Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Harlock · Jul 2, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
But I think the edition treadmill is proving to be a failed model. At least the way wotc has handled edition transitions. They cant risk splitting the fanbase with each release of a new edition. They are a publisher and do need to sell books. I think the problem may be that they are expecting too much from such a small industry. They can certainly release new editions, but the first aim has to be retaining all the customers you currently have. How many more editions can they release before competitors eat up all their lapsed customers? This is why they are ven doing the "one edition to rule them all" thing in the first place. They are not the undisputed top dog anymore. And I think it is directly tied to their approach of cranking out new editions (It reminds me of the Gary Jackson board room meetings from knodt).

Yes, they are a business. Yes, businesses should try to make money. But angering your customers is a bad way to achieve that goal (especially in a small pool like the rpg community). I think a lot of people strongly dislike the new edition every four-five years (i know when 3.5 came out os soon after 3e, it really bothered me).

Oh, I'm not saying it's a good business model. I certainly have my complaints about every edition, and I (and my gaming group) even stopped playing one altogether. For now, however, that seems to be their modus operandi. Personally, I too have wondered at the increased pace of new editions. I long for those golden years where the expectation was for new settings, modules, and yes, even add-on rules as opposed to having to deal with a new system every 5 years.

I will say this: if the expectation is for 5e to truly be the uniter and not a divider (Oh, thank you GWB) then I would love to see WotC make a true commitment to that by publicly vowing to put out settings, modules, and adventures for... 7-10 years. That would say to me, at least, that they reallllly believed what they are portraying.

Upper_Krust · Jul 2, 2012

Hey Lord Mhoram!

Lord Mhoram said:
By the way - That you again for the idea Krust - I always wanted to love 4E but never found a way to play it given my current circumstances. That would let me play 3 D&Ds now - 3rd, 4th and 5th when it comes out.

Glad I could help amigo. These sorts of problems are bread and butter to me. You might want to check out my website for what happens when I actually put my mind to something a bit more tasking...like revising the 4E Fighter and Wizard classes into 2 pages each.

...and if you are playing Heroic Tier 4E I would be remiss without mentioning my new pdf the Vampire Bestiary: Mountain of the Cannibal God (Lots of Jungle themed monsters, traps and hazards; Morale rules, Enemy territory rules; brief adventure etc.) /end shameless plug.

Imaro · Jul 2, 2012

Fifth Element said:
Okay, so the part you're missing is that we're really responding to your stated support of bedrockbrendan's comment (can't XP you etc), which supported the poster who said that 4E was not an RPG by trying to explain away the insult by assuming the poster meant something else. Then you go on to claim that 4E fans just won't accept that some people don't like tactical combat. It's a strawman, because the comment causing the problem is not "I don't like tactical combat" but "4E is not an RPG."

No he stated what he thought was meant by it, and I supported that, because I too feel someone may not necessarily express what they are trying to say correctly. Not once did I say anything about Patryn of Elvenshae's suggestion that it be worded different (hey I see your point as well)... but that doesn't change the fact that I agree with BedrockBrendan's assertion thaty sometimes people make a statement like that when really what they mean is that the grid-based, tactical combat is too prevalent in 4e, takes up too much time in 4e ands is not fun for them. Now please show me where I supported the comment quoted by BedrockBrendan?? You can't.

Lord Mhoram · Jul 3, 2012

Upper_Krust said:
...such advice would have been nice if applied to the rules bloated PC classes of course - but you can't have everything I guess.

Rules bloat, in and of itself, isn't a deterrent. I currently play a kitbash that is parts of 3.x, Pathfinder and Mont's Arana Unearthed blended together with rules here and there bolted on from other d20 fantasy games, as well as a lot from 3rd party sourced (both 3.x and Pathfinder).

My primary game is HERO, which, while not bloated is very mechanical.

I enjoy the rules tinkers, chargen and such as much as play at the table. Two separate but related hobbies.

As this thread is a 4E positive thread, and I know I did some topic drift away from it - what adventures are good for starting character (likely 3rd level) published for 4e?

Herschel · Jul 3, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
But I think the edition treadmill is proving to be a failed model. At least the way wotc has handled edition transitions. They cant risk splitting the fanbase with each release of a new edition.

What you say here directly contradicts what follows.

They are a publisher and do need to sell books.

The way to sell more books is to pump out a new edition because after the "core" books there are diminishing returns on a system. Sucktastic, but there's no such thing as an evergreen RPG.

I think the problem may be that they are expecting too much from such a small industry.

This is likely spot-on.

They can certainly release new editions, but the first aim has to be retaining all the customers you currently have. How many more /editions can they release before competitors eat up all their lapsed customers? This is why they are ven doing the "one edition to rule them all" thing in the first place.

Business goals are not always realistic but also the lapsing customers aren't filling what they think they can achieve also. Is that goofy? Probably, but corporate leadership has rarely been known to be that ....."smart". If something falls too far they spin it off and sell it or liquidate it, then they buy in to what they hope is the "next big thing". WotC's been grasping for another Magic for 20 years and how many card games now litter landfills and dustbins.

Businesses tend to be locusts, not eaarthworms.

Tony Vargas · Jul 3, 2012

Harlock said:
Campbell
======================
I like 4e because it allows me to play and run games that get away from those conceits.
======================
It sucks, but you may not be the target audience of 5e then. Not that 4e is bad, but it is, for better or worse, just like every previous and every forseeable future edition of D&D, going to be replaced. I am willing to give it a chance, but hey, that's just like my opinion.

Actually, WotC claims that 5e is trying to appeal to a broad range of play styles, so, as someone who is attracted to a game by it's ability to let him play the way he wants, he certainly among the professed target audience. He doesn't care if 4e is replaced, as long as it's replaced by something better that doesn't force a style he doesn't care for. Which is exactly what 5e is supposed to be trying to do.

It either hasn't started to try to do that yet, or has failed, because the 'core' we've seen so far isn't adequate to the task, nor even an adequate foundation to begin the task.

Libramarian · Jul 3, 2012

I think they should not try to please 4th edition fans personally. At least not those who only like 4th edition and think all previous editions are objectively broken and wrong or whatever.

Stormonu · Jul 3, 2012

Libramarian said:
I think they should not try to please 4th edition fans personally. At least not those who only like 4th edition and think all previous editions are objectively broken and wrong or whatever.

I'd more say they shouldn't try to please one-true-edition fans. Those fans who can't see any value in someone who likes any edition other than their edition of choice. Whether that edition of choice is OD&D, B/X, BECMI, 1E, 2E, 3E, Pathfinder, C&C, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord or 4E.

For example, I may have my issues with 4E, but there are some things I wouldn't mind seeing carried over from it, and I certainly wouldn't be against modules that support 4E-style play. I'd just rather the Core of the system be something usable by the largest factor of people across editions.

Bedrockgames · Jul 3, 2012

Herschel said:
What you say here directly contradicts what follows. The way to sell more books is to pump out a new edition because after the "core" books there are diminishing returns on a system. Sucktastic, but there's no such thing as an evergreen RPG. .

I dont think it is a contradiction, because modules are a more sustainable way to sell books. They do sell less than core (our modules sell about 50-60% of what their core book sells) but they are cheaper to make and they do (in my experience at least) contribute to core book sales. This does mean they have to think more in terms of module sales numbers than core book sales numbers. Personally i think this will allow them to have higher sales for longer, without having to reboot and lose customers every few years (which simply isn't working for them or the players).

Tony Vargas · Jul 3, 2012

Nod. The hardest of the hard-core edition-warriors aren't going anywhere. They're staying with 3.5 or Pathfinder or pre-Essentials 4e or post-UA AD&D or whatever it is they've become calcified in. They've never been part of the potential target audience.

That said, 4e is the most recent crop of D&D fans, and it's only been out 4 years, so it's not likely that a whole lot of them have become set in their ways and edition-insistent, after all, they've made the switch to every new edition, they have a record as 'adopters.'

Ironically, that's /also/ an argument for not trying to please 4e fans at all.