The roots of 4e exposed?

pemerton · Jul 9, 2018

Is 4e too slow in play? That is a design problem (although obviously to some extent at least relative to taste).

Is 4e too different from AD&D and 3E, and hence not popular with that market? That is not a design problem; it's a commercial problem, but doesn't tell us anything about the qualities of 4e as a game. (It's not inherent in the notion of game, or even good game, that it be commercially popular.)

There is a tendency to conflate these too different sorts of analysis. I think that the first sort is interesting, and something that discussion boards are good for. The second is empirical speculation, and without access to the marketing information that only WotC has access to does not seem all that worthwhile.

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 9, 2018

billd91 said:
That may have been A problem with 4e, but it had problems far more fundamental than that. The main one is, I think, badly misreading their market and producing the wrong game for the majority of it. Basically, it's a New Coke problem - they were producing solutions to problems that weren't inherent to most of their customers. Like Coca-Cola producing New Coke in an effort to be more competitive within the Pepsi-drinking community and in taste-tests (which their Coke-drinking customers at the time didn't care about), WotC was responding to company-driven needs to woo MMORPG players and make the game more online-friendly more than their customers' needs at the time.

The key problem with New Coke was that- despite it beating out Pepsi (its intended target) AND the original Coca-Cola formula in numerous taste tests- Coke thought that their market data indicated they needed to replace the original with the New. Thing was, most Coke drinkers- even those who chose New Coke in the taste tests- didn’t want a replacement. They’d have been happy with the New product...but only as a supplement to the original. Replacing a popular product with another risks hard feelings. Not rational opposition, emotional opposition.

When I personally raised the spectre of a repeat of the New Coke outcome as I saw more and more 4Ed mechanics in the buildup to its release, I made that precise point. 3.X was incredibly popular. Even in decline, a replacement product faced a daunting task. 4Ed could be a good or even great game, but I worried that many 3.X fans wouldn’t accept it as a replacement- myself included.

houser2112 · Jul 9, 2018

pemerton said:
Is 4e too slow in play? That is a design problem (although obviously to some extent at least relative to taste).

Is 4e too different from AD&D and 3E, and hence not popular with that market? That is not a design problem; it's a commercial problem, but doesn't tell us anything about the qualities of 4e as a game. (It's not inherent in the notion of game, or even good game, that it be commercially popular.)

There is a tendency to conflate these too different sorts of analysis. I think that the first sort is interesting, and something that discussion boards are good for. The second is empirical speculation, and without access to the marketing information that only WotC has access to does not seem all that worthwhile.

I fail to see the distinction in your second comparison. The design of 4E was too different than past editions, making it unpopular. It, by design, fixed problems that many didn't feel existed. Now, these articles explain the reasons for those design decisions being made were to satisfy the unrealistic expectations of business (commercial reasons). It's not really speculation (now, after reading these articles) that commercial concerns drove the particular design of 4E, but those reasons weren't explicit at the time (even if they were somewhat apparent to the astute observer). The only concrete thing we had to go on was the design of the game, and this was the proximate cause of its downfall.

Les Moore · Jul 9, 2018

Dannyalcatraz said:
The key problem with New Coke was that- despite it beating out Pepsi (its intended target) AND the original Coca-Cola formula in numerous taste tests- Coke thought that their market data indicated they needed to replace the original with the New. Thing was, most Coke drinkers- even those who chose New Coke in the taste tests- didn’t want a replacement. They’d have been happy with the New product...but only as a supplement to the original. Replacing a popular product with another risks hard feelings. Not rational opposition, emotional opposition.

When I personally raised the spectre of a repeat of the New Coke outcome as I saw more and more 4Ed mechanics in the buildup to its release, I made that precise point. 3.X was incredibly popular. Even in decline, a replacement product faced a daunting task. 4Ed could be a good or even great game, but I worried that many 3.X fans wouldn’t accept it as a replacement- myself included.

The REAL problem with replacing original Coke was that Coca-Cola is what everybody uses in mixed drinks. When's the last time somebody asked for a
Pepsi & Bourbon? Or Pepsi and Rum?

Kobold Boots · Jul 9, 2018

houser2112 said:
I fail to see the distinction in your second comparison. The design of 4E was too different than past editions, making it unpopular. It, by design, fixed problems that many didn't feel existed. Now, these articles explain the reasons for those design decisions being made were to satisfy the unrealistic expectations of business (commercial reasons). It's not really speculation (now, after reading these articles) that commercial concerns drove the particular design of 4E, but those reasons weren't explicit at the time (even if they were somewhat apparent to the astute observer). The only concrete thing we had to go on was the design of the game, and this was the proximate cause of its downfall.

Being "ahead of the curve" is one thing. Being "too far ahead of the curve" is another.

The major issue in my opinion with the 4e game and release was that it was too much change across too many lines, too fast. New game mechanics.. ok. Kick Paizo in the teeth.. ok. Go VTT.. ok.. doing everything all at once.. bad idea.

I give WoTC all the credit in the world for having the will to do these things all at once, but the market generally isn't firehose-ready. From my point of view it's a shame, because we had a lot of fun with 4e once we all decided not to gripe about the changes.

(Granted that took me constantly recruiting over the course of a year and asking people to leave that wouldn't stop. - But that's more to do with not wanting to be around negative people generally and less to do with how good or bad the game was. I find a lot of gamers complain by default about a lot of things, not just their games, and finding the optimists is difficult.)

2c
KB

Les Moore · Jul 9, 2018

IMO, for what it's worth, (not that it's for sale) WoTC didn't do a bad job with 4E as an edition, where they screwed up was with the promotion.
If you're going to make it an online game, then SAY that, and DO that. Don't hawk all new, expensive PHBs and miniatures, and short-stroke
all of your loyal TTRPG fans, just to make a fast buck. WoTC had a good thing going, until they decided to abuse customer's trust for money.

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 9, 2018

Les Moore said:
The REAL problem with replacing original Coke was that Coca-Cola is what everybody uses in mixed drinks. When's the last time somebody asked for a
Pepsi & Bourbon? Or Pepsi and Rum?

Now I want a Cuba Libre. DAMN YOU!!!

Kobold Boots · Jul 9, 2018

Les Moore said:
IMO, for what it's worth, (not that it's for sale) WoTC didn't do a bad job with 4E as an edition, where they screwed up was with the promotion.
If you're going to make it an online game, then SAY that, and DO that. Don't hawk all new, expensive PHBs and miniatures, and short-stroke
all of your loyal TTRPG fans, just to make a fast buck. WoTC had a good thing going, until they decided to abuse customer's trust for money.

Well said, but I think I remember it a bit differently.

1. The VTT was intended to enable and expand play not replace pure tabletop.
2. WoTC never said that it was going to replace the pure in person tabletop experience or replace the dead tree book line.
3. They did get really hosed by their lead designer of VTT going postal. Honestly, if I had that rolling over my brand's PR, I'd cancel that designers project too. Scary threat to the entire firm.

So while it's certainly on the person abused to determine whether or not they actually were; I don't think WoTC's intention was ever to do so. Where I'll agree with you is that the requirement for minis opened up a new profit line. (It's also the my supporting reason for why VTT wasn't ever intended to replace the pure tabletop experience.)

Thanks,
KB

Les Moore · Jul 9, 2018

Respectfully, I'm going to somewhat disagree with you here, a little, Kobold Boots. They merchandised and promoted an online game to TT
gamers, and whored out all the manuals and miniatures. After all, if it's an ONLINE version, don't you want the manuals to be PDFs or IRLs?
And what do you need miniatures for, at all?

IMO, they were far more interested in maximizing their profits with the new version, than respecting their customer base. In the ensuing confusion,
they lost a lot of people to Pathfinder, outright, and tarnished their image to many others, like me. They gave themselves this black eye, by trying
to exploit the situation for profit, at the cost of not only the version, but also their loyal TT gamers. There are a couple things they could have done. One was hold the release date till the VTT was better. The other was to provide the TT gamers with a less half-baked version, which initially came off as a well polished, abbreviated children's version.

Kobold Boots · Jul 9, 2018

Les Moore said:
Respectfully, I'm going to somewhat disagree with you here, a little, Kobold Boots. They merchandised and promoted an online game to TT
gamers, and whored out all the manuals and miniatures. After all, if it's an ONLINE version, don't you want the manuals to be PDFs or IRLs?
And what do you need miniatures for, at all?

IMO, they were far more interested in maximizing their profits with the new version, than respecting their customer base. In the ensuing confusion,
they lost a lot of people to Pathfinder, outright, and tarnished their image to many others, like me. They gave themselves this black eye, by trying
to exploit the situation for profit, at the cost of not only the version, but also their loyal TT gamers.

No need to worry about disagreeing if you're being civil. That's the best kind of disagreement

On my end, I was one of the folks that happily embraced 3x because I was happier with 1e than 2e. By the time 4e was on the horizon I was saturated with 3x and wanted it to be over, then played the ever living heck out of 4e. I was pretty sad when I saw what 5e became, simply because I'd still rather play 1e than 5e and would happily consume more content for either 1e or 4e. (and being honest, I'm working on a hybrid system now, just figuring out the appropriate licenses for what will and won't fly though I doubt I'd ever try to sell it.)

So I expect my feelings to be different than yours from the way you portray the matter. That's entirely cool.

Be well
KB

The roots of 4e exposed?

pemerton

Legend

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

houser2112

Explorer

Les Moore

Explorer

Kobold Boots

Banned

Les Moore

Explorer

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Kobold Boots

Banned

Les Moore

Explorer

Kobold Boots

Banned

Similar Threads