• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

Ahnehnois

First Post
I couldn't disagree more. The toolkit I have at my fingertips now with DDi makes my job as DM almost too easy, in both prep and ad-libbing.
I don't deny the validity of your opinion. That said, our respective viewpoints don't exactly suggest (as was the thread topic) that the same edition is ever likely to make both of is happy. I don't think my refutations of any of the other points raised are likely to be productive, so I'll leave it at that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

triqui

Adventurer
Again, I had these same debates 2 - 3 years ago and people promised me that the massive growth of 4E would show me just how wrong I was. I wasn't wrong then. I'm not wrong now. "I told you so."
I already conceded that 4e missed the point when they tried to appeal a broader fan base. They did try to attract them with the shiny powers and cool "modern" stuff like dragonborns, but they didn't take in account that:
1) computers make calculus instantly. Humans not. So too much "shiny powers" and MMORPG like stuff, such as marking, failed becouse it bogged the combat speed play
2) computers give "quests" and things to do instantly and fresh. RPG need preparation time
3) building a character in a computer rpg takes like 15 seconds, and you build it on the fly. Sure, you can go with stronger builds and serious raiding if you want, but for the casuals, it's not needed
4) probably a bunch of other things I'm not thinking about just now.

So yes, they aimed to appeal a broader audience, and missed the shot. However, that does not show a flaw in the plan of appealing broader audience, just in the way they implemented it.
 

TheUltramark

First Post
I think before people throw out accusations towards Mike Mearls, and Chris Perkins, and Jim Wyatt, and the rest of the folks at Wizards, perhaps take a gander over at the youtube...search for those guys and check out some of the interviews from 2007-2009 about 4th ed and about what they were actually trying to accomplish....might shock some of you
 

broghammerj

Explorer
I think before people throw out accusations towards Mike Mearls, and Chris Perkins, and Jim Wyatt, and the rest of the folks at Wizards, perhaps take a gander over at the youtube...search for those guys and check out some of the interviews from 2007-2009 about 4th ed and about what they were actually trying to accomplish....might shock some of you

Would you care to elaborate and post some links.
 

BryonD

Hero
So yes, they aimed to appeal a broader audience, and missed the shot. However, that does not show a flaw in the plan of appealing broader audience, just in the way they implemented it.
Agreed it doesn't prove anything.

And if they try a different approach on the same goal, they will again "miss the shot" and that again won't "prove" anything.

I've already agreed several times that I can't prove anything. But I can and will keep saying I told you so.
 

Tallifer

Hero
1) computers make calculus instantly. Humans not. So too much "shiny powers" and MMORPG like stuff, such as marking, failed becouse it bogged the combat speed play

But your character is required to fight hundreds of usually repetitive fights versus monsters to attain the goals of level and treasure. It usually takes a half a dozen fights and some quests and skill challenges to reach a level in 4th edition D&D.

2) computers give "quests" and things to do instantly and fresh. RPG need preparation time

The modules, Dungeon Magazine and the Dungeon Delves provide many ready to run encounters. There are also many third party pdfs available.

3) building a character in a computer rpg takes like 15 seconds, and you build it on the fly. Sure, you can go with stronger builds and serious raiding if you want, but for the casuals, it's not needed

I played Dark Age of Camelot off and on for about four years. It takes a only a few minutes to start up a character, but ti takes 50 levels and endless hunting to achieve the readiness to fight in the exciting realm warfare or tackle the most interesting quests and dungeons. It is very true that I enjoyed immensely my weak and stumbling early days; but no one wants to play at the novice level for ever. 4th (indeed any) edition D&D allows you to participate fully in the same adventure and fun as all the other players right from the beginning. 30 minutes to build a decent character on the Character Builder is much better than days upon days farming for levels and equipment.
 


LurkMonkey

First Post
Interesting thread. I am going to go back to the OP on this one. Apologies if I cover ground already tread.

I can imagine one of the more asked questions that Mike will be asked is "Where are you going with these articles?"

I get a feeling from reading these articles that Mike is trying to brainstorm about game theory and he wants to elicit feedback from his fanbase. It has proven to be a contentious but successful strategem for Paizo.

Anyhow after reading page after page of discussion about these articles I've been surprised at the number of people who are say"This won't work!!!!" or who say something like "If this is 5e then count me out!!!!" without any sort of sense of how this would even actually look beyond discussion about theory.

No matter how you couch the subject of D&D, change, editions, etc. It will elicit strong responses. Look at the last four years. It amazes me how many people are invested in a game ruleset.

So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition? Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)? I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive. Is WotC in a no win situation?

I am going to come at this from a marketing perspective (my RL profession). I don't think that WotC drew fire from being the 'Big Guy'. D&D was the 'Big Guy' for decades without the schism we have seen in the last few years (granted, the arrival of the Internet as a communication vehicle also bears some of the responsibility for this). In fact, most gamers praised WotC as the savior of D&D in the last days of 2e.

What drew fire was the perception many had at the callousness that WotC (and by implication, Hasbro) treated their customers during the 4e rollout. Before I get any heated replies, note I said PERCEPTION. I am certain they didn't mean to treat any of their customers callously, no company ever does. But, and old saying in the marketing business is 'Perception is reality'. It doesn't matter what message you are trying to get across, if your mode of communication ends up being received badly by your audience, it is your fault, not the audiences. After all, the customer is always right. Why? Because you want them to buy your product.

Take my example. Not because I think that everyone thinks like me, but because I can only speak for myself. When 4E was announced four years ago, I was cautiously optomistic. I was a bit put out because I had thousands of dollars in 3e stuff, and I really wasn't looking forward to upgrading. However, the example of the 3D computer MMO-like interface WotC showed at GenCon looked really sweet. I have maintained that the future of gaming will eventually blend the visual impact and world-wide reach of MMOs with the customizable features and sandbox-style narratives of TTRPGS. I thought this was an important first step.

Several things occured to sour me on 4e. The previews didn't catch with me. I was somewhat distressed with the slaughter of the sacred cows of canon (I likes my sacred cows). Dragon and Dungeon, two of my oldest and dearest magazine subscriptions were announced to stop print and go digital. Paizo, a company I had learned to respect highly through said magazines, was being cut out of them. The OGL, a document I had thought very highly of, was being discarded for the GSL, a step backwards IMO. The delay in producing the GSL only hardened this opinion. Then, there were the 4Vengers...

I am not trying to spark anger here, let me put this out right away. But from a perception angle, the way the fans of the new system dismissed the concerns of those of us not sold on the new system rankled. I understand that they didn't speak for the company. But, in the end, the perception was that they did, or that their flaming was tolerated. It produced flaming from the proponents of the 3e/OGL side of things as well, and it escalated into the sad state of affairs we sufffered through these last few years.

The final straw for me was ending the miniatures line and ending sales of the previous editions PDFs. I felt as if WotC didn't care for my patronage any more. Whether this was true or not is irrelevant, this is how I FELT, and with a customer, how they feel is how they buy. Now, I am but one person, but my gaming outlay is about $150/month (it is my one hobby). I had originally spent this primarily with WotC and some with White Wolf, but now that money goes to Paizo.

Now, Paizo has won my loyalty over the years. They put out a beautiful product (gaming rules don't really bother me, but quality of product is key). They are incredibly responsive to customer queries, and their staff seems to have a real love of the game. If, as the OP posits, they did a Version 2.0, I believe that their open playtest style and their committment to open source gaming would ease the pain of the transition. I personally don't really care about the ruleset, I can tell my stories with coinfips if that needs to be done. It's how I feel I am valued as a customer that is important.

Is WotC in a 'no-win' situation? No, not really. Hopefully, they can learn from the marketing blunders of the past years and come up with some winning material. I would suggest as an olive branch to disaffected customers that they put PDFs of their older edition material up for sale again. That would go a long way towards healing the schism. Also, releasing edition-neutral items like miniatures, maps and the like would gain them returning customers, who then might be tempted to try their new game ruleset. You have to get them in the door if you want to sell them something, after all. I am not irretreivably lost to WotC, but they will have to work hard to regain my patronage.

Thank you for reading my TL missive. Once again, I will state for clarity: I am not trying to demean 4e, WotC, Hasbro, or its players. I am stating opinions only, and I speak only for myself. I was merely trying to discuss the OP's question from the perspective of a former customer of WotC.
 
Last edited:

broghammerj

Explorer
the link is YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
in the search box enter any one of the names of the 4th ed creative team

With your statement about seeing things that "might shock you" I had assumed you either rewatched the videos and had a point to make or you're probably guilty of what I did, which is to recall my own perceptions of interviews at the time. Posting a link to youtube and saying search for designers actually reveals a ton of videos. I was merely asking if you had one specific one you thought we should watch related to the above commentary.
 

variant

Adventurer
I just got done reading Minimalist D&D and concluded with: what the hell? I sincerely hope this is not the direction D&D 5.0 is heading.

I mean, I guess one could take out skills, but one could take out levels, classes, and even dice as well... I mean why have abilities at all or roll anything? You could just announce that you succeed or your DM could.
 

Remove ads

Top