When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Windjammer]

As someone else in a position to know (on both of these points), I'll back Ari up on these.

Always good to read people who are "in the know", even when the point in question is factually wrong. And (independently of that), as for Wyatt having a stronger hand in 4E than Heinsoo, that's just bolllocks. True, James "wrote" an entire book mostly singlehandedly - the DMG, bar the final chapter which Mearls and Baker co-wrote - in a remarkably short time of 9 weeks. In fact, it's such an uninspired rip-off of 3.5 DMG II and Dungeonscape that I've got a hard time understanding all those people who praise it like the second coming of our Lord, unprecedented in D&D. Obviously such people don't know their 3.5. Talking about uninformed opinions.
In any case, I see Heinsoo and Mearls as co-writing the mechanics of 4E, and you'd have to be blind not to see their respective input in the PHB and MM. If you think the DMG or other things that have come out under the lead story designer will have as lasting an impact on the 4E product line as the core mechanics did (PHB+MM), I'm all ears - because I cannot even imagine that.

 

[BryonD]

Was 4E somehow a mistake or a disaster just because there's been a lot of shouting about it on the internet? Not even remotely.

"shouting on the internet" certainly has nothing to do with it, but check back in two years before declaring victory. It is interesting how plenty of "in the know" people have differing assessments of how well 4E is really holding up already and what the future holds.

Just as there are people proclaiming disaster when it clearly has not been, there are people claiming victory when it is way to early and there are signs of issue.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Just as there are people proclaiming disaster when it clearly has not been, there are people claiming victory when it is way to early and there are signs of issue.

Precisely.

 

[BryonD]

As the great Crothian said, "WotC didn't decide you weren't in their target audience, you did." Truer words have rarely been said on these boards.

Actually, that is flat out absurd.
4E developers themselves have been up front with major design philosophy shifts. They made certain choices with their eyes wide open.
It may be 1% and it may be 50%, but a certain section of the fan base was intentionally moved away from.

If they gain for than they lose then that was the exactly right card to play.
So I'm not remotely claiming that it was wrong or bad for them to do it.

But do not tell me that they are not the ones who changed the game, and radically changed some key elements. Thats just dumb.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I feel the need to point out that anyone who claims 4e isn't divisive is full of it. I'm not going to argue that 4e is good or bad, but you're seeing a much bigger split in the fan base then you ever saw with 2e -> 3e, with much more emotional investment. Most people who go to 4e, do it because they feel it's a better game; most people who went to 3e from 2e did it because it saved Dungeons and Dragons for them. The thought that 4e hasn't split anything is absolutely absurd at best.

Pathfinder is in a very interesting situation - WotC has, meant to or not, created a large group of people that very actively dislike the new D&D, but very strongly want a new revision to an older setting - a group that is titanic compared to those niche groups from previous editions. Pathfinder is set up to segue itself directly to that group, and many people in that group are very firm in their thought that Wizards wants absolutely nothing to do with them. Now, in all fairness, that's hardly the fault of just Wizards - I think the 4e fan base has done a hell of a lot to ensure that split is wide and painful. Of course, in doing so, they've done nothing but feed Pathfinder's potential for success.

 

[jdsivyer]

You'd think, and yet I'm very interested in Pathfinder*. I don't think 3.5 -- er, the second most-recent edition -- is perfect, not at all. I am almost certain WotC could have kept me as a loyal, crazy-spending customer, by fixing that edition, rather than creating a new game. That's why I'm so confused about why they didn't.

* Note that, like another poster upthread, I'm becoming a little concerned about Paizo's vision for changing, uh, the the second most-recent edition, too, however.

This is what I'm curious about, too. Instead of "fixing" 3.5 they went straight to a (and let's not pretend it isn't) a pretty much new set of rules. Why? Why not tidy up the errors from 3.5? Why did they decide to re-tool the entire game?

I would dearly love to hear from one of the WOTC staff justifying the (almost) complete overhaul of the D&D game.

 

[Windjammer]

I would dearly love to hear from one of the WOTC staff justifying the (almost) complete overhaul of the D&D game.

I think WotC were in a practical dilemma. The business cycle really mandated the D&D product line to be relaunched, lest that product line go out of existence entirely. However, to launch a new D&D product line, you've only got two choices. Either an ever so economical (read: minimal) re-touch to your latest edition, or an edition that is a new game in its own right. Take your pick, and try to tell me that either option wouldn't have caused a flamewar. "Why do we need to shell out another $90 on the core rulebooks when all that was needed was a 20 page PDF errata file?" I can see that reaction arising regardless of whether WotC would have gone 3.75, or 4.0 as they did - it's just the 3.0/3.5 issue all over, which caused plenty of flaming back then. Customers don't want a re-launch of their product line, they only want continual support - and free of charge, at that.

 

[DaveMage]

But you have to recognize the fact that the more supplements you put out, the more narrow those supplements end up becoming, since you tend to cover the general topics in the beginning.

Not necessarily (although that is certainly possible). Keep in mind, my point was that people claiming that there was nothing left to make in 3.5 is not valid. The game (3.5) was only in existance for 4.5 years. 1E had a 12 year run, and they didn't "run out of ideas" after only 4.5 years.

There's plenty out there that could have been done.

 

[Draksila]

Don't make out that it had to be this way. They could have just come out with a refined new edition of D&D (refinements being what new editions are generally about), rather than a mostly new game mislabelled as a new edition. Mechanics overhauls would have been enough, but it's not even thematically similar, they had to have their way with that as well. No campaign of mine will feature "dragonborn warlords".

I have to disagree with your assertion, there. When 3.5 came out, many fans cried out 'Foul!' and claimed that WotC was bilking them for their hard-earned cash. People respond just as harshly to a new revision as they do a new edition. Granted, there are significant changes between this edition and the previous that likely not have been as profound as when they plaster a sticker on the game claiming a full overhaul, but I knew a lot of people and read a lot of commentary online about how much of a ripoff it was to buy the corebooks again without it being a completely new product.

Frankly, at this point, I say just like what you like and buy accordingly. There are plenty of books out there for basic, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition... age just makes some of them harder to locate. If you don't like where a certain product line is going, stick with your tried and true and be thankful that you have extra money in your pocket every month. The company made its decision based on its own research and business needs. They're not going to change the direction of the product line at this point, so there's really no reason to even bother wondering why they changed their train of thought or (in the cases of a lot of threads in the last few months, not this particular one) throwing a hissy fit that they're not following your particular tastes. Play the game that makes you and your group happy, let those who like the new take on things play the new game, and just find solidarity in the idea that we're all weird enough to enjoy spending our spare hours pretending to be reality-altering heroes and villains in a world where such epic destinies are denied to the majority of the population.

I guess that's a lot of words just to say that I think that over-analyzing it is dangerous and unnecessary, being that it's prone to cause the more passionate people in our hobby to take up arms against each other.

 

[Mallus]

... but you're seeing a much bigger split in the fan base then you ever saw with 2e -> 3e...

Is there data to back up that claim?