What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[MacMathan]

First I want to apologize for my use of the phrase "nerd rage" I think my first impression was colored by what is a minority of posts on this thread.

It just begins to feel odd to haved liked every edition of dnd. I suppose those that are happy usually are quieter.

To attempt to add some constructive points:

What do the posters think could be done the make this board a place that wotc would come to more often and value input from? I believe this to have once been the case.

As far as pdfs, here is an idea for wotc; require a pre-buy commitment before production or release. Something similar was done with the firefly dvd set.

Once a certain number of pre-orders are reached the pdf would be released, kind of like some of the user supported modules out there that get funded in advance.

It would remove a lot of financial risk.


Sent from my T-Mobile G1 using Tapatalk

 

[Mournblade94]

WOTC seemed to always pay attention to these boards. At least in a lip service sort of way if nothing else. DO they not do that anymore, or was it only Scott Rouse's personality?

What changed? Was it official, or just anecdotal?

 

[doctorhook]

WOTC seemed to always pay attention to these boards. At least in a lip service sort of way if nothing else. DO they not do that anymore, or was it only Scott Rouse's personality?

What changed? Was it official, or just anecdotal?

They hang around on the 4E board now, and when they visit the General RPG board, they avoid threads like this one, full of people who don't like 4E patting each other on the back.

 

[Dausuul]

I can't read the 4e books. They are boring and insipid. I find no joy in them. They are the first generation of D&D books that are actually boring to me. I used to enjoy going to a book store and pulling a gaming book off the shelf and reading it. I never do that with 4e anymore, and if I never read the books there will certainly be no excitement to play the games.

This is an interesting point. One wonders how many RPG book sales back in the day were driven more by the desire to read the book than to actually use it in play. Certainly most of my gaming books never saw actual use. I have even gone out to buy books from editions that I have no intention of ever playing again, just to read or re-read them.

 

[MacMathan]

Another idea/question; to me it seems most people went to pf if not happy with 4e. How could wotc make something like "old" dnd and yet sufficiently different to steal people back from pf? Seems like it would be very difficult.

Oh and I do read a number of the 4e books for fun, just odd that way

Sent from my T-Mobile G1 using Tapatalk

 

[Raven Crowking]

Like it or not, this is a microcosm of the "gamer community" (if such a thing exists). For WotC to come more often, and value the input from the site more, WotC would have to first value the insights of the "gamer community" more. IOW, valuing the insights of A is not displayed by first changing A into B, which you already value.

It seems clear to me, from the lead-up to 4e, that the direction of that edition was chosen before input was solicited. And the official line seems to have been that the "gamer community" (if it exists) could speculate, advise, or complain as it liked, but that was not going to alter the direction 4e would be taking.

Part of me admires that, because design by committee is seldom as strong as design by a clear driving vision. And 4e has a clear, driving vision.

If you want WotC to value your input, either you have to accept and endorse that clear, driving vision, or WotC has to accept and endorse that you do not. Nothing more, nothing less.

But, if you care about "brand identity", or even the quality of the game as a whole, it is better to have a clear and driving vision than not. There would be no D&D today if the original designers didn't have such a vision. That the current edition doesn't have a vision that matches that of some members of the "gaming community" (if such a thing exists) is okay; 1e and OD&D don't, either.

I would rather WotC's vision matched my own. But I would also rather that they had a vision that differed from mine than that they had no vision at all.

If that makes any sense?



RC

 

[Nagol]

Like it or not, this is a microcosm of the "gamer community" (if such a thing exists). For WotC to come more often, and value the input from the site more, WotC would have to first value the insights of the "gamer community" more. IOW, valuing the insights of A is not displayed by first changing A into B, which you already value.

It seems clear to me, from the lead-up to 4e, that the direction of that edition was chosen before input was solicited. And the official line seems to have been that the "gamer community" (if it exists) could speculate, advise, or complain as it liked, but that was not going to alter the direction 4e would be taking.

Part of me admires that, because design by committee is seldom as strong as design by a clear driving vision. And 4e has a clear, driving vision.

If you want WotC to value your input, either you have to accept and endorse that clear, driving vision, or WotC has to accept and endorse that you do not. Nothing more, nothing less.

But, if you care about "brand identity", or even the quality of the game as a whole, it is better to have a clear and driving vision than not. There would be no D&D today if the original designers didn't have such a vision. That the current edition doesn't have a vision that matches that of some members of the "gaming community" (if such a thing exists) is okay; 1e and OD&D don't, either.

I would rather WotC's vision matched my own. But I would also rather that they had a vision that differed from mine than that they had no vision at all.

If that makes any sense?



RC

WotC did take concerns and complaints into consideration where they could. The removal of the heavily descriptive Wizard school names, the descision not to advance Eberron, getting feedback from the char-op playtesters are examples of this.

 

[TheYeti1775]

But, But ....

They just released a new 4e package in the red box! With ELMORE ART!!!! Surely THAT'S enough to get back us older players! They are specifically targeting older players with that box!

The game inside you may not recognize as D&D, but the outside is reminiscent of the D&D you recognize.

You know, both the Red Box and the Essentials line indicate to me that WotC does want the customers they "fired" back.

Perhaps they realized that those customers actually bought things.

And that gives me hope for 5e.


RC

Redoing the cover doesn't change the content.
Example Icewind Dale Trilogy and Cleric's Quintet (sp?) novels all got redone covers from there original release. Did it improve the content into something I wanted to buy more? Not really. All it did was make me pick it up thinking there was a new book for the series when I first saw it. After seeing it was the same as what I already had, it went right back on the shelf in the store.

WOTC seemed to always pay attention to these boards. At least in a lip service sort of way if nothing else. DO they not do that anymore, or was it only Scott Rouse's personality?

What changed? Was it official, or just anecdotal?

They hang around on the 4E board now, and when they visit the General RPG board, they avoid threads like this one, full of people who don't like 4E patting each other on the back.

This is one of the rare cases where the thread has remained civil and actually fairly level headed. It wouldn't suprise me if they are glancing it over making a note here and there for their own weekly meetings.

I wouldn't call this a thread of folks disliking 4E patting each other on the back either.
Its more like a casual discussion of things they have found that were too different for their tastes, and how WotC could still earn money from us without changing 4E a bit.
Haven't you notice there hasn't been one suggestion (outside of the bring on 5E) to fully change 4E? Nope most of the suggestions have been along the line of co-existing the editions together in a D&D Nirvana. Even showing them how many are willing to go to DDI if their preferred editions were available there.

This is an interesting point. One wonders how many RPG book sales back in the day were driven more by the desire to read the book than to actually use it in play. Certainly most of my gaming books never saw actual use. I have even gone out to buy books from editions that I have no intention of ever playing again, just to read or re-read them.

I can readily admit to buying books just because I wanted to see what they contained. Many of the campaigns I played in were Core Only + Setting during 3.5E. That didn't stop me from buying the 3pp and other WotC supplemental books that came out. In 1E & 2E, I was full bore about buying the extras because there were gems in each. Even in the 3pp like Role-Aids and others.
I bet this as a poll in the 4E section would be quite enlightening to the WotC members we have here.

• 
  How many of you still use the Gray Box of FR for your Realms Campaigns vice the newly released 4E version?
  How many of you use previous Edition FR information vice 4E released?

 

[billd91]

Another idea/question; to me it seems most people went to pf if not happy with 4e. How could wotc make something like "old" dnd and yet sufficiently different to steal people back from pf? Seems like it would be very difficult.

At this point, that's probably the case. And, I would say it probably gets more difficult as time goes on to get back into this market segment they moved away from and Paizo (and others) stepped up to more fully serve. I do think it illustrates that there is a market out there that is fairly active and WotC chooses to not serve with their products despite serving it with their previous edition of the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

WotC did take concerns and complaints into consideration where they could. The removal of the heavily descriptive Wizard school names, the descision not to advance Eberron, getting feedback from the char-op playtesters are examples of this.

Point taken.

But they had a vision, determined before the announcement, and they followed it despite commentary. And this was, I would argue, overall A Good Thing.

I want WotC to value our input, now, about what sorts of adventures, etc., they devise, and what format they use. And I want WotC to value our input about 4e when devising a vision for 5e. But I am overall happy that they had a vision for 4e. 4e is a better game than it would have been without such a vision. Even if it is not the game for me!

(And, yes, earlier I was stung by the frankness of some WotC statements to this effect. I was in the wrong then. Better to have a clear vision than no vision at all.)


RC