Dancey v. Mearls?

[Dausuul]

Since when does doing well preclude wanting to do better? You think successful companies rest on the laurels of "good enough"?

Not at all, but there's a difference between going forward and going back. 4E staked out a lot of bold new ground in areas like PC races (new PHB races were introduced for the first time since AD&D) and class mechanics (fighter dailies, wizard at-wills, and so forth).

If 4E were a big success, one would expect the game's continuing evolution to build on those changes. More exotic races, more fancy new classes and class powers. Instead, Essentials is retreating somewhat; dragonborn, eladrin, and tieflings have been banished from the new Red Box and the classes are reverting to something more like previous editions.

Obviously most of these changes reflect the sensibilities of Mike Mearls, an old-school gamer who blogs about his AD&D campaign. But why was Mearls tapped to take the helm? My guess is, because 4E is regarded as... not a failed experiment necessarily, but a partial success at best; too many old customers lost and not enough new ones gained. So they're pulling back and seeing if they can recapture some of the folks who left, and maybe tap into whatever magic drove the BD&D/AD&D craze back in the 1980s.

 

[carmachu]

Since when does doing well preclude wanting to do better? You think successful companies rest on the laurels of "good enough"?

Given history though, I think it have less then sitting on laurels and more to see if they can get you to buy the "same" books again, ala 3.0/3.5

 

[BenBrown]

Obviously most of these changes reflect the sensibilities of Mike Mearls, an old-school gamer who blogs about his AD&D campaign. But why was Mearls tapped to take the helm? My guess is, because 4E is regarded as... not a failed experiment necessarily, but a partial success at best; too many old customers lost and not enough new ones gained. So they're pulling back and seeing if they can recapture some of the folks who left, and maybe tap into whatever magic drove the BD&D/AD&D craze back in the 1980s.

Except that Mearls was on the design team from well before 4E shipped, and was responsible for one of the more interesting D20 adaptations (Iron Heroes). Good game designers play a lot of games, in all cases trying to figure out what's fun. I wouldn't trust a game designer that didn't. I used to work with some guys who were part of the designer of Theatrix's group when the game was designed. Avid Champions players, every one of 'em. What you play and what you write are not necessarily connected, and it is perfectly possible for people to enjoy both Brown Box D&D and D&D4E on successive game nights. This isn't a zero sum situation, not even on the financial side of things.

 

[qstor]

Obviously most of these changes reflect the sensibilities of Mike Mearls, an old-school gamer who blogs about his AD&D campaign. But why was Mearls tapped to take the helm? My guess is, because 4E is regarded as... not a failed experiment necessarily, but a partial success at best; too many old customers lost and not enough new ones gained. So they're pulling back and seeing if they can recapture some of the folks who left, and maybe tap into whatever magic drove the BD&D/AD&D craze back in the 1980s.

Thanks for all comments. A quick comment, 4e isn't my cup of tea but I wouldn't want WOTC to go belly up by any means. At the same time I want Paizo to do well cause I'm enjoying Pathfinder a lot.

[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] I'm personally puzzled as to how WOTC might lure old-school players back with an OD&D feel to 4e when retro clones like Swords and Wizardy might seem a better fit. But then I'm not in marketing or a game designer. This might be off topic of this thread I started but I guess it was Mearls decision to have the new magic missile hit always. I heard that was in the "new" red box which I haven't and probably won't get. That might be a direct way to appeal to the "old school" crowd. I have to admit in the beginning of 4e that was a turn off to me. Magic missile didnt hit? But later I could see the 4e game design reason for that decision.

I do enjoy WOTC's decision to market old 4e converted mods like Tomb of Horrors and Keep on the Borderlands but they're sanitized of any Greyhawk material. Like the Village of Hommlet mod I got in the mail.

Mike

 

[Shemeska]

I do enjoy WOTC's decision to market old 4e converted mods like Tomb of Horrors and Keep on the Borderlands but they're sanitized of any Greyhawk material. Like the Village of Hommlet mod I got in the mail.

Seriously? Just scrubbed of GH names and such, or rewritten to fit PoLand tropes and proper names, etc?

 

[JohnRTroy]

Inventory isn't just destroyed for Tax purposes, but that's one reason.

Inventory is a major principle of Accounting 101 for any business. A rather good primer for these concepts is a few articles I found on an Inventory Management website.

The Mysterious Cost of Carrying Inventory
Consider if Some Inventory Will Need To Be Buried

 

[ggroy]

Inventory isn't just destroyed for Tax purposes, but that's one reason.

Inventory is a major principle of Accounting 101 for any business. A rather good primer for these concepts is a few articles I found on an Inventory Management website.

Another article about the underlying accounting in the publishing business, and how things changed over the years.

How Thor Power Hammered Publishing

 

[BryonD]

So is there other information that gives some weight to Dancey's comments that 4e sales are way down vs Mearls 4e is selling great.

Are these statements really incompatible?

 

[Dausuul]

Except that Mearls was on the design team from well before 4E shipped, and was responsible for one of the more interesting D20 adaptations (Iron Heroes). Good game designers play a lot of games, in all cases trying to figure out what's fun. I wouldn't trust a game designer that didn't. I used to work with some guys who were part of the designer of Theatrix's group when the game was designed. Avid Champions players, every one of 'em. What you play and what you write are not necessarily connected, and it is perfectly possible for people to enjoy both Brown Box D&D and D&D4E on successive game nights. This isn't a zero sum situation, not even on the financial side of things.

Oh, I'm not saying Mearls wants to turn back the clock to 1981. Just that anyone who voluntarily runs a 1E game must see some value in 1E's approach to things. Mearls is a known fan of old-school D&D. D&D Essentials looks somewhat more old-school than 4E originally. I think there's a connection there. (Mind you, I also think it's a good thing. )

[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] I'm personally puzzled as to how WOTC might lure old-school players back with an OD&D feel to 4e when retro clones like Swords and Wizardy might seem a better fit. But then I'm not in marketing or a game designer. This might be off topic of this thread I started but I guess it was Mearls decision to have the new magic missile hit always. I heard that was in the "new" red box which I haven't and probably won't get. That might be a direct way to appeal to the "old school" crowd. I have to admit in the beginning of 4e that was a turn off to me. Magic missile didnt hit? But later I could see the 4e game design reason for that decision.

Well, it remains to be seen whether it'll work, but there is considerable value in playing the latest edition of the game. For one thing, it's easier to recruit new players.

Not to sound egotistical, but Essentials sort of feels like it was aimed at me and people like me, the "edition war mercenaries" who will argue vehemently for 4E in one thread and then turn around and bash it mercilessly in another. If you really hate 4E across the board, no, you probably won't be drawn back by Essentials. If you love 4E as is, you don't need Essentials. But if you're a 4E player who finds himself not buying many 4E books any more and thinking longingly of the good old days with the red and blue boxes--or an old-school gamer who sees a lot to like in 4E but just can't get over some of its flaws--Essentials might appeal to you. (Man, I sound like ad copy...)

 

[Pssthpok]

Mearls' saying things like "Classic classes and the classic races", to me, is a further step away from this elusive and pervasive "core of D&D" that Essentials is sorta trying to get back to. It's just one more acknowledgment that we live in a postmodern culture and things like "D&D" have been co-opted by the Machine (i.e. WotC) and regurgitated back onto our plates. Guys like Mearls, rich in history in the older editions, are grasping at straws trying to find a way to make D&D "feel" like D&D, mostly to keep the profits from older gamers rolling in, but it's pathetic. It's pastiche, it's the snake eating it's own tail, it's a commercial trying to sell a commercial, with no real product to buy. 3rd Edition was the first step in this direction, not because of all the good things it did by unifying the scattered rules of 2nd Edition, but because of the corporate interests that bankrolled the transition (nay, resurrection) of the brand in 2000.

Since then, WotC has been trying to (I dunno how else to say this) "reduce" the game, not by dumbing it down exactly, but by making it easier to play, making it more accessible. This "accesibility" infringes on the domain of the videogame, however, and only serves to make D&D look like it's "trying to be" a videogame. At the nuts-and-bolts level of things, D&D cannot compete with a videogame in terms of accesibility. What they ought to be doing is concentrating on the elements of D&D that can't be done better by video games: creative play, world-building, character-driven story, customization.

So, my suggestion to Mearls and WotC: if you want 4th Edition to "feel" like older editions of D&D, don't just take 4E abilities and slap "older sounding" names on them ("Backstab", I'm looking at you). Actually use the older abilities, actually resurrect the rules that you liked, that made D&D magical for you. Otherwise, you're just giving us Justin Bieber and calling it The Beatles.