My feelings about 5E D&D


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I signed up for the 5e playtest. Mostly because I'm curious. As a 30 year D&D player, I think my opinion could be of some value to them.

However, it is hard for me to believe that this push to 5e is anything but a desperate attempt by WotC (driven no doubt by Hasbro's shareholder profit report demands) to try to reach some critical profit number for the WotC division within Hasbro. That's how large corporations work. Hasbro has no need for WotC, but WotC has a desperate need for Hasbro. If D&D can't make the required profit, Hasbro will dump it.

In the past two years those folks I know who work in the industry have all told me that Pathfinder is kicking 4e's butt in the market. My own gaming store has put PF material in their most prominent store display locations and 4e material around the corner behind it. That says everythign I need to know about the sales of the two systems in that store at least.

What I've seen in the comments about 5e is exactly what I'd expect to see from a company that knows they wrecked their customer loyalty and is desperate to try to gain it back.

But the chances of them gaining PF fans who hate 4e back is now quite abysmally low. Most of my PF gamer friends not only despise 4e, but they have grown to despise the company that created it.

And I mean "despise."

Personally I play 4e and PF. I like them both. I like PF MORE and I think Paizo is more customer focused and understands their customer base better, but 4e isn't a bad game. 5e might also be a good game. But for it to return the D&D brand to RPG domination, it is going to have to be exponentially better than what Paizo is doing. And from what I've personally seen in the past two years, that's going to be quite an accomplishment since Paizo clearly has a huge advantage in talent and commitment to the existing customer base.

Frankly I think this 5e announcement is pretty much the death-knell for the D&D brand under Hasbro. My best hope now is that when Hasbro finally decides to dump the brand, perhaps Paizo will buy it.


Craig Mercer wrote:
A complaint about a game not living up to a preference is a prouduct failure.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. In retail, a product failure is a return. As long as the product was sold and didn't come back, it was a sale, no matter what the customer says about it.

WotC kept a close eye on this sort of customer review, I'm sure. But I'm afraid it didn't happen. In retail, you don't protest by not buying. You protest by buying and returning the product. Enough of that, and the manufacturer pulls the product from the shelves. You can ignore bad ratings. You can't ignore returned product.

I bought 4E. I don't play it because it isn't for me, and I'm not likely to ever play it. But it's still sitting on my shelf right now. I'm sure there are a lot of disappointed people like me out there. But WotC never heard about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:


I bought 4E. I don't play it because it isn't for me, and I'm not likely to ever play it. But it's still sitting on my shelf right now. I'm sure there are a lot of disappointed people like me out there. But WotC never heard about it.

Nonsense. WotC heard plenty. They heard through message boards, customer feedback and loss of sales to an upstart competitor. They reacted by throwing meaningless bones at the community hoping that would be enough to placate the angry hordes. It wasn't enough. Now they are desperate.

But they knew. Ask the game designers they laid off if you don't believe me.


I'm not saying they didn't read the messageboards. But you know what kind of stuff flies around these boards. I'm sure WotC's boards are no different.

Honestly, how many of us would you take seriously?

If they were looking at the movement of product, at what was selling, and using that as their guide, they got a very different picture.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zmar wrote:
Patfinder crew when the game was released said that they'd like to put 7 to 10 years before they'll do PF2. Someone could link it perhaps.

See, this.

This right here.

You heard this, and your mind turned it into a "promise".

No one promised you anything.

Stop doing this.

"We'd like to do this," is not the same as "We promise we'll do this."

This is the sort of thinking that enables the crapstorm of rage whenever someone's expectations from a publisher don't come true.

I saw it happen with WotC (promises imagined where none were made) and I don't want to see it happen with Paizo. If they actually said they promise something, then that's fine. Not a smart move on their part, and you can get upset with them if they fail to follow through. But if they just said "We'd like to do it this way," then you cannot accuse them of breaking a promise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I'm not saying they didn't read the messageboards. But you know what kind of stuff flies around these boards. I'm sure WotC's boards are no different.

Honestly, how many of us would you take seriously?

If they were looking at the movement of product, at what was selling, and using that as their guide, they got a very different picture.

If that's true, then they are even more incompetent than I thought.

The noise level was thundering. The immediate and meteoric rise of Pathfinder was stunning. The feedback on their own website was an avalanche of criticism. They've admitted it themselves!

They knew. They thought they could "weather the storm". The storm has hit. And it's about to sweep them away.


Gorbacz wrote:
You're trusting a company employees to tell you everything about their company's relation with their parent corporation? Well, considering your level of trust in everything that WotC says/does I shouldn't exactly be surprised :)

I've heard this from current employees, ex-employees, freelancers, and others connected to the industry. Not once have I heard someone in the know say anything like, "Yeah, Hasbro is pretty hands-on."

As for trusting WotC employees, they are cool people. I've sat down and had a beer with a number of them, and I've never gotten any sense from them that they are tainted by corporatism. Heck, a lot of Paizo employees are friends with a lot of WotC employees. I think it's silly to imagine that they're going to lie to you over something that wouldn't even damage Hasbro's image were it true.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
The storm has hit. And it's about to sweep them away.

You're right. The great 5E storm is going to sweep them away.

All I can say to that is :D


Locke1520 wrote:
Scott I know you enjoy the 4th Edition and think it's the best itteration of the game to date. Many of us disagree and when you say that the only mistake was in marketing the new edition to the current pool of gamer's because we're a bunch of hyper sensitive nerds is as offensive as many of the comments against 4e.

I did tell you that it wasn't a pretty opinion, and I would not have shared it if I were not asked to. I was solicited for what I thought, and so I gave it.

Quote:

It's also disingenuous there were a number of mistakes. Some they might wish they hadn't made, some the they may rethink , and some they don't see as mistakes. For example:

  • Talking about how bad the last product was, when clearly they had a strong fan and vocal base.
  • Again, this is the product of wildly inflamed internet opinion running amuck. The things that people think WotC said to bash 3e didn't actually happen. There's actually probably a really cool bit of sociological research that could be done studying how the falsehood that WotC trashed 3e at every opportunity came to be a widely-believed meme.

    Quote:
  • Too much, too soon. 2e (1989) 3.0 (2000) - 3.5 (2003) - 4e (2008)
  • This is on your not-subjective list?

    Quote:
  • recalling every licensed property and even going so far as to
  • They did not recall every licensed property.

    Quote:
  • shut down the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon too close to the 4e release.
  • One of the best decisions they made during the 4e release. It allowed their periodicals to survive the digital scouring of the periodicals market, and allowed them to launch the DDI program.


    Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    The storm has hit. And it's about to sweep them away.

    You're right. The great 5E storm is going to sweep them away.

    All I can say to that is :D

    As I said above, unless 5e is exponentially better than Pathfinder, then it will never win back the fans they've lost. It can't be as good or even somewhat better. It is going to have to blow PF fans away with it's brilliant restoration of the RPG ideal. And from my personal evalutation of the comparative talent of the WotC designers vs the Paizo designers.... I'd say that's like Tim Tebow winning the Super Bowl. Sure it COULD happen, but if it does a whole lotta people are gonna suspect divine intervention...

    It is far more likely that those fans WotC has lost will stick with Pathfinder. This whole announcement is essentially an admission that WotC's current customer base is not enough to satisfy their corporate masters. They can't survive unless they win back the fans they've lost.

    I hope they do. There are a few things I like about 4e compared to PF. And frankly there is a growing discontent even among the current PF fanbase about Pathfinders steady migration towards a steampunk RPG, so it is remotely possible that Paizo could screw this up.

    But if things remain as they are... well, we can check back in a few years and see how Hasbro and WotC are getting along....

    Shadow Lodge

    Feelings are, by definition, subjective.

    I don't share yours.


    I'm hoping that 5E will be a synthesis of several things, and compatible enough with editions 3 and 4 that it will bridge the gap. I don't know if that would be better than Pathfinder, especially to a PF fan, but even if it only gives PFers more resources to enhance their campaigns, it's got to be a positive.

    Mearls has said that's the intention, to bring the editions together. I hope that he and Cook and whoever else they've still got can pull it off.


    ralantar wrote:


    Personally though I'm going to add I hope 5e is a flaming bomb of epic proportions.

    So much so that hasbro liquidates WoTC and sells off all of TSR's old IP. Or at the very least looks to sell WoTC along with the licensing. I would love to see Paizo scoop up Forgotten Realms, Krynn, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape.. etc on the cheap and give them a home where they will be appreciated and taken care of instead of strictly milked for profit above all else.

    I would like to say that this is a horrible reason to hope for the failure of 5e. It is not in Hasbro's best interest to sell off any IP for a one-time payday, especially if that IP has potential to be turned into a long-term value.

    Colossal failure of 5e is MUCH more likely to have Hasbro shelve everything, putting all of the licenses out of reach of anyone using them, be it WotC, Paizo, or whoever.

    Hasbro owns the rights to hundreds and hundred of classic games and systems, and historically, they do not release, sell, or license those rights to anyone.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Marshall Jansen wrote:


    Colossal failure of 5e is MUCH more likely to have Hasbro shelve everything, putting all of the licenses out of reach of anyone using them, be it WotC, Paizo, or whoever.

    They can't put the OGL out of reach.

    Lantern Lodge

    I've posted this on enworld, but honestly it still pretty much applies here as well:

    I feel tentatively positive about 5E. WOTC has a long way to go to show me that they can create this mélange of different editions into a coherent whole. If they can I will whole heartedly support it, but I’ll admit it seems like an almost unattainable goal, not simply because of the difficulty but because of the resistance of people who simply want it to fail so they can say that they predicted it.

    I’ve played all the editions now and I’ve liked things about all of them and hated things about all of them, I look forward to a new edition simply to see what comes of it, with a goal this lofty it may be that the journey is better than the goal itself. Regardless, succeed or fail, I have to admire the willingness to try something like this and risk the chance of failure, particularly since I look at something like this and think it smacks of a “last chance to get it right” dictate on the part of Hasbro. I am more than likely wrong, but I could see it happening and it would be a shame for such an ambitious attempt to fail and result in the shelving of the game for a decade until Hasbro decides it’s “safe” to try again.

    But succeed or fail, I still have PF which has managed to satisfy what I am looking for in my game.

    -DHT


    Steerpike7 wrote:
    Marshall Jansen wrote:


    Colossal failure of 5e is MUCH more likely to have Hasbro shelve everything, putting all of the licenses out of reach of anyone using them, be it WotC, Paizo, or whoever.

    They can't put the OGL out of reach.

    I wasn't referring to the OGL, but to the actual IP... Krynn, Greyhawk, Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms. You know, the stuff the person I was responding to specifically called out that he'd hope Paizo could buy 'on the cheap' as soon as 5e imploded.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ralantar wrote:

    The OP voiced his feelings and I have to say I agree with a lot of it.

    Personally though I'm going to add I hope 5e is a flaming bomb of epic proportions.
    So much so that hasbro liquidates WoTC and sells off all of TSR's old IP. Or at the very least looks to sell WoTC along with the licensing. I would love to see Paizo scoop up Forgotten Realms, Krynn, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape.. etc on the cheap and give them a home where they will be appreciated and taken care of instead of strictly milked for profit above all else.
    Many will think this harsh, but the fact is WotC lied, repeatedly, to our faces. They swore up and down on their forum that they had no intentions of releasing a 4th edition anytime soon. Not 2 weeks after their repeated denials they suddenly announced that 4th ed was coming soon and well into development, and it was)
    Couple that with them driving away a good portion of their creative staff, changing worlds not to improve them but for the sole purpose of reselling them, clamping down on their licensing, defaming their existing fans and the previous editions, canceling subscription magazines.. etc etc..
    They have shown themselves to be poor and damaging stewards of the DnD brand in my opinion.

    I'd prefer to see Paizo focused on PFRPG and Golarion, they are doing grat and it'd be shame to dillute the talents to multiple settings that could perhaps receive only mediocre support. If the settings went to different 3PPs it could be, but I doubt that they'd generate enough money by themselves if they weren't damn good.


    Marshall Jansen wrote:


    I wasn't referring to the OGL, but to the actual IP... Krynn, Greyhawk, Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms. You know, the stuff the person I was responding to specifically called out that he'd hope Paizo could buy 'on the cheap' as soon as 5e imploded.

    Ah, I hear you. Thanks for clarifying.


    If WotC approaches this like Hero Games did back in 1987-89, things might surprise a lot of you.

    The problem Hero had was that each of the game's genres (Champions, Fantasy Hero, Justice Inc., Danger International, Star Hero, etc.) had variations in the rules. Each was a separate game, and only marginally compatible with the others.

    They worked with the basic concept of the game to produce Hero 4E, a unified game system. Anything you could find in any of the others could be created using the basic Hero rules.

    Now, to be honest, Hero is a point-based system where it is possible to replicate virtually any effect, any power, any spell. The D&D game is less versatile. But if its sundry parts are disassembled and approached from a modular pount of view, they can be selectively reassembled to produce the various incarnations of the brand, from OD&D to 4E.

    Sure, there'll be a few things that can't be directly duplicated. Like the old 1E/2E ability tables. But to be honest, that shouldn't be a deal breaker (who really liked 18/37 strength?). And descending armor class (where a lower number is better) is just silly, despite a few grogs clinging to it (let it go, let it go...). Don't even get me started on THAC0.

    But it can work, and work well. Especially if the designers make sure the modular pieces aren't inclusive (you don't lose aspects of one part if you disuse another).

    Just food for thought.


    Scott Betts wrote:
    Zmar wrote:
    Patfinder crew when the game was released said that they'd like to put 7 to 10 years before they'll do PF2. Someone could link it perhaps.

    See, this.

    This right here.

    You heard this, and your mind turned it into a "promise".

    No one promised you anything.

    Stop doing this.

    "We'd like to do this," is not the same as "We promise we'll do this."

    This is the sort of thinking that enables the crapstorm of rage whenever someone's expectations from a publisher don't come true.

    I saw it happen with WotC (promises imagined where none were made) and I don't want to see it happen with Paizo. If they actually said they promise something, then that's fine. Not a smart move on their part, and you can get upset with them if they fail to follow through. But if they just said "We'd like to do it this way," then you cannot accuse them of breaking a promise.

    Overreacting a lot? Not that I'd like to say that my formulation is accurate.

    Liberty's Edge

    Zmar wrote:


    Overreacting a lot? Not that I'd like to say that my formulation is accurate.

    I think Scott has a point. Paizo said they would attempt too keep ruls bloat at a minumum. Said not promised. And you had some of the fanbase accusing them of breaking that "promise" with the release of books such as the APG, UM and UC. Gamers unfortunately sometimes want to read what they want to read and imo have a huge overinflated sense of entitlement.


    Meh, without official reaction and context it could be both.

    But if everything promised must be "I hereby promise that..." or it's just words in the wind than the times are getting rather sad.


    Zmar wrote:
    Overreacting a lot? Not that I'd like to say that my formulation is accurate.

    I don't think so. I think that overblown expectations and entitlement is a huge problem in the gamer community, and I think that the mental gymnastics associated with turning a casual wish into a firm promise is part of the root of that problem.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Zmar wrote:

    Meh, without official reaction and context it could be both.

    But if everything promised must be "I hereby promise that..." or it's just words in the wind than the times are getting rather sad.

    You need to understand that there is a difference between the following two statements.

    1. "We would like to put off releasing Pathfinder 2nd Edition for 7-10 years."

    2. "We promise to not release a Pathfinder 2nd Edition for 7-10 years."

    Do you understand the difference between those two things?

    One of them is an expressed desire that is contingent upon any number of things going according to plan.

    The other is a promise to an audience that a certain thing will happen.

    The difference is non-trivial.

    Lantern Lodge

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    memorax wrote:
    Gamers unfortunately sometimes want to read what they want to read and imo have a huge overinflated sense of entitlement.

    A friend of mine and I were discussing this very thing when discussing the approach of WOTC vs. Paizo's approach to Fantasy gaming and why one worked where the other didn't seem to have the same appeal. The conclusion we came to was this: Paizo’s method of inclusion and the fact that their staff comes off like “gamers just like you” is paying off so well for them.

    WOTC’s constant turnover and most recently the actual posting of their past business plans by former staff shows a strong corporate bent to their approach tends to be inherently distrusted by a lot of gamers.

    We’re very easy to manipulate, and we’ll take it from one of “our own” but give the impression that you’re manipulating us in a gratuitous corporate-driven money grab and we freak. In short we don’t want RPGs to make any one fabulously wealthy, we want it to do well enough to allow people who love what they do to make a living doing it.

    We’re like the punk scene. We only want them to be SO successful, otherwise they’ve sold out. Gaming is a tight-knit community, but is fractured by cliques and VASTLY varied gaming styles. It’s a dice-rolling, card-flipping, storytelling-through-hallucinations collection of contradictions.

    But there is one consistent element; we want to be able to identify with the creators of the product. We want them to just be some homebrew guys and gals who actually got a chance to do what they love and get paid to do it. Not live on a yacht, but at least pay their mortgage and raise a family so they’re happy…and can make more games.

    Of course YMMV.

    -DHT


    Scott Betts wrote:
    Zmar wrote:

    Meh, without official reaction and context it could be both.

    But if everything promised must be "I hereby promise that..." or it's just words in the wind than the times are getting rather sad.

    You need to understand that there is a difference between the following two statements.

    1. "We would like to put off releasing Pathfinder 2nd Edition for 7-10 years."

    2. "We promise to not release a Pathfinder 2nd Edition for 7-10 years."

    Do you understand the difference between those two things?

    One of them is an expressed desire that is contingent upon any number of things going according to plan.

    The other is a promise to an audience that a certain thing will happen.

    The difference is non-trivial.

    Do you remember me saying I don't remember how exactly it was said? Not that I'm gonna freak about having the system supported for 5 years or whatever. I should have probably used a different formulation if it irks you so much, but I don't really expect being taken literally. These are forums and not contract. I understand the difference between those two.

    Frog God Games

    Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
    Locke1529 wrote:
    Having read the 4e books I don't think that cards or WotC miniatures are required for play.

    I think the reason people say this is because the powers are explained using squares, and it's much, much easier to visualize the battle with miniatures and a battlemat.

    Kind of like chess. You can play it in your head, but even Bobby Fischer used a board and pieces, though I'll bet he'd say it wasn't "required". ;)

    I say it because many of the combat powers revolved around shifting and teleporting around a grid. If you didn't use a grid with markers, you couldn't keep a decent tab on what was going on in combat.

    Saying that you didn't need markers and a map to play is very much like saying you don't need them to play Battletech. The rules built around the use of markers and a map.

    All of that said... it doesn't matter anymore. They're make the next edition.


    Zmar wrote:
    Do you remember me saying I don't remember how exactly it was said?

    That's the point. You don't remember how it was said, but you went with "promised" anyway. And someone who reads that might come away with the impression that Paizo promised not to release 2nd Edition for a decade. And that's how we get people who are certain that WotC said terrible things about 3e during the 4e release, despite it never actually happening. People don't remember properly, so they just pick something and run with it, and then someone else picks it up and runs with it, and then before you know it you have people acting like the company in question shot your puppy.

    I saw it happen to WotC and it would be a damn shame if the same happened with Paizo.


    Scott Betts wrote:
    Zmar wrote:
    Do you remember me saying I don't remember how exactly it was said?

    That's the point. You don't remember how it was said, but you went with "promised" anyway. And someone who reads that might come away with the impression that Paizo promised not to release 2nd Edition for a decade. And that's how we get people who are certain that WotC said terrible things about 3e during the 4e release, despite it never actually happening. People don't remember properly, so they just pick something and run with it, and then someone else picks it up and runs with it, and then before you know it you have people acting like the company in question shot your puppy.

    I saw it happen to WotC and it would be a damn shame if the same happened with Paizo.

    Do you really think your singular rebuttals of comments on a messageboard will stop an entire gaming community from thinking Paizo promised something?


    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    Scott Betts wrote:
    Zmar wrote:
    Do you remember me saying I don't remember how exactly it was said?

    That's the point. You don't remember how it was said, but you went with "promised" anyway. And someone who reads that might come away with the impression that Paizo promised not to release 2nd Edition for a decade. And that's how we get people who are certain that WotC said terrible things about 3e during the 4e release, despite it never actually happening. People don't remember properly, so they just pick something and run with it, and then someone else picks it up and runs with it, and then before you know it you have people acting like the company in question shot your puppy.

    I saw it happen to WotC and it would be a damn shame if the same happened with Paizo.

    Do you really think your singular rebuttals of comments on a messageboard will stop an entire gaming community from thinking Paizo promised something?

    Nope. It might make a couple of people think twice about how they view comments from on high, though. Baby steps.


    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    Do you really think your singular rebuttals of comments on a messageboard will stop an entire gaming community from thinking Paizo promised something?

    They probably won't, but those of us who remember that they didn't promise anything will know. This point is stupid.

    I find myself agreeing with Scott. WotC got a buttload of this. Paizo doesn't need it, too.


    Scott: English i not my primary language. Sometimes I just use what feels right without much care for minuscule difference. While it's understood, it's not really taken into account (and I don't think that many native speakers do care much about the difference in causual talk).

    Paizo could be polishing he system without going 2.0 without creating much fuss IMO, just like with the stealth mechanic. I think a lot could be tweaked like this without may crying foul as long as it doesn't invalidate anything significantly without replacement and as long as they don't needlesly change things that work.


    Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    However, it is hard for me to believe that this push to 5e is anything but a desperate attempt by WotC (driven no doubt by Hasbro's shareholder profit report demands) to try to reach some critical profit number for the WotC division within Hasbro. That's how large corporations work. Hasbro has no need for WotC, but WotC has a desperate need for Hasbro. If D&D can't make the required profit, Hasbro will dump it.

    Hasbro wont dump a brand, they'll shelve it. However, they'll also measure D&D's success based on overall performance - including board games, Gamma World, etcetera (which have been well received) and DDI revenue - not purely how the TTRPG sells. (Although I'm sure the decline of market dominance will be a point of concern for them).

    It's also worth noting that WoTC performed extremely well for Hasbro in the last few years. Magic had a very strong showing, exhibiting growth despite the economic downturn. This issue isnt about WoTC's survival (since they are consistently mentioned in Hasbro annual reports as strong performers) but about the D&D brand, which is a minor facet of WoTC's business.


    Steve Geddes wrote:

    It's also worth noting that WoTC performed extremely well for Hasbro in the last few years. Magic had a very strong showing, exhibiting growth despite the economic downturn. This issue isnt about WoTC's survival (since they are consistently mentioned in Hasbro annual reports as strong performers) but about the D&D brand, which is a minor facet of WoTC's business.

    Yeah. That's all correct. I should be more clear that it's D&D that is in trouble, not necessarily WotC. Not financially anyway. However I do believe that WotC has poisoned the waters with many RPG fans and that is part of what is killing the D&D brand.

    Liberty's Edge

    Dr. Horatio Thwack wrote:


    A friend of mine and I were discussing this very thing when discussing the approach of WOTC vs. Paizo's approach to Fantasy gaming and why one worked where the other didn't seem to have the same appeal. The conclusion we came to was this: Paizo’s method of inclusion and the fact that their staff comes off like “gamers just like you” is paying off so well for them.

    WOTC’s constant turnover and most recently the actual posting of their past business plans by former staff shows a strong corporate bent to their approach tends to be inherently distrusted by a lot of gamers.

    We’re very easy to manipulate, and we’ll take it from one of “our own” but give the impression that you’re manipulating us in a gratuitous corporate-driven money grab and we freak. In short we don’t want RPGs to make any one fabulously wealthy, we want it to do well enough to allow people who love what they do to make a living doing it.

    We’re like the punk scene. We only want them to be SO successful, otherwise they’ve sold out. Gaming is a tight-knit community, but is fractured by cliques and VASTLY varied gaming styles. It’s a dice-rolling, card-flipping, storytelling-through-hallucinations collection of contradictions.

    But there is one consistent element; we want to be able to identify with the creators of the product. We want them to just be some homebrew guys and gals who actually got a chance to do what they love and get paid to do it. Not live on a yacht, but at least pay their mortgage and raise a family so they’re happy…and can make more games.

    Of course YMMV.

    -DHT

    I remember reading posts to the effect that were "Paizo screwed us they would not release more rules" and others to that effect when they promised no such thing. We all deserve some sort of entitlement. It just that for me anyway gamers take it too far sometimes. One of the few communites that says "you better not publish a new edition because I have all your older edition productions. Even if it means you losing money and go bankrupt" . I get your point yet sometimes some of the things I have read and heard in person make my jaw drop.

    Still good point


    Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    Steve Geddes wrote:

    It's also worth noting that WoTC performed extremely well for Hasbro in the last few years. Magic had a very strong showing, exhibiting growth despite the economic downturn. This issue isnt about WoTC's survival (since they are consistently mentioned in Hasbro annual reports as strong performers) but about the D&D brand, which is a minor facet of WoTC's business.

    Yeah. That's all correct. I should be more clear that it's D&D that is in trouble, not necessarily WotC. Not financially anyway. However I do believe that WotC has poisoned the waters with many RPG fans and that is part of what is killing the D&D brand.

    I agree that D&D doesnt get as good a reception as it would if the identical product were produced by another company. Whether that's due to 'poisoning' or 'poor judgement' is unknowable unless one was particularly well connected to WoTC management circa 2008, in my view. I think the statements around in the last year and a bit are pretty clear admissions that WoTC understand there is some ill-will and are attempting to repair some relationships.

    I wonder if there are any legacy protections for D&D along the lines of the (perhaps mythical) 'must produce one FR product a year or lose the license' clause in the agreement with Ed Greenwood.

    I think the movie may well be a watershed moment for the D&D division. If it bombs it may well look very bad for them, even though they probably had limited involvement. An investment in a movie is, after all, far more capital than a new iteration of a TTRPG. (Assuming the two are seen as connected, of course).


    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
    Craig Mercer wrote:
    A complaint about a game not living up to a preference is a prouduct failure.

    I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. In retail, a product failure is a return. As long as the product was sold and didn't come back, it was a sale, no matter what the customer says about it.

    The Edsel was a failure, but it was not a failure because of product returns.

    It was a failure to sell in the first place.
    I'm sure if you looked through retail history, you would find several products that are failures because there was no demand to buy them, even though their return was minimal.

    In a product like D&D 4e, my not returning the book I bought does not make it a failure, but my not purchasing any other books or supplments (which is part of the sales strategy) does make it a failure.


    Craig Mercer wrote:
    The Edsel was a failure, but it was not a failure because of product returns.

    People just weren't buying Edsels. It didn't take more than a handful of lost sales before Ford felt the economic impact, because the product sold for far more than a game book. You'd have to lose thousands of sales of game books before WotC would feel the same sort of impact.

    A retailer like WotC thinks the only way it can know what's really going on in a customer's mind is to check sales figures. Regardless of how entitled that little form you fill out to rate a product makes you feel, it takes more of them than they actually print for a manufacturer to really pay attention to them. They're only concerned with sales. As long as things sell, manufacturers generally don't care what customers think about the product.

    Especially when they're the 800-pound gorilla with the big logo that everyone has traditionally flocked to.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    I realize that the point people are trying to make is that if they choose not to buy a product, that's voting with their feet. What I'm saying is that you voted with your feet, and WotC only recently got the message, because they have only recently admitted to themselves that the drop in their sales isn't just a result of a poor economy.

    My point is that we complained and complained and complained, but WotC reacted in the traditional manner and ignored any complaints that didn't agree with their business model. They are a typical manufacturer dealing with the market in a time-honored way. We finally got through to them, and now they're talking about listening to their customers.

    Liberty's Edge

    Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
    Craig Mercer wrote:
    A complaint about a game not living up to a preference is a prouduct failure.

    I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. In retail, a product failure is a return. As long as the product was sold and didn't come back, it was a sale, no matter what the customer says about it.

    WotC kept a close eye on this sort of customer review, I'm sure. But I'm afraid it didn't happen. In retail, you don't protest by not buying. You protest by buying and returning the product. Enough of that, and the manufacturer pulls the product from the shelves. You can ignore bad ratings. You can't ignore returned product.

    I bought 4E. I don't play it because it isn't for me, and I'm not likely to ever play it. But it's still sitting on my shelf right now. I'm sure there are a lot of disappointed people like me out there. But WotC never heard about it.

    Jerry, this return policy doesn't apply in most of the countries unless there is a defect and normally within 3-7 days.


    I was speaking in a general way, but thanks for the heads up! :D


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Ok I believe that WOTC where going for "The One to Rule Them All" with 4th edition and failed. They haven’t printed any consistent RPG material in a good 6 months and won’t release their numbers to compete with Pathfinder (lol). If you like 4th then play it, myself I’m sticking with Pathfinder! But I do believe that WOTC was trying to capture WOW (classes) and magic players (the power cards) with all the similarities. As for asking for the input from players, Hasbro (yes them, there in charge have the first & last say) has seen the success of Pathfinders playtest and wants the same. They could make or break themselves with this method; they are going to have to listen to fans. The one thing I think everyone has forgotten is WOTC tried to go completely digital with a membership fee, (complete BS just my opinion. WOW! WOW!) This is not what D&D fans wanted as shown in there 4th E sales (books still sitting on selves in many store in my area).


    Scott Betts wrote:
    Gorbacz wrote:
    Truth to be said Scott, apart from "somebody wrote something about it on forums" there's no tangible support for either position.

    In one case, "somebody" is an unconnected fan's friend.

    In the other, "somebody" is a bunch of people who either work for or work with WotC.

    I'm not sure why anyone wants to pretend that these are equivalent.

    The other people have been known to give corporate speak or flat out lie.

    The reasons for stopping the digital 3.5 products*, and the denial of a 4th edition are examples.

    *I will also add the inferring of the 3.5 digital products being made available again.


    Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
    Kite Windsocks wrote:
    Ok I believe that WOTC where going for "The One to Rule Them All" with 4th edition and failed. They haven’t printed any consistent RPG material in a good 6 months and won’t release their numbers to compete with Pathfinder (lol). If you like 4th then play it, myself I’m sticking with Pathfinder! But I do believe that WOTC was trying to capture WOW (classes) and magic players (the power cards) with all the similarities. As for asking for the input from players, Hasbro (yes them, there in charge have the first & last say) has seen the success of Pathfinders playtest and wants the same. They could make or break themselves with this method; they are going to have to listen to fans. The one thing I think everyone has forgotten is WOTC tried to go completely digital with a membership fee, (complete BS just my opinion. WOW! WOW!) This is not what D&D fans wanted as shown in there 4th E sales (books still sitting on selves in many store in my area).

    I dont really agree with any of these sentences (other than sharing your view that digital delivery of RPGs is unfortunate). However, the idea that Hasbro management has any view as to the open playtest of Pathfinder is absurd.

    D&D is insignificant to Hasbro - they bought WoTC for magic (and it's doing well for them). The threat to D&D is far more likely to come from WoTC's CEO (if the division underperforms too badly) than from 'on high'.

    Liberty's Edge

    Steve Geddes wrote:
    Kite Windsocks wrote:
    Ok I believe that WOTC where going for "The One to Rule Them All" with 4th edition and failed. They haven’t printed any consistent RPG material in a good 6 months and won’t release their numbers to compete with Pathfinder (lol). If you like 4th then play it, myself I’m sticking with Pathfinder! But I do believe that WOTC was trying to capture WOW (classes) and magic players (the power cards) with all the similarities. As for asking for the input from players, Hasbro (yes them, there in charge have the first & last say) has seen the success of Pathfinders playtest and wants the same. They could make or break themselves with this method; they are going to have to listen to fans. The one thing I think everyone has forgotten is WOTC tried to go completely digital with a membership fee, (complete BS just my opinion. WOW! WOW!) This is not what D&D fans wanted as shown in there 4th E sales (books still sitting on selves in many store in my area).

    I dont really agree with any of these sentences (other than sharing your view that digital delivery of RPGs is unfortunate). However, the idea that Hasbro management has any view as to the open playtest of Pathfinder is absurd.

    D&D is insignificant to Hasbro - they bought WoTC for magic (and it's doing well for them). The threat to D&D is far more likely to come from WoTC's CEO (if the division underperforms too badly) than from 'on high'.

    In a corporate world, the wotc CEO will have to answer to hasbro mgt.

    Saw some emails debating on who takes the call. Doesn't matter. Maybe hasbro don't directly pull the trigger but they are the people at the top. They are responsible.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    This is what i suggested for 5E to some folks (not quoting names). Have a common base then branch out the systems (including character advancement, combat, situation handling, magic points) into the following branches:
    (a) boardgame/MMO gameplay (4E rules actually really suit boardgaming as i mentioned in several other postings)
    (b) basic rpg (for those who wants freer rein n quick take-up. Good for introducing new players n novice or simply just like basic or 1e style)
    (c) advance rpg (enuf said. The power rpgers. Weapon skills, encumbrance, dual, power feats, gongfu, etc. Yet it must be similarly modular like 2e)
    (d) mass scale combat (something like runewars or old d&d battle system)
    (e) progression variants as add on fluffs (running a realm like soccer manager, immortals)

    A few examples of common base framework(i wrote more than what i am saying here):
    (1) the theme, realm, npc characters, history, etc
    (2) races
    (3) classes (which should be dictated by the theme)
    (4) points (or whatever u want to call it) system to influence (a) - (e)
    (5) base combat (eg. initiative, decide action, hit, damage, react)
    (6) base character advancement

    With that, wotc can still keep 4E players happy (play (a) and buy (a) materials), old school rpgers like me can play or buy (b), (c) or (e) (although i like the old battle system too :p)

    Wargamers will go for (d)

    People who has the purchasing power or like to be complete can buy all! :)

    How is it doable? Definitely. I had given some case scenarios but they will have to hire me to take it further. Let's see if they consider it :)


    Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
    mousey wrote:


    In a corporate world, the wotc CEO will have to answer to hasbro mgt.

    Sure, but not about something as relatively insignificant as D&D. I know nothing about Hasbro's relationship with WoTC, but I know something about corporations and their subsidiaries. Beyond the core brands (ie magic) and outside some broad directives, I suspect WoTC are given a pretty free rein. Hasbro will be more likely to fire the WoTC executives than step in and dictate how a brand should be managed.

    Quote:
    Saw some emails debating on who takes the call. Doesn't matter. Maybe hasbro don't directly pull the trigger but they are the people at the top. They are responsible.

    Kite Windsocks was claiming that Hasbro are paying such close attention to D&D that they are aware of the paizo playtest of pathfinder. You may want to ascribe some "ultimate authority" to Hasbro management (though why stop there? Isn't it the Hasbro shareholders fault, taking your argument to its logical conclusion?) but do you really think they rang WoTC and said "Hey this open playtest thing worked a treat! You'd better do that too!"

    It just doesn't ring true. Again, I'm not claiming any insider knowledge and it might be true, but Hasbro management must be extremely busy if they're micromanaging all their insignificant brands to that extent.

    Liberty's Edge

    Steve Geddes wrote:
    mousey wrote:


    In a corporate world, the wotc CEO will have to answer to hasbro mgt.

    Sure, but not about something as relatively insignificant as D&D. I know nothing about Hasbro's relationship with WoTC, but I know something about corporations and their subsidiaries. Beyond the core brands (ie magic) and outside some broad directives, I suspect WoTC are given a pretty free rein. Hasbro will be more likely to fire the WoTC executives than step in and dictate how a brand should be managed.

    Quote:
    Saw some emails debating on who takes the call. Doesn't matter. Maybe hasbro don't directly pull the trigger but they are the people at the top. They are responsible.

    Kite Windsocks was claiming that Hasbro are paying such close attention to D&D that they are aware of the paizo playtest of pathfinder. You may want to ascribe some "ultimate authority" to Hasbro management (though why stop there? Isn't it the Hasbro shareholders fault, taking your argument to its logical conclusion?) but do you really think they rang WoTC and said "Hey this open playtest thing worked a treat! You'd better do that too!"

    It just doesn't ring true. Again, I'm not claiming any insider knowledge and it might be true, but Hasbro management must be extremely busy if they're micromanaging all their insignificant brands to that extent.

    Steve, that's not what i meant. I work in one of the biggest bank in US. Of course the ceo don't get his "hands dirty" when people said hasbro, they are talking who takes responsibility. Anyway, not important. Let's just use d&d franchise owners or DFO then :)


    Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
    mousey wrote:


    Steve, that's not what i meant. I work in one of the biggest bank in US. Of course the ceo don't get his "hands dirty" when people said hasbro, they are talking who takes responsibility. Anyway, not important. Let's just use d&d franchise owners or DFO then :)

    I think it's important, since people trying to analyse WoTC decisions based on Hasbro culture leads to silly statements like the one I replied to.

    You don't owe me a conversation though, of course. :)

    I didn't mean to imply any kind of ignorance on your part, by the way, the comment about corporations was to clarify that I was speaking from generalities not about this specific situation.

    Liberty's Edge

    Sure Steve. I have no problem conversing with u :)

    I only know for sure their (wotc or hasbro) decision is always based foremost on profit, whether direct (net profit) or indirect (marketing campaign to imrpove image which ultimately improves profit)

    Although i do wonder if the corporate culture of wotc may have changed over the years to be more "hasbro-like" than before. After all, turnover is high. People who were there prior to hasbro takeover are mostly gone (i surmise). Corporate vision and KPI are set by parent company too.

    Anyway, my two cents worth on this.

    51 to 100 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / My feelings about 5E D&D All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.