Edition wars...a GOOD thing? or if not, an APPROPRIATE thing?

[Mistwell]

I can't really agree with the "videogamey" debate being an example of a dead end- the more it goes on, the more variant definitions and nuances come out.

You think WOTC is wading through thousands of posts to find slight nuances in variant definitions of the video gamey debate to improve the game at this point? I don't. The claim is that the purpose was to improve future editions by sending a message to WOTC. That video game stuff isn't any longer serving that purpose. Not even a little.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

You think WOTC is wading through thousands of posts to find slight nuances in variant definitions of the video gamey debate to improve the game at this point? I don't. The claim is that the purpose was to improve future editions by sending a message to WOTC. That video game stuff isn't any longer serving that purpose. Not even a little.

I still think all the people who complain about 4E in hopes of changing it or having an effect on the next edition are talking to somebody who isn't listening. If you look at the complaints that drove the development of 4E, they were all complaints from people who were playing 3E at the time. I don't really know of any complaints from non-players that had any effect on the outcome of the game. In addition, we can look to WotC's rules updates to 4E, and the nerfs and revisions contained in them, and you can see that its the complaints from 4E players that are being listened to, and not those of non-players. The game has evolved since its launch, and yet it has done so in a direction that has nothing to do with the complaints of people who aren't playing 4E.

 

[BryonD]

Presumably, they judged the profitability either too risky or insufficient. WotC is a business when all is said and done, after all. If they believed that continuing the 3e line would be suitably profitable, they'd no doubt do so. It's even possible that they did desire to support a larger fan base as you say, but could not come up with an acceptable business model (though that's pure conjecture).

I definately don't think continuing 3E would have been a profitable option. 3E had run its course.

My claim is not remotely that they should have continued 3E.

My claim is that they could have developed a 4E that had a wider appeal.

 

[BryonD]

In a de facto sense yes. Older editions are not being printed, not having new books published, not being supported by the RPGA, ect. While I would agree that 3E and previous editions are as much D&D as 4E is in a spiritual sense, they are not in a practical sense.

I don't see much relevance to books being published, and far less to the RPGA.

But if it is true that other D&Ds are not the same as the current 4E, then the reverse statment is also true. 4E is not the old D&D.

I would have to disagree there. One of my main complaints about 3.5E was that it tried to be too many things to too many people, and since many of these goals conflicted with each other you ended up with a sloppy and conflicted game. For example, 3E didn't know whether it wanted to be a strong class based system, or an infinitely customized building block system, and as such it didn't do a terribly good job at being either. It certainly isn't as strong a class based system as 4E is, and its not as good of a toolbox system as most point buy systems.

I don't think your opinion is very representative. But that is neither here nor there.

There is a big split in the market now. By definition, the people on the other side of that split are potential customers who have been missed.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You think WOTC is wading through thousands of posts to find slight nuances in variant definitions of the video gamey debate to improve the game at this point? I don't. The claim is that the purpose was to improve future editions by sending a message to WOTC. That video game stuff isn't any longer serving that purpose. Not even a little.

I don't think they are doing so intentionally, as a function of their job or continuing market research, etc., though such a thing is not without precedence in business. "Shopping the competition" isn't a myth.

I also think that the videogame thread was more about the people on these boards looking for a better understanding than about sending a message to WotC. IMHO, that thread was less an EWT than a meta-EWT.

What I DO believe is that there are many game designers- freelancers and WotC employees, who frequent these boards and others. I doubt they actively participate in EWTs (at least, not very often), but they're definitely aware of them and may even lurk on one thread or another.

I'm also pretty sure that several of these designers play in multiple systems- not just 3.X and 4Ed, so they're conscious of gaming controversies and discussions in general. That the Edition Wars have moved on into more of a "cold war" phase isn't going to disappear from WotC's radar. If they enter the 5Ed design process down the road and the EWTs are still popping up and are still heated, and if there is any kind of 3.X market out there, they'll take a new look at it. I'm not saying that would make them make 5Ed resemble 3.X more, but it would probably make them reconsider some of the marketing bumbles they pulled in 4Ed's rollout. They'll probably also reconsider their market research and interpretation- IOW, they'll ask better questions, or they might cast a broader net.

 

[Hussar]

BryonD - the problem with the "wider appeal" argument is that you are assuming that the group that is not being appealed to is large enough to make a difference. Now, I have no idea if that is true or not. And, I also know that you don't either.

Thus, making claims that they could have made an edition with "wider appeal" boils down to " they could have made an edition that appeals to me" since you cannot make any claims with any veracity about how much business they lost due to a narrower focus.

I mean, looking at the Maptools D&D specific forum I see 15 3.5 and Pathfinder games compared to 37 4e games on offer (note, when I did the count, anyone who said either was fine I counted in both columns). To me that says there's three times as many 4e players as 3e and Pathfinder combined.

Now, I know that's totally not conclusive. I know that. But, it's a pretty common trend on all the VTT boards and I see no reason to think that VTT players are any more inclined to one edition or another.

I'm really not sure why people would think that the community is split anywhere near evenly.

 

[Lanefan]

Forum structure: Splitting the board down into more sub-forums is not something I'd like to see. In fact, I'd somewhat prefer the opposite - fewer sub-forums and more things put into General, as that is about the only forum I visit (well, and Meta, sometimes).

WotC moves: Call me a dreamer, but I'd like to think that sooner or later WotC as a company will come to the realization that they are the custodians of *all* the editions of D+D, not just the one they are trying to market at the time; and in that role will move to fully support and market all editions rather than just one.

Thread title: my answer is yes, and yes.

There's nothing to be gained by screaming insults at each other, but at the same time there's also nothing to be gained by never stopping to compare how different editions do things. And sometimes those comparisons are inevitably going to lead to arguments, as something that sucks to one person might be the best design idea another person has ever seen.

Lanefan

 

[Umbran]

Thoughts? Let me have it.

Good or appropriate? Neither.

Edition warring isn't spirited debate, or even heated discussion. It is members of a community treating each other badly.

For those who suggest that the gaming industry can learn about gamer preferences from edition wars... it seems to me the #1 thing the publishers stand to learn is that some of us are quite willing to treat other folks like dirt to prove they are right.

It is my opinion that anyone who thinks they are serving their edition and preferences by representing them in such a fashion is fooling themselves. A game publisher who reads the sort of stuff that goes on in edition wars threads sees people they wouldn't want posting on their own forums.

Edition warriors make themselves look like customers a company is not going to want to support.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Edition warriors make themselves look like customers a company is not going to want to support.

If your definition of Edition Warriors are the ones who just can't help but insult the other side, I'm with you 100%.

If you're lumping them together with the passionate supporters of their games of choice, not so much.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I definately don't think continuing 3E would have been a profitable option. 3E had run its course.

My claim is not remotely that they should have continued 3E.

My claim is that they could have developed a 4E that had a wider appeal.

Perhaps they could have. However, keep in mind that the 4e designers are just as human as the rest of us. They couldn't psychically predict what percentage of D&D players 4e would appeal to. No doubt, from their admittedly subjective perspectives, they designed it to appeal to as many as possible.

I personally believe they did a fine job with 4e's breadth of appeal (keeping in mind that you'll never be able to please everyone), but that's merely my own opinion. Nonetheless, it seems logical that if the 4e designers thought they could design a successful game with wider appeal, they would have done so. To do otherwise would be tantamount to intentionally shooting themselves in the foot, which I find rather hard to believe they'd do.