all stick 4th ed ri...and did I read you right? REQUIRES MINIS???
OMG U CANT B SEERIAS!!1 yoall I wa ntto konw is WHERES TEH GNOME?????!!12
OMG WTF FFS ASDISJHCHSDGJKL;asdf >:()
And yes the Kobolds are pretty much 4e fans as they shout "Yay 4th edition!" with the spokeskobold introducing himself as "the High Sycophant" :)
The animation has a fair old number of layers, it is certainly possible to say that you think that the kobolds represent 4e fans
I don't think this is a possibility so much as a fairly straightforward certainty. I'd be astounded if the writers did not intend for the kobolds to represent the other side of the edition wars.
The animation has a fair old number of layers, it is certainly possible to say that you think that the kobolds represent 4e fansI don't think this is a possibility so much as a fairly straightforward certainty. I'd be astounded if the writers did not intend for the kobolds to represent the other side of the edition wars.
But you'll I am sure agree that it is somewhat more subtle than the troll. There is no missing that one, where not every one comes to the same conclusion about the kobolds.
The treatment of the pro-4e kobolds is far more gentle, almost affectionate. A gentle ribbing for over-zealousness, rather than the 'come on every one play nice' of the sort that was badly needed.
It set up an atmosphere in which critism of 4e, for its varied issues became just got labled as trolling, even when it was by people who wanted to get on board with 4e, but who had issues with some of its elements. I know I felt that way.
It set up an atmosphere in which critism of 4e, for its varied issues became just got labled as trolling, even when it was by people who wanted to get on board with 4e, but who had issues with some of its elements. I know I felt that way.
Yet the criticism I saw was hardly constructive on the whole. It wasn't someone saying they didn't like a specific thing about 4E (like Magic Items in the PHB) but more or less straight out bashing with no attempts to make it better themselves or to point out how someone can use such-and-such rule better.
Instead we get complaints that all the classes are the same, a complaint I still struggle to understand. They hate how magic weapons work, for which I can agree to a point. Or they complain that there isn't any "role"playing, a comment that actually gets me angry and defensive.
On the flip side WotC, and supporters there of, did little to improve people's attitudes. They would lock whole threads that started in on the Pros/Cons of D&D editions or change people's responses that might have negative feedback about their product with little reason to do so. That I can see would make a lot of people mad, me included but I don't have very many problems with the system so I guess I'm special :).
Point is, people overreacted and WotC didn't try to calm anyone. That brews animosity from certain fans and negligence from the company.
It set up an atmosphere in which critism of 4e, for its varied issues became just got labled as trolling, even when it was by people who wanted to get on board with 4e, but who had issues with some of its elements. I know I felt that way.
Yet the criticism I saw was hardly constructive on the whole. It wasn't someone saying they didn't like a specific thing about 4E (like Magic Items in the PHB) but more or less straight out bashing with no attempts to make it better themselves or to point out how someone can use such-and-such rule better.
Instead we get complaints that all the classes are the same, a complaint I still struggle to understand. They hate how magic weapons work, for which I can agree to a point. Or they complain that there isn't any "role"playing, a comment that actually gets me angry and defensive.
On the flip side WotC, and supporters there of, did little to improve people's attitudes. They would lock whole threads that started in on the Pros/Cons of D&D editions or change people's responses that might have negative feedback about their product with little reason to do so. That I can see would make a lot of people mad, me included but I don't have very many problems with the system so I guess I'm special :).
Point is, people overreacted and WotC didn't try to calm anyone. That brews animosity from certain fans and negligence from the company.
I suggest you look more widely, there where hundreds of posts across numerous boards with explinations of what individuals disliked.
I dislike the disconnect between mechanics and fluff, and the abandonment of gygaxian naturalism that created monsters that as far as the system was concerned existed only in combat.
I dislike the piecemeal release of what had become core elements, such as the half orc and gnome, though i didn't mind the dragon-born or Eladrin, and actually quiet liked the tieflings inclusion, I would have preferred that the full compliment of races be included.
I disliked the over-simplification of the skill system and removal of craft and profession skills and many other skills. I would have preferred to have seen those skills more tightly tied into the game.
I disliked the idea of 'powers' for non-magical fighting, an issue that I understands essentials has dealt with.
I disliked the complete lack of sold setting material, even the implied setting was thin on the ground. It after all was not a universal system, it was claiming to be set in the DnD multi-verse but yet contained even less information on it that 3.0 had.
The alignment system changes where a step even further into absurdity for alignment, and the insistence that why would a player want to play evil anyway, made me laugh almost to the point of tears.
I'm not keen on the way it treats PCs and NPCs so very differently mechanically, it is jarring.
Most of all, I disliked that it substantially narrowed the range of games that I could play with with DnD.
I expressed all of these concepts at one point or another, and i saw many others do so. Does it mean I don't like DnD 4e? Hell no, the system is smooth, sweet, fast, fun and fluid. I would love to play more of it, but the improvements made really stop being worth much the second combat ends. The one improvement to the system that isn't about killing things and taking their stuff(ie skill challanges), can be readily stolen and used in pathfinder, and be used there without the substantial narrowing of focus.
Not all of those issues have the same weight, if I had felt it was possible to run more socially active, NPC driven games, i'd probably be using 4e to run Exalted for instance, if a few other things where sorted, i'd be playing DnD with the 4e rules.
|
|
WotC = evil
McDonald's = evil
Nike = evil
Dell = evil
.
.
.
I'm typing this on my Dell D400 while eating a Big Mac and wearing Nike shoes. Beside me I have a copy of Essential's Monster Vault as I think of the next part of a home brew 4e campaign I'm running. Weekend before last my players and I had a fun 7 hours playing the previous installment of my 4e campaign.
Why again do I give two-hoots about any of these companies? Each provide me with things I want and/or enjoy, that is where our relationship ends. When 5e comes out, or PF 2 for that matter, I'll make a judgement on it's merits and decide if I want to purchase. I don't remember WotC or Paizo sending heavies around to sell me their products.
If WotC said 3.5e wasn't the best idea, news flash Monte Cook said the same thing WAY before 4e came out, and he invented 3e.
S.
If WotC said 3.5e wasn't the best idea, news flash Monte Cook said the same thing WAY before 4e came out, and he invented 3e.
Except that a lot of people disagree, and when WotC tried to put the 3e genie back in it's bottle, it found that out quickly. This doesn't make 4e bad in any way, but I have always found it odd that between all the people at WotC and Hasbro, that no one was able to figure out just how attached people were to 3e and the principles behind it.
while eating a Big Mac
hi5
If WotC said 3.5e wasn't the best idea, news flash Monte Cook said the same thing WAY before 4e came out, and he invented 3e.
Did he not say this till after he got fired and was pissed off?
Did he not say this till after he got fired and was pissed off?If WotC said 3.5e wasn't the best idea, news flash Monte Cook said the same thing WAY before 4e came out, and he invented 3e.
Monte Cook was fired? His Wikipedia page says nothing of the sort, and it's tough to imagine him being fired. Laid off, perhaps, but that's happened to plenty of people who have worked for WotC over the years. Every one that I've heard from says that they're happy just to have had the chance to work on the game they love.
Monte Cook was fired? His Wikipedia page says nothing of the sort, and it's tough to imagine him being fired. Laid off, perhaps, but that's happened to plenty of people who have worked for WotC over the years. Every one that I've heard from says that they're happy just to have had the chance to work on the game they love.Did he not say this till after he got fired and was pissed off?If WotC said 3.5e wasn't the best idea, news flash Monte Cook said the same thing WAY before 4e came out, and he invented 3e.
Um...fired...laid off....there is usualy little difference between the two. Though both tend to...get people quite upset.
Also well yes that is what they would say...as it is very bad form to critize a previous employer if you want to work again in the smae field that is...
So really what you said in this post almost has no bearing on reality.
If WotC said 3.5e wasn't the best idea, news flash Monte Cook said the same thing WAY before 4e came out, and he invented 3e.
Actually what he said was 3.5 was too many revisions too early. He thought that either a mild revision that was simply errata should have come out at that time, or they should have waited until the system had matured and more of the weak spots discovered.
I was going to write more, but why don't you go read what he actually wrote. It really is a fascinating essay.
He may have disagreed with the timing of 3.5, but in the end he still says you should go out and get the books.
The main thing I miss from 3.0 was weapon sizing. It really was a much more elegant solution than the current 3.5/Pathfinder method.
Um...fired...laid off....there is usualy little difference between the two.
Actually, there's a huge difference. Being fired usually connotes a termination of employment due to personal failings - being unsuited for the job. Being laid off usually connotes a business decision leading to a termination of personnel, and this typically does not reflect poorly on the employee in question.
Also well yes that is what they would say...as it is very bad form to critize a previous employer if you want to work again in the smae field that is...
It certainly is, but there's a difference between praising the company and the people you used to work for/with and saying nothing at all.
So really what you said in this post almost has no bearing on reality.
I'm not so sure about that.
And then there was this comic where they basically called the 3e fans trolls and symbolically crapped on their heads.The comic shows a troll (the D&D critter, though the context leaves no doubt what definition of troll they were going for) sitting in front of a computer, mumbling about things like "too simplified" (basically all the complaints 3e fans had about the new game), and then a red dragon flies past and poops on his head.
The apologists will be hard on my heels, saying that they only insulted the trolls and that nobody has the right to be insulted by Our Coastal Overlords, of course, but he symbolism was quite clear. You can find both spots on youtube.
In your description of you left out the MAJOR part of the video where 4e fans & apologists where depicted as sycophantic kobolds, the dragon even pooped out a kobold. The video was making fun of 3e fans and 4e fans as well as themselves it's just that the 3e trolls took way too much offense.
I do have to agree with you that WotC has made mistake after mistake after mistake in the roll out and management of 4e D&D.
Since it has been the lore of kobolds for decades that they worship dragons and think of themselves as descended from dragons, I find it a fantastically unrealistic stretch to think that those kobolds were meant to be analogous to 4ed fans. They simply were there for the comedy of their well-known dragon worship.
No, it's clear that the only people being pooped on were people who disagreed with the changes.
Even if you were right, you can't compare being crapped on with a comedic spray of fire, which the kobolds gleefully survived, to go on to eat the interviewer and attack the viewer. Not to mention that is much preferable to be portrayed as a happy kobold on a mound of gold than a troll in a dark room who gets crapped on.
ince it has been the lore of kobolds for decades that they worship dragons and think of themselves as descended from dragons...
Kobolds do seem to often have links with Dragons in the sense that they are often used as lackeys by Dragons in official adventures (Keep on the Boarderland - where they have a Dragon Egg, Dragon Mountain where they are the followers of a Dragon) but until 3rd Kobolds where not themselves little Dragons. That's a third edition innovation (A good one IMO however).
Um...fired...laid off....there is usualy little difference between the two. Though both tend to...get people quite upset.Also well yes that is what they would say...as it is very bad form to critize a previous employer if you want to work again in the smae field that is...
So really what you said in this post almost has no bearing on reality.
In an attempt to head this one off at the pass...Monte Cook was neither laid off or fired, he chose to leave WotC to start his own company.
Instead we get complaints that all the classes are the same, a complaint I still struggle to understand.
It stems from the overly rigid structure of the classes. Everyone get a daily power at 1. An at-will power at 2, An encounter power at 3, etc. Also, same BAB (or whatever it's called now) for everyone and similar stats that are just raised no matter what you play.
They hate how magic weapons work, for which I can agree to a point.
It's about that Diablo effect, yes? Magic items with minimum level requirements and the like. Or how the number of rings you can wear depends on your level.
Or they complain that there isn't any "role"playing, a comment that actually gets me angry and defensive.
See, and being called a troll even when we offer complaints about what we see went wrong and being symbolically pooped on our head by the company we spend thousands of dollars on makes us angry and defensive.
Over-generalisations suck most of the time.
To the complaint itself: I can see where this is coming from: 4e isn't a simulation-style game like 3e. 3e tried to model a fantasy world and make as much sense as possible within the context. Pathfinder's the same: In most cases, the rules make sense and are consistent.
In 4e, the game rules are just that: Game rules. More like chess or ludo. You can only have one mark on you because that's the rule. No other explanation. Diagonals always count as 1 because that's the rule, even though it changes how fast you go depending on your direction. Doesn't make sense within the game world, but that doesn't matter, since the rules say so.
It's not the same as to say "roleplay is impossible" or "nobody uses it to roleplay", but the game doesn't put as much emphasis on portraying a consistent world as its predecessor or its biggest competition.
On the flip side WotC, and supporters there of, did little to improve people's attitudes. They would lock whole threads that started in on the Pros/Cons of D&D editions or change people's responses that might have negative feedback about their product with little reason to do so.
Also, the interpreting of people's posts in the worst possible way as an excuse to ban them. And there was that part where all the playtesters had to agree not to say anything negative about their playtest experience.
Point is, people overreacted and WotC didn't try to calm anyone. That brews animosity from certain fans and negligence from the company.
Point actually is, SOME people overreacted. Others didn't. They didn't like what happens to their game and did complain, which is not an overreaction.
And then wotc insulted everyone (intentionally or through incompetence, it doesn't really matter) and made things worse. Because a lot of people weren't angry before that stuff. Upset maybe. Then came the thinly-veiled (or completely unveiled) insults. That's when they became angry.
And to this day, wotc didn't comment on the whole disaster. No "we really could have done things differently, sorry for any ruffled feathers" or anything. The only thing we see is "Why don't we all get along, no matter what kind of D&D we play?"
It isn't really surprising that third party publishers aren't satisfied with wotc's conduct, either.
The one improvement to the system that isn't about killing things and taking their stuff(ie skill challanges), can be readily stolen and used in pathfinder, and be used there without the substantial narrowing of focus.
Actually, the way I saw the skill challenge system explained, it doesn't make sense at all.
And there's no need to steal anything. Extended rolls are hardly a stroke of genius on wizards' part, or something they invented for 4e. Other games had those for decades, and there were rules for 3e, too.
And a series of different rolls to succeed in something? That's not a "skill challenge", that's an "adventure". Adventures don't need to have obligatory combat sequences.
|
|
I find it a fantastically unrealistic stretch to think that those kobolds were meant to be analogous to 4ed fans.
"fantastically unrealistic stretch"? really? At one point they chant "Yay 4th edition!" that would to me at least portray the kobolds as fans of 4e, and from there I don't think its such a stretch to intrepret the kobold 4e fans as meaning to represent 4e fans in general.
And seriously, it maybe wasn't the wisest move of WotC, but yes I do believe the troll bit was aimed at the more troll-like irrational complainers as opposed to those who calmly and clearly outlined their issues with 4e (me amongst them - I really don't like the hit point yo-yo).
Still, I guess what doesn't upset me may well have more meaning for others and upset them, so I agree that it wasn't a clever move for WotC.
I guess its similar to how I got really pissed off at Paizo over the 3.5 Survives / 3.5 Thrives poster - I guess most Pathfinder fans wouldn't have thought twice about that poster but for me it was a marketing mistake by Paizo and one that felt like a kick in the teeth to me, adding insult to injury. Ditto for the "3.5 OGL Compatible" logo appearing on the Advanced Players Guide.
The one improvement to the system that isn't about killing things and taking their stuff(ie skill challanges), can be readily stolen and used in pathfinder, and be used there without the substantial narrowing of focus.Actually, the way I saw the skill challenge system explained, it doesn't make sense at all.
And there's no need to steal anything. Extended rolls are hardly a stroke of genius on wizards' part, or something they invented for 4e. Other games had those for decades, and there were rules for 3e, too.
And a series of different rolls to succeed in something? That's not a "skill challenge", that's an "adventure". Adventures don't need to have obligatory combat sequences.
True. I mean, I played White Wolf games for more than a decade, and have made more extended roles in that time than i care to count. The skill challange mechanics exactly as written where not great, but they could be worked into one the basis of a relatively interesting extended roll mechanic. Scott's conversion of the skinsaw murders has a relatively interesting example of how it can be used, for the investigation of the murders, and I have had some success with it, as a chase mechanic.
When i said that it was good, what i should have said was that it was better than anything I had seen going at the time for D20. The Gamesmastery guide has in many ways now provided better chase mechanics, which are better for contested challenges, but it is still an okay skeleton of a challenge system for pathfinder. That said, I would welcome something better.
Instead we get complaints that all the classes are the same, a complaint I still struggle to understand.It stems from the overly rigid structure of the classes. Everyone get a daily power at 1. An at-will power at 2, An encounter power at 3, etc. Also, same BAB (or whatever it's called now) for everyone and similar stats that are just raised no matter what you play.
They hate how magic weapons work, for which I can agree to a point.It's about that Diablo effect, yes? Magic items with minimum level requirements and the like. Or how the number of rings you can wear depends on your level.
Or they complain that there isn't any "role"playing, a comment that actually gets me angry and defensive.See, and being called a troll even when we offer complaints about what we see went wrong and being symbolically pooped on our head by the company we spend thousands of dollars on makes us angry and defensive.
Over-generalisations suck most of the time.
To the complaint itself: I can see where this is coming from: 4e isn't a simulation-style game like 3e. 3e tried to model a fantasy world and make as much sense as possible within the context. Pathfinder's the same: In most cases, the rules make sense and are consistent.
In 4e, the game rules are just that: Game rules. More like chess or ludo. You can only have one mark on you because that's the rule. No other explanation. Diagonals always count as 1 because that's the rule, even though it changes how fast you go depending on your direction. Doesn't make sense within the game world, but that doesn't matter, since the rules say so.
It's not the same as to say "roleplay is impossible" or "nobody uses it to roleplay", but the game doesn't put as much emphasis on portraying a consistent world as its predecessor or its biggest competition.
...
On the flip side WotC, and supporters there of, did little to improve people's attitudes. They would lock whole
And the videos where hardly the only issue, very early on in this, you had the license recall, which upset a fair number of people, especially fans of dungeon and dragon(if you care to look, you can still find a bunch of stuff about it on these boards). You had the GSL, which between seriously late running and trap like clauses, not only made a lot of people angry, but also basically caused the birth of the pathfinder RPG. You had the withdrawal from the PDF market, which cast WotC very much in the role of 'Old Media', and annoyed a lot of people who are still not going to convert to 4e, and are now forced to choose between illegally downloading old material, or increasingly being unable to play the game they want to play it.
WotC did a lot of stupid stuff...
In an attempt to head this one off at the pass...Monte Cook was neither laid off or fired, he chose to leave WotC to start his own company.
Cool, thanks Jeremy. I thought that was the case.
Since it has been the lore of kobolds for decades that they worship dragons and think of themselves as descended from dragons, I find it a fantastically unrealistic stretch to think that those kobolds were meant to be analogous to 4ed fans. They simply were there for the comedy of their well-known dragon worship.
The only way it could have been more obvious is if they had hung signs that read "4th Edition Fanboy!" around every kobold's neck. This doesn't require a close reading and an advanced degree in literary symbolism.
|
|
I guess its similar to how I got really pissed off at Paizo over the 3.5 Survives / 3.5 Thrives poster - I guess most Pathfinder fans wouldn't have thought twice about that poster but for me it was a marketing mistake by Paizo and one that felt like a kick in the teeth to me, adding insult to injury. Ditto for the "3.5 OGL Compatible" logo appearing on the Advanced Players Guide.
If you don't mind my asking, why did the 3.5 Survives / 3.5 Thrives poster make you angry?
|
|
If you don't mind my asking, why did the 3.5 Survives / 3.5 Thrives poster make you angry?
Basically because Pathfinder is not 3.5, its close but its not 3.5. Pathfinder IMHO did as much to reduce the player base for actual 3.5 as 4e did. Luckily PF doesn't quite seem to have quashed the remainder of the 3.5 player base completely and there are still quite a few folks around my neck of the wood who want to play 3.5.
In this respect, creating the OGL did ultimately end up biting them in the butt.
no, I don't think it's the OGL. I think it's brand life that is biting them in the butt. Brands aren't immortal, and all the Monopoly clones are good example of this. I think 4e would have had a better chance of being accepted if they changed the name of the Brand to something original and let Dungeons and Dragons die a natural death.
Blaming bad business decisions on the OGL, or calling the OGL a bad business decision isn't right. True, creating the OGL was inevitable; but Wizards did make a number of bad business decisions regarding their customer base.
The Goal is to make Money now as well in the future, to provide a stable and enjoyable workplace for employees, and to satisfy the market. From the outside, Wizards never satisfied the greater market in the past four years. But Paizo is doing so. I think Dungeons and Dragons is done as a brand and it's time to adopt a new RPG brand.
You don't know the good that the OGL actually did for Wizards of the Coast. The OGL had helped sell more Player's Handbooks for 3.0 and 3.5, thus causing a spike in sales. The OGL was good for Wizards in particular and the RPG industry as a whole. I refer you to Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella and Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine on how the OGL actually helps the industry and Wizards as a whole rather than damages them.
For me, its Brand Life. D&D as a brand is ready to be retired and not used as again and a new brand to take its place.
I suggest you look more widely, there where hundreds of posts across numerous boards with explinations of what individuals disliked.
I did say on the whole and as such, the over all atmosphere seemed like a constant barrage of negativity and little in the way of actually being helpful or constructive. It felt to me, for a good part of the threads in those days, that it was criticizing in a whiny way. But hey, that was just my take on the issue.
I dislike the disconnect between mechanics and fluff, and the abandonment of gygaxian naturalism that created monsters that as far as the system was concerned existed only in combat.
I think this is one of it's greatest features, lol. For me though, I've never felt I had to adhere to specific "rules" to get across what my character does outside of combat, be it crafting weapons, being a good singer, life as a baker outside of adventuring. I just never felt there needed rules for these aspects of character creation. Same goes for niche character "in" combat and the like.
I dislike the piecemeal release of what had become core elements, such as the half orc and gnome, though i didn't mind the dragon-born or Eladrin, and actually quiet liked the tieflings inclusion, I would have preferred that the full compliment of races be...
This was a problem during it's initial release. Subsequently, all of those are now available options. Can the same be said for genasi-like or tiefling-like creatures available for Pathfinder during it's release? As for the Ecologies, they're still there but it's just not an aspect that 4E goes in depth of. Honestly, this information can easily be pulled for better sources like 3e, OR as a DM make it up yourself.
disliked the over-simplification of the skill system and removal of craft and profession skills and many other skills. I would have preferred to have seen those skills more tightly tied into the game.
Again, never felt these aspects required limited resources to expend on. Unless someone's looking for an advantage that applies to the combat-side of the game (like Crafting magical weapons) then would you really need to spend ranks on Profession (Brew master)?
I disliked the idea of 'powers' for non-magical fighting, an issue that I understands essentials has dealt with.
Yea, in a way. Essentials gave the Martial power classes just more "Stances" that do superior things like tripping people or pushing people around and aren't really "powers". They still get Utility powers and can take Utility powers from the "parent" class. I actually like the Essential classes, espically if your running a DMPC as it makes things super simple and it's just Melee Basic Attack (plus stance ability) and your done.
I disliked the complete lack of sold setting material, even the implied setting was thin on the ground. It after all was not a universal system, it was claiming to be set in the DnD multi-verse but yet contained even less information on it that 3.0 had.
As a huge fan of Forgotten Realms, I can sympathize a bit here. I wish we had more setting material too, but I also like the fact that as a DM I have more freedom and the sense of Canon is God is now a thing of the past.
The alignment system changes where a step even further into absurdity for alignment, and the insistence that why would a player want to play evil anyway, made me laugh almost to the point of tears.
I felt that the old alignment system was contrived and only was in there to play up the Alignemnt spells and abilities there were. Heck, I'd have been happy with Good, Unaligned, and Evil hehe.
I'm not keen on the way it treats PCs and NPCs so very differently mechanically, it is jarring.
Again, another solid aspect I favor the of the system. NPCs shouldn't work the same way PCs do. Espically if you want a specific NPC to have a certain ability or power or spell that normally wouldn't be granted to a class or whichever the NPC has levels in. It always keeps the PCs guessing and it cuts down on Meta-gaming.
Most of all, I disliked that it substantially narrowed the range of games that I could play with DnD.
I'm guessing you mean branching out to other aspects like a non-magical campaign, a space campaign, or something therein? I agree with you there. I wanted to run a non-magic campaign and the 4E rules just don't really allow for that due to the powers of Martial classes, regardless if it's Essential or not.
But you've mentioned some very strong opinions and showed that while there are things you don't agree with, you can still enjoy the system. This is my same take with v3.5 as I just started a new campaign with v3.5 and I expect it to be a lot of fun.
It stems from the overly rigid structure of the classes. Everyone get a daily power at 1. An at-will power at 2, An encounter power at 3, etc. Also, same BAB (or whatever it's called now) for everyone and similar stats that are just raised no matter what you play.
Its was never strictly true mainly because class and race can add some powers and then feats may or may not have powers associated with them depending on the feat. Where it is true its like many things with 4E in that this kind of uniformity is much more apparent at low levels. By 7th there are so many other things factoring in here that any similarity tends to vanish.
They hate how magic weapons work, for which I can agree to a point.
Really? I adore the magic weapons (but not the artifacts). Oddly enough the system in place works OK for the recommended method for doling the items out (via player request lists) but really reaches its apex in interest if you use an old school random treasure type mechanism. The key is in the powers associated with nearly every magic item in the game and watching the players try and adapt to a bunch of odd ball items is both entertaining in itself (for both the players and the DM) and also a real trip down memory lane if one was ever a 1E or 2E DM.
It's about that Diablo effect, yes? Magic items with minimum level requirements and the like. Or how the number of rings you can wear depends on your level.
This is not strictly accurate - what your actually thinking of is the fact that there is no such thing as a low level magic ring. Anyone can wear two no matter what level you are but finding one is improbable before 10th as they are all 11th level or above magic items.
That said there is some obvious gamism in the choices here - there is no real explanation why there are no weak magic rings and the intent is clearly about game play and not about simulation.
In 4e, the game rules are just that: Game rules. More like chess or ludo. You can only have one mark on you because that's the rule. No other explanation. Diagonals always count as 1 because that's the rule, even though it changes how fast you go depending on your direction. Doesn't make sense within the game world, but that doesn't matter, since the rules say so.
True to a point though I think the Mark example is better then the diagonal movement example which is more akin to a simplification to speed play then an example of 'rules are rules'.
The differences in the diagonal movement element effects play but usually not all that dramatically. In 4E it gives up some elements of physics but not necessarily all that much in terms of what a combat like this might look like.
If one watches sports and one sees a player from Team A dodge around a player from team B its not that the team A player is going 50% faster (if they are both running hard in the same direction that's practically impossible, there just is not that much of a difference in sprint speed between people anywhere near the same level of physical fitness) in effect the person moving around is only covering a very minimal amount more in distance then the guy running straight.
What 4E has done here is say that in the name of simplicity whats being simulated is closer to what one sees in sports then to a raw physics example of moving from the centre of square A to square B and from there to the centre of square C. If you arc around some one your actually moving in a pattern that is more half a circle not half a diamond.
Nonetheless there is definitely a broad difference in the designs of the game - arguing that 4E is more gamist and less simulationist then 3.X is pretty much beyond dispute.
The big flaw in the OGL is that it was too much.
The OGL has it's roots in three main things.
First off, the era. Remember, the OGL was written at the same time the internet was in a compelete frenzy over "open source." It was everywhere. You couldn't even think about Wired without something about open source popping up, in your brain if need be. Just as oWoD was the most 90's game imaginable, the OGL was directly influenced by "the inevitable triumph of open source."
Secondly, TSR was insanely, insanely restrictive of their license. Whenever people get misty eyed and nostalgic for TSR, some part of me screams in horror. They were suing fansites left and right and generally had no concept at all of how their own business functioned, much less how the internet worked. If you've ever read Dancey's entries / posts on what he found while overseeing the TSR buyout, it's insane stuff. The OGL was a direct response to the absurd inclusiveness that TSR had practiced. The OGL was also meant to solve the biggest problem TSR had - too many miniproducts. Rather then make the weirdly specific low-volume, no-margin products that TSR went bankrupt with, third party would handle those, while WotC would focus on the big sellers. So your Ecology of the Thri-kreen could be made by Paizo, while WotC would be making Complete Warrior.
In fact, funny enough, that super-tight restrictiveness of TSR is what lead to them being bought out. After TSR sued WotC for making a product that was considered too close to D&D, WotC decided to try their hands at making a card game by the name of Magic: the Gathering. I'm willing to bet TSR would've taken back that lawsuit if they could today.
Thirdly, the OGL had some good core ideas. But, a few of them, several people might actually find repugnant. See, the OGL wasn't just meant to help D&D become bigger, it was also meant to destroy the opposition. The goal was to make d20 so synonymous with gaming as a whole that non-d20 games would dry up completely. If you enjoy a non-d20 game, that was running hardline against the assumptions. Never forget that the OGL as designed first and foremost to sell 3e.
So, what went wrong?
The OGL was too big. It contained too much. Rather then just make the low-volume products that WotC didn't want to deal with - and while Paizo gets some flake, I gurantee adventures were a part of that, so they operated completely within WotC's expectations - you had entire game systems being made. Now, I enjoy Pathfinder, but in some ways you could say that Pathfinder is exactly what the OGL's failing is - from a business perspective, Pathfinder is proof that the OGL experiment failed.
The idea goes like this: D&D is the #1 RPG. Other RPGs are short lived blips in comparison, and most RPG groups are short lived. Thus, players who are pulled into the hobby are in turn inevitably pulled into D&D, since that's where all the campaigns and source material is! Even when you hit things like Spycraft or M&M that don't pay one cent to WotC, they will inevitably leave that for D&D, since they're already familiar with the basic rules.
But that didn't work. The network effects didn't create the network. Part of it was failings outside the OGL - Dancey also wanted a very robust internet presence and RPGA presence, both of which flopped hard, especially the online presence. Part of the failings was simply that the OGL was too optimistic in regards of open source - releasing your source code increases market share but doesn't neccisarily translate to money.
In the end, the OGL experiment was just that - an experiment. A brilliant experiment, mind you! But, nonetheless, it was an experiment. It's one that benefited a whole lot of companies...but WotC was the one that had to foot the bill. It's not surprising in the least that in 4e they would go much more conservative with their license.
What third party producers need to ask when looking at the 4e license is something that previously they never had to ask in the OGL. That something is: "What am I providing for 4e? What does WotC get out of this?" When you look at the 4e success stories, such as with EN World's modules, they succeed because they have an answer to that question. Morris is providing long and detailed adventure paths, the kind that WotC isn't very good at.
There's been some good third party stuff for Paizo - I'm a rather proud owner of Psionics Unleashed and probably the most irritating fanboy that Dreamscarred has had to deal with ;p - but there's also a lot of stuff that I glance at and think: "Oh boy, the second glut begins!"