On the marketing of 4E

[Windjammer]

Edition wars are created by fans, not companies.

One of the most harmful, edition-wars-stirring, things to happen during the pre-release time of 4E was the claim that 4E rendered 3.5 obsolete. And you know who made that statement? It sure wasn't fans on the net who hadn't seen the game yet. It was two types of people: designers and playtesters. To make it worse, the only playtesters to be vocal on this point were guys who later miraculously landed a freelance job for the 4E project line, or people closely related to them. Two examples from the top of my head,

- Ari Marmell's DM during the playtest time, Massawyrm. He produced the worst ever pre-release "neutral playtest" by describing how, having played 4E for a fraction, he went to put his 3.5 books into the dumpster and/or sale them off for a couple of dollars. Wow! What a nice image! "I loved 3.5 so much that I sell off my 3.5 books cheaply to strangers!"

- That Transformer-movie-script witer who wrote the chapter on the Feywild in the Manual of the Planes. Feel free to peruse his online "contributions" in early 2008, and note how he conveniently forgets to mention that is in any sense commercially involved in 4E.

The same vibes were coming from most designers as well, like Chris Perkins describing why they stopped support for 3.5 (he didn't say "look, it's for commercial reasons", no, he said "it's not a game we would even WANT to play at the office any more, EVER again!"), or a couple of remarks by Mike Mearls, some of them on the podcast surrounding GenCon 2007, some of them on forums, saying that he disliked 3.5 to a degree that he would never want to play it again.

For me, it was those remarks which really put fuel to the (then only small) fire of the edition wars. They contained two things which in my estimate are not just ill-worded but ill-intended

1) People say they won't ever play 3.5 again. A needless overstatement to drive home the point they like 4E better, because it's stated in terms of dislike and condemnation of an edition that most other D&D fans at the time were still heavily enjoying, preparing campaigns for, and so on. It put a bad vibe on people who at the time enjoyed 3.5, when they should have been told instead "you're playing a great game now, but we're making that game - your game - even better!". They should have congratulated fans for playing the game, for making the choice to commercially support a game produced by WotC.

2) It basically started the claim that once you start to play 4E meant you would no longer play 3.5. How silly! 4E and 3.5 are both great games, and if you like to play one of them, that should never automatically mean you won't touch the other. People like myself, who enjoy both editions - and enjoy them for precisely the reason that they are both great games which cater to different play styles - can only shake their head at this (mutual) edition exclusivism.

And that exclusivism wasn't started by fans. It was started by the marketing. It was the worst marketing move ever, because fans didn't need to be convinced to no longer commercially support a (now defunct) product line by buying 3.5 product. Fans couldn't buy new 3.5 anyway, so why tell them they shouldn't support it by playing it?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

2) It basically started the claim that once you start to play 4E meant you would no longer play 3.5. How silly! 4E and 3.5 are both great games, and if you like to play one of them, that should never automatically mean you won't touch the other. People like myself, who enjoy both editions - and enjoy them for precisely the reason that they are both great games which cater to different play styles - can only shake their head at this (mutual) edition exclusivism.

That's you. But it isn't everyone. When I first played 3e, after a couple of session I decided that I'd never play 2e again. There was just no reason for it. 3e was clearly better. It solved every problem I had with 2e.

When I played 4e, after a couple of sessions I had decided that I'd never play 3e again because it was clearly better. I was even convinced to play 3e once more after I started playing 4e and I didn't have that much fun. Stuff that used to be fun just wasn't once I knew there was a better way to do it.

Now, obviously you don't agree with this. Just as a lot of people don't agree that 3e was clearly better than 2e. That's fine.

But to say that the people at WOTC and the people who came online to share their enthusiasm for the game were not ALLOWED to share their opinions because if they no longer find 3e fun or no longer like 3e, then they can never say it, ever....well, that's just dumb.

I also find it completely absurd that you can advertise a new edition without ever say anything bad about the old edition. People will complain that you are insulting the old edition no matter HOW positive you are.

You say, "The new edition is great because of simpler, easier to use grapple mechanics" and you have hundreds of people on the internet yelling "They said the grapple rules in 3.5e were complicated and hard to use. They must really hate the old edition."

You say, "We managed to balance the character classes more effectively to make it more fun for everyone" and you have people screaming "They think that it's impossible to have fun with 3e."

I saw this happen time and time again. No matter how positive a comment was, people claimed it was negative advertising.

 

[AllisterH]

re: Gnomes

I'm kind of wondering why WOTC gets this tacked on to them...For some reason, people seem to forget how TSR treated gnomes. ("serious settings don't have gnomes - Darksun, Birthright and Ravenloft. Gnomes are a joke race - Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms and Spelljammer").

Yet WOTC is the one that is mocking gnomes?

EDIT: I think people might not remember the switchover from 2e to 3e.....From both magazines and internet postings, WOTC wasn't as kind to 2e fans as they were to 3e fans IMO....Unlike 4e where WOTC mentioned simply starting a new campaign since the rules are so different, WOTC actually came out with "RSE adventure" to kill off 2E (Apocalypse Stone anyone). WOTC really, REALLY didn't expect anyone to continue playing 2e.

 

[Windjammer]

But to say that the people at WOTC and the people who came online to share their enthusiasm for the game were not ALLOWED to share their opinions

I also find it completely absurd that you can advertise a new edition without ever say[ing] anything bad about the old edition.

I've made neither of those claims.

 

[Fifth Element]

Ain't got my books on hand, so let me run through the vague quotes and I can fill them in with the word for words later if you really need me to. Most of these are fairly well circulated through, and you sure as hell know exactly what I'm talking about.

We know what you think they say, the request was for actual quotes, not for your interpretation of the quotes. Because the examples you provided are chock full of interpretation, and don't necessarily reflect what was actually said.

 

[Cadfan]

When WotC mocked the gnome, I felt they were mocking those who liked the gnome. I felt mocked.

I was unaware that there were people who didn't make fun of gnomes, until I encountered this attitude on the internet. I thought that was why we had gnomes. I thought their whole point was to be ridiculous and the butt of jokes. I thought that was the whole reason gnome fans liked gnomes- because they're funny and you can laugh at them.

 

[Fifth Element]

I would hate to live in a world where you are not allowed to mock things now and then. Especially imaginary races. At the 4e launch, many people said ridiculous things about the Tiefling, mocking it as "goth" without knowing anything about that subculture. But that is, it seems, okay and good-natured humor while mocking the Gnome is disrespectful. And personal.

Indeed. It's especially disconcerting given that the tiefling was mocked by WotC at the same time as the gnome. In the very same video. So they made fun of a new race with an old one. But the old one is personal and insulting.

 

[Shazman]

Count me in as one who thought Wizards was trashing 3.5.

Looking back, I believe the problem was that the designers would talk about parts of 3.5 that they claimed weren't fun. They would then go on to explain how the faulty mechanic in question would be better in 4e. This approach backfired on them because for a long time after the 4e announcement and certainly during most of these previews, we didn't really know what 4e was going to be like or how big of change 4e was going to be. They were trying to explain the new system to us, but were only giving us small details rather than the big picture. So we weren't really getting a sense of how 4e was going to be better. All we were getting was a sense that the 4e designers didn't like 3.5.

I bet if we went back and read those previews now, they'd make a lot more sense and would seem less insulting to 3.5.

Actually, for a long time they wouldn't explain why a 4E mechanic was "better" than the "horrible" 3.5 mechanic. They would say something like. "It's awesome! We can't tell you why it's better, but trust us it's awesome!" How incredibly lame.

 

[billd91]

Indeed. It's especially disconcerting given that the tiefling was mocked by WotC at the same time as the gnome. In the very same video. So they made fun of a new race with an old one. But the old one is personal and insulting.

Context is important. People have been playing gnomes since at least the beginning of 1e and now the race was being demoted from the main PH. Tieflings were being promoted. The ribbing thus becomes colored by teasing on the way up and a kick in the pants on the way down.

 

[AllisterH]

Context is important. People have been playing gnomes since at least the beginning of 1e and now the race was being demoted from the main PH. Tieflings were being promoted. The ribbing thus becomes colored by teasing on the way up and a kick in the pants on the way down.

Again I'll ask about the gnome.

Given TSR's history/treatment of the gnome, why was WOTC take seen so offensive? Gnomes WERE a joke.