Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Fifth Element]

I think for WOTC, it is more than academic. This is information they probably want and need.

I disagree - what does this information give them? Besides the impossibility of obtaining reliable information on this, how does the knowledge of whether 3E was a bigger change or 4E was help them design the game?

It's probably fair to say that the two biggest edition changes are 3E and 4E, regardless of how you rank them against each other. Lots of people switched to 3E, and lots switched to 4E. So which change was bigger is academic without knowing if said change is seen as good or not.

Both were big changes, and presumably they met with different degrees of success. That first link Ahnehnois provided suggests that no one thinks 2E's change was anywhere near as big as 3E's or 4E's. So 3E's big change was great, but 4E's somewhat bigger change was bad? Is that what we're trying to infer?

You could argue that fewer people switched to 4E than they did to 3E. You could try to attribute that to the "bigger change" in the editions. But that doesn't take into account the specific changes. Maybe big changes are great, so long as they're well done, and people didn't find 4E's changes well done. Who knows?

It just strikes me as trying to put people into camps. People have largely given up on calling 4E a worse game than 3E, or saying it's "not D&D". There were a lot of people saying that a few years ago, but now reasonable people accept that it's a matter of taste. So now we're on to 4E was a "bigger change" as a way of separating us from them. Many 3E fans seem to want their game included with previous editions while keeping 4E on the outside, while self-identified old-schoolers tend to lump 3E and 4E together outside of their vision of what D&D is.

To me, the degree of change does not matter, so long as the changes that are made make sense, have a purpose and are well-designed. I don't care how far 5E ends up being from 1E or 3E or 4E, if I like it the best I will play it the most. And it will all be D&D to me.

WotC is presumably trying to make the game reasonably close to all previous editions, to try to include as many players as possible. To this end, the relative degree of difference between 2E/3E and 3E/4E is irrelevant. Previous editions are what they are, and they all need to be considered.

 

[Herschel]

For that matter, you don't need WotC to support your preferred edition or development track either. This is about what we want and whether or not WotC thinks it will do better supporting one group, the other, or trying to woo together some subset of both.

But they need to sell us a new game. Wooing the subset only is a positive if they woo a market larger than the previous one and in order to do that they need to convince those differing groups that the new game is better. That also means doing a lot better job of marketing the new system.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's a case study, something that might be useful to analyze when trying to figure out why transitions from one edition to another might be more or less successful.

If it's true that 4E is by far the biggest edition change, then "clearly" most 4E players are fine with big changes, since their preferred edition was the biggest change. Again it comes down to what changes were made, not how many there were or how big they were.

But I still reject the relevance. It seems that 3E and 4E were both big changes, so they only inform other big changes, presumably. If WotC are trying to make a "small change" edition, then they're both irrelevant. But there's no way you'll be able to determine something like "60% change is fine, but 80% is just too much." As this thread and others demonstrate, we can't even agree on which one was actually bigger, much less how much bigger.

 

[billd91]

WotC is presumably trying to make the game reasonably close to all previous editions, to try to include as many players as possible. To this end, the relative degree of difference between 2E/3E and 3E/4E is irrelevant. Previous editions are what they are, and they all need to be considered.

I agree that's what WotC is doing. But when considered together, the differences between editions when assessing how well new editions were adopted at transition times may not be irrelevant. They may conclude that a major shift from 4e-style D&D will hurt its success. They may also conclude that, as long as the shift is back in the direction of previous editions, that negative influence can be contained or minimized.

There's a lot WotC may want to analyze in the edition transitions they've experienced.

 

[billd91]

But they need to sell us a new game. Wooing the subset only is a positive if they woo a market larger than the previous one and in order to do that they need to convince those differing groups that the new game is better. That also means doing a lot better job of marketing the new system.

I would say that they seem to think they do need to sell a new game - because the subset of the D&D market they got with 4e turned out to be smaller than they wanted it to be. If that's truly the case, they can't really continue on with the 4e track, can they? They have to try something else. They may not succeed but they clearly weren't going to succeed at the same goal pursuing the 4e development track either.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

But they need to sell us a new game. Wooing the subset only is a positive if they woo a market larger than the previous one and in order to do that they need to convince those differing groups that the new game is better. That also means doing a lot better job of marketing the new system.

I had a big thing typed up that boiled down to this and then somehow the tab that EN World was on closed.

WotC can't afford to lose the 4E crowd anymore than they afforded losing the 3E crowd in the 3E->4E transition. That means actually wooing the 4E folk (along with the others), which is something they haven't made much effort toward yet, if at all. If the best the 4E crowd is going to get is the "tactical" module and a non-unique maneuver-using Fighter, then they will fail miserably. WotC can't afford a third(maybe even half, who knows) of their customer base to be left behind or to go elsewhere. Pathfinder showed us that.

They are going to have to start trying a little harder.

 

[Fifth Element]

They may conclude that a major shift from 4e-style D&D will hurt its success. They may also conclude that, as long as the shift is back in the direction of previous editions, that negative influence can be contained or minimized.

There's a lot WotC may want to analyze in the edition transitions they've experienced.

Again, these all sound like qualitative considerations (having to do with the nature of the changes) rather than quantitative (the amount of change).

 

[Herschel]

I would say that they seem to think they do need to sell a new game - because the subset of the D&D market they got with 4e turned out to be smaller than they wanted it to be. If that's truly the case, they can't really continue on with the 4e track, can they? They have to try something else. They may not succeed but they clearly weren't going to succeed at the same goal pursuing the 4e development track either.

The 3E market was also insufficient, so improving on that track was needed. They quickly revised to 3.5 and still did not gain the market they wanted.

I think a big part of what "drives" this is that the never had the 1E and 2E holdovers. All those players of the original editions haven't had to give WotC a dime and are using the IP they purchased. It's part of looking back instead of moving forward. Instead of working hard to gain new customers they're trying to re-tap old ones that shunned them initially because they had what they wanted and also because there are a lot more choices today in the marketplace.

It's probably somewhat akin to television. Back in the day, a show like MASH could utterly dominate American viewing because not only was it a very good show, but it only had three competitors in its time slot. Then came cable with 30 channels, then 100 channels and suddenly even a good show couldn't dominate a time slot like it used to because some viewers started watching Rachel Ray to MMA.

Some people stilll watch TV Land and syndicated old shows and the new shows don't appeal to them. Re-hashing/re-doing a show generally has not had good results in the marketplace.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Besides the impossibility of obtaining reliable information on this, how does the knowledge of whether 3E was a bigger change or 4E was help them design the game?

I don't think it's anywhere near impossible. Just look at sub-systems and see how many changed and how radically. I think it's pretty obvious that the greatest change was from 2e to 3e, and that 3e to 4e was close behind, with 1e to 2e being the slightest of changes.

It's useful information because of the 'failure' of 4e. WotC has to have been looking for the 'cause' of that, and if the 'cause' is that it changed too much from 3e, then the solution is to swing that pendulum back where people want it, possibly as far as AD&D.

OTOH, if the 'failure' of 4e was due to the OGL allowing 3pps to cater to the h4ter, the solution is to repudiate 4e and litterally go back, pick up OGL 3.5 and try to beat Pathfinder at it's own game, because D&D can never 'advance' again.

OTOOH, if the 'failure' of 4e was only in failing to meet Hasbro's unrealistic revenue targets, then the solution is to pretend that they can unite the 3.5, AD&D, and 4e markets, so Hasbro will wait a few more years before shelving the line when /that/ fails.

WotC is presumably trying to make the game reasonably close to all previous editions, to try to include as many players as possible. To this end, the relative degree of difference between 2E/3E and 3E/4E is irrelevant.

Actually, it's quite relevant, as they'll need to be reconciled in some way.

Unfortunately, I think there are some key incompatibilities.

4e: Is balanced, fans value balance and are paranoid about losing it.
3.x: Is intentionally imbalanced, fans value rewards for system mastery and loath balance.
classic D&D: Isn't balanced, barely tried to be balanced, and fans couldn't care less about balance one way or the other.

 

[Shadeydm]

I'll be shocked if in the end 4E fans won't be able to pick enough optional components to customize DDN to look and play very close to thier favorite edition. I think we aren't seeing it at this time because they are focused on making a core which can be added to and fine-tuned to any edition/playstyle not just 4E. 5E is coming and its supposed to be the no one left behind edition (this is a good thing). The fact that there is no particular edition fans saying the core currently looks like the best thing ever is probably good news all around after all the best compromises usually mean no one leaves the negotiating table happy. So in an odd way I guess I'm saying be happy no one is happy or better yet keep calm and carry on