On the marketing of 4E

[Raven Crowking]

I will now have to read The House of the Wolflings:

Then my work here is done.

 

[Fifth Element]

That one line is where I started disliking 4e, as opposed to not liking what they were doing with the licenses and the marketing. It took 23 words to make me decide that the game was not for me, even before details of the GSL locked that decision in stone.

The Auld Grump, I like games where the PCs traipse through faerie rings and interact with the little folk. Heck, I do that with Spycraft, which is hardly less combat centered than 4e.

This is evidence for Hussar's point. You based your decision on just these 23 words, while apparently ignoring the other words around them, which when taken as a whole provide a pretty balanced viewpoint and include some words that explicitly agree with your likes.

 

[Marius Delphus]

I could take from this thread that people prefer to be lied to professionally by marketing then hearing designers honest thoughts.

If a designer tells you an old rule didn't work well and was "un-fun" and he has created a new rule that works better and is more fun, is that really an insult to you? Or is it not more a promise: "I think I found a flaw and found a way to fix it."

I don't mind being told a designer's honest thoughts. I'm afraid I do expect it soft-pedaled just a bit though. Being considerate of your audience is always cool. Saying things that sound "edgy" and "controversial"... not so much.

Just a bit is all I ask. Being told some rules element is categorically "not fun" makes my hackles tingle. "Fun" is a loaded word; it's too subjective. Some things that are "fun" for me are "snoozeworthy" to others. So being told, on the other hand, that that same rules element presents a problem at a lot of tables, that it could stand improvement, that it needs streamlining, that extensive research shows players overwhelmingly try to work around this rules element instead of using it (which is objectively bad in this context)... something like that can still be totally honest and, at the same time, sound better.

Same goes for story elements. Being told that certain critters were being mercilessly yanked because they were objectively pointless makes me grind my teeth a bit. Being told, on the other hand, that the new edition is re-racking the Outer Planes in a way that makes them vastly more flexible and that, while there certainly is room for these critters, they're not appearing right away in the new source material... again, could easily be totally honest that way without sounding like somebody's got a chip on a shoulder.

So not marketing-speak per se ("New! Improved! Use Less to Do More! Gets Out Your Toughest Stains!"), but maybe kid gloves.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I think what could have worked better from a marketing standpoint is if the changes in 4th edition had been emphasized as an evolution of the game's elements rather than a complete reinvention. The planar setup of 4th edition, for example, is pretty cool and succeeds in keeping a lot of elements that the old cosmology had. The way it was first previewed, though, was a designer saying that the Great Wheel was not enjoyable and this new thing was much better. Stuff like that gets taken as a loaded statement. Sure, some people would have complained either way, but they would have been fewer in number.

WotC did a lot of, "This part of 3rd edition was just bad, 4th edition has something new to replace it," when I think they could have used more, "4th edition takes this part of 3rd edition and improves it in this way." I don't think the developers ever meant to tear down 3rd edition to build up 4th, but that's the way they made it seem by using terms like "broken," "badly designed," and the dreaded "unfun."

 

[Vigilance]

I could take from this thread that people prefer to be lied to professionally by marketing then hearing designers honest thoughts.

If a designer tells you an old rule didn't work well and was "un-fun" and he has created a new rule that works better and is more fun, is that really an insult to you? Or is it not more a promise: "I think I found a flaw and found a way to fix it."

I would take this thought one step further.

If someone was working on 4e who did NOT think they were going to make a significantly better game and that they could identify and fix numerous weaknesses in the old system, I would not want them anywhere NEAR a new edition.

The worst thing you can get in a new edition is timidity.

 

[Wicht]

The worst thing you can get in a new edition is timidity.

Really? i would think the worst thing that you could get in a new edition is a set of rules nobody understands or wants.

Personally, as one left behind by 4e, I would have preferred a little more respect for some of the history of the game.

 

[avin]

This is evidence for Hussar's point. You based your decision on just these 23 words, while apparently ignoring the other words around them, which when taken as a whole provide a pretty balanced viewpoint and include some words that explicitly agree with your likes.

Maybe, but 4E killed good creatures on Monster Manual and lived to be true to that words: you can't find such kind of adventures on official 4E products.

Check Dungeon adventures. Nothing there reminds of fairies and rings. It's all about PEW PEW PEW kill & loot.

Everything that isn't combat is pushed to DMs, like, "we only want combat, if you want silly RP games figure out yourself." Fantastic system, horrible fluff, IMHO.

BTW, I never used page 42 and I'll never will.

As always: not a 4E basher, check sig, my problem remains with 4E fluff and ideas.

 

[Wicht]

While I think, in retrospect, that I would have eventually not converted fully to 4e, even with better marketing, the marketing of 4e more or less led to a series of events that insured I did not even buy a set of the rulebooks.

When 4e was announced I was in the market for a new set of books. Not because I disliked 3e but because my 3.0 books were finally looking pretty used. I had purchased every set of rules from 1983 on and fully expected to like the new rules. When I heard about 4e I was optimistic and fully expected it to be my new edition of choice. About the same time I was looking to restart a subscription to Dungeon Magazine. But when I went to get a subscription I found that the magazine had been discontinued. So I subscribed to Rise of the Runelords instead as it looked to be a good product.

Meanwhile, the more I read about 4e, the less I found I was looking forward to it. The tone of the marketing struck me not so much as insulting as it was disrespectful to the history of the game I had made my primary hobby in life. When Paizo announced that they were going to forgo 4e and stick with the OGL, it was an easy decision to go with them. Thus the tone of the marketing, the GSL debacle and the cancelation of Dungeon all worked together to mean that not only did I not switch, I never even bothered trying 4e.

 

[Toben the Many]

Therein lies the crux. I don't believe that people came to the table from a position of neutrality. I think people came to the table openly hostile (particularly after the debacle of the Dragon/Dungeon thing) and made finding offense their primary goal.

This is an interesting proposition, and I don't necessarily entirely disagree - but it begs the question: Why didn't people come to the table openly hostile during the advent of 3rd Edition?

Speaking only for myself, 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons marketing was fairly disastrous. Especially because it failed to deliver on the electronic front. I, along with many others, was there at GenCon when they rolled out the 4th Edition announcement. Part of the biggest push for 4th Edition at rollout was the Virtual Tabletop. It has since become vaporware.

Simply put, WotC has failed to deliver what was promised at launch. It would have been one thing if the Virtual Tabletop was only a side benefit or a little something extra for the fans. But there it was, front and center, as a large component of what they were pushing.

That, to me, is a fairly noticeable failure in terms of marketing. Promising something really big, but failing to deliver on it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZ2WdeTo1M&feature=related]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Part 2[/ame]

Again, at the end of the day though, who's fault is it? You're NEVER going to win when the girlfriend asks you "does this make me look fat?" In the same way, I think WOTC could have groveled at the feet of every earlier edtion, debasing themselves frequently, and people would still have been saying, "You are hating on my playstyle".

Again, how did WotC pull off this magificent feat during the change from 1st to 2nd? From 2nd to 3rd?

 

[an_idol_mind]

I would take this thought one step further.

If someone was working on 4e who did NOT think they were going to make a significantly better game and that they could identify and fix numerous weaknesses in the old system, I would not want them anywhere NEAR a new edition.

The worst thing you can get in a new edition is timidity.

There's a huge line between not wanting to be told that the current edition sucks and wanting marketing people to lie to you. There are a lot of ways to say, "we improved upon X" without also saying, "X was no good from the beginning," or worse, going as far as saying, "people who like X don't know what fun is."

From my own point of view, I was fully expecting the 4th edition designers to believe they had created a superior product. Honestly, for the type of game they wanted, they totally did improve upon 3rd edition. The slip-up marketing-wise was not that they said 4th edition was a better game, but rather that they called out key aspects of 3rd edition as being objectively bad. The end result is that people who liked those aspects got turned off not because the designers thought that 4th edition was a better game but because they felt the need to slam the edition people were currently playing and enjoying.