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

[Umbran]

What would it be then, for rules to lack verisimilitude? Contain contradictions? Say in one place that magic armor is half the weight of normal armor and in another that it is virtually weightless?

Yes, that would count.

Contain multiple discrete subsystems?

Not necessarily an issue, as not everything in the world works the same - playing tennis is not much like research chemistry. Different subsystems can be okay.

Like overbearing and pummeling and turning undead all use different mechanics?

Well, here's where we sometimes get a problem, and sometimes not.

I would expect pummeling to be only slightly different from hitting a person with a sword. Overbearing a target yet more different, and maybe needs a bit of a different mechanic, maybe not - it'd depend on the specifics. The 1e systems for this - yes, a bit of verisimilitude problem.

Unless turning undead is largely comprised of beating my fist against the vampire's face, I don't think using a different mechanic for it is problematic.

I don't think that's what people mean when they talk about a ruleset lacking verisimilitude. They are referring to a contradiction in what the rules say and in what they perceive as the reality of the game world.

It seems to me that the rules *define* the reality of the game world. If your perception doesn't match, there are two basic possibilities I see:

1) The rules are not written well, so that you cannot gain an accurate perception of their implications - this is an issue of lack of clarity, not lack of verisimilitude.

2) Something other than the rules is giving you your perception of the world. It is this other thing, then, that lacks verisimilitude.

Perhaps there is a chicken-and-egg thing going here - which comes first, the rules, or the perception of the world they represent?

 

[Shazman]

Did they really take concerns and complaints into consideration where it counts? If so, I think 4E FR would be a lot more like the setting of the past, something concrete and official would have been done to address the "grind" issue, and the constant nerfing of player abilities via "rules updates' would be lessened.

 

[Umbran]

Did they really take concerns and complaints into consideration where it counts?

There are several ways to define "where it counts": Where it counts to me, as an individual, with my particular tastes? Or, where it counts to the bottom line of the company?

We have a major point here - as far as we can tell, the game sells. Lots of people still like it. The proof is in the pudding, isn't it?

 

[Nagol]

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

I agree a clear, well-articulated vision is a great thing.

From my perspective, for how I use D&D, their vision of the game did not match what I use the D&D game system for. Their articulation saved me some money as I stopped purchasing the game material after the Player's Handbook confident that the public statements were accurate.

I think 4e is an OK game, but it doesn't scratch the right place for me to use it.

To 'win me back as a customer', WotC will have to create a game that does fit within my preferences and then articulate its capability sufficiently well to lure me into spending the time to look at it.

 

[MrMyth]

Did they really take concerns and complaints into consideration where it counts? If so, I think 4E FR would be a lot more like the setting of the past, something concrete and official would have been done to address the "grind" issue, and the constant nerfing of player abilities via "rules updates' would be lessened.

Quite a few things have been done to address the "grind" issue.

Fixing unbalanced mechanics with regular Errata is something many players want.

Look, this is a perfect example of the dilemma they face. Every choice they make, every decision, might win some people over but drive others away.

The issue isn't figuring out what the disenchanted want. It is figuring out what they want, that WotC can provide, without costing them other portions of their current audience.

There are things they could change that some have asked for that would absolutely drive me away.

There are also things they could change that I would be all for, or completely indifferent to. If Come And Get It is such a problem for people, I would have no objection to them inserting an attack line vs Will to represent 'tricking' enemies into approaching.

On the other hand, I absolutely don't want to see them stop Errata and updates because some people are objecting to it.

What does WotC do? They can't make everyone happy. They clearly are trying - Essentials, and the Red Box, have quite a few elements that seem intended to help draw in players they have lost. For some, it might not be enough. For others, as we've seen, it is too much, and current players might be upset about that.

For others, it may be just right. No matter what decision they make, it will always have those who disagree with it. I'm reasonably sure they do pay attention to discussions like this, and try to solve problems where they can - but they have to keep in mind the desires of an incredibly vast array of gamers all with distinct opinions, not to mention corporate concerns, business concerns, and various other elements that many of us have no real knowledge of.

It is easy to say that "Doing Plan A" or "Releasing Product B" would fix everything, but reality is rarely going to actually be that easy.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

To come back into the fold, I'd need WotC to:
2] Ditch 4th edition and go back to D&D's roots to create a game that strongly resembles the D&D that I've played for the past 30 years. There is room for innovation and streamlining (I'm thinking of d20/OGL games like Star Wars: Saga Edition and Castles & Crusades) while still keeping the classic D&D tropes.

Haven't you notice there hasn't been one suggestion (outside of the bring on 5E) to fully change 4E?

Page 5 of this thread says otherwise.

 

[Shazman]

There are several ways to define "where it counts": Where it counts to me, as an individual, with my particular tastes? Or, where it counts to the bottom line of the company?

We have a major point here - as far as we can tell, the game sells. Lots of people still like it. The proof is in the pudding, isn't it?

Well, I don't think that changing a few names for wizard traditions or some fighter powers is really a big enough deal to mention. As far as the Eberron timeline goes, I don't think that they were set on advancing the timeline anyways, so I'm not sure if they decided not too in response to complaints. There were many complaints about what they did to FR, and they didn't bat an eye at utterly destroying their most popular campaign setting. "Where it counts" would have been addressing some major concerns people had with some of the mechanics, some of the changes in philosphy of game design, and some catastrophic changes to FR by making some of the changes less drastic. In other words, they should have been open to input on what D&D fans wanted for a new edition of D&D, instead of giving the designers free reign to make a game that they wanted to play, and then push it on D&D fans as a whole.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Perhaps they realized that those customers actually bought things.

Speaking for myself, I bought everything. I actually created a lengthy thread a while back asking why WotC "fired" me as a customer.

The idea of going back to that level of completism leaves me ... conflicted.

 

[BlackMoria]

What could WOTC do ...

Let's see, I got kicked to the curb because, beside playing D&D since '74, I didn't fit the target demographic anymore and they want the snot nose kid and his buddies from down the block at their game table now and not me.

To add insult to injury, they killed the FR with that damnable spellplague and the mega timeline jump, which to me, it is like shooting my dog.

Message received and understood. I'll keep off the lawn.

 

[Mournblade94]

Well, I don't think that changing a few names for wizard traditions or some fighter powers is really a big enough deal to mention. As far as the Eberron timeline goes, I don't think that they were set on advancing the timeline anyways, so I'm not sure if they decided not too in response to complaints. There were many complaints about what they did to FR, and they didn't bat an eye at utterly destroying their most popular campaign setting. "Where it counts" would have been addressing some major concerns people had with some of the mechanics, some of the changes in philosphy of game design, and some catastrophic changes to FR by making some of the changes less drastic. In other words, they should have been open to input on what D&D fans wanted for a new edition of D&D, instead of giving the designers free reign to make a game that they wanted to play, and then push it on D&D fans as a whole.

When it comes to forgetten realms it is clear they did not listen to the fans. There WERE D&D fans that wanted the realms changed, but it was not the majority of FR fans. They could have switched to 4e and left the realms as is, really. It is not that difficult an adjustment to make, and skilled writers would be able to explain the new rules set. Some upheaval could have occured, but really the massive realms destruction was the icing on the cake for alot of realms fans. 4e was not the rules system I liked, but I might have stuck with it if it allowed me to tell stories in the same realms. After the change... the Game changes and the realms were scarcely recognizable. This drove many realms fans away in droves.

I honestly beleive, if they kept the realms largely untouched, they would have kept many realms fans.

Essentially realms fan were told to Deal with your rules change, and deal with the nonsensical changes to the story setting you loved.

Pathfinder fills the gap for 3rd edition, and Golarion fills the gap for the realms (Even with most of the veteran realms designers and writers) i.e. Sean Reynolds and Elaine Cunningham, et al.