Excellent point on WotC mishandling

[BryonD]

Your problem was my selling point. I can gaurantee I would not have purchased 4E if it resembled what came before it, since I was just about to tell my players that I no longer wanted to run D&D when the 4E announcement occurred.

I don't have a problem. I didn't say I had a problem.

Lots of people love 4E. No doubt about it. But none of that changes the fact that 4E has a problem of having divided the fan base.

When 5 out of 10 people agree that everyone likes something, 5 people are wrong.

And I certainly agree that 4E has attracted some people who didn't play 3E. That is overwhelmingly obvious. It is also obvious that even publishers of 4E material say it isn't fair to compare 4E to the 3E "golden age".


4E doesn't need ME to be as popular as it can possibly be. But, at the same time, you are not enough. And, right now, it COULD be a lot more popular than it is.

 

[Mark CMG]

i used everything (. . .) indiscriminately, and certainly inaccurately, but heck, i was only 10 and we had a great time playing, which is what in the end it should be about.

ftw!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Essentials is labelled as "optional", too.... that doesn't mean that most of the game moving forward is going to implement them. Ditto, in fact, for much of what was presented as "3.5E". Remember all those claims that you could still play the game with your 3.0 rulebooks?

Skills and Powers et all were absolutely optional, and the GM had a lot of choice in just what he chose to include. However, that was the nature of 2nd edition in its entirety - a plethora of options. That being said, Skills and Powers et all did seem like an attempt to codify the games rules a bit - it was just done so in a strange way when we look back on it.

Essentials is optional. Seirously, it changes, like, nothing, for pre-existing players. Hey, guess how much my 4e sorcerer or rogue or warlord changes? None at all.

Compare this to 3.5 where just about every class, most the feats, and a huge number of items and spells had wide ranging changes that meant effectively your character was now dramatically altered.

Seriously, the two aren't even comparable.

 

[Wik]

Essentials is optional. Seirously, it changes, like, nothing, for pre-existing players. Hey, guess how much my 4e sorcerer or rogue or warlord changes? None at all.

Compare this to 3.5 where just about every class, most the feats, and a huge number of items and spells had wide ranging changes that meant effectively your character was now dramatically altered.

Seriously, the two aren't even comparable.

Not to be a stickler here, but I never said Essentials will change your sorcerer or whatever. I said it will change how the game is presented and played going forward.

This is exactly the same situation as the 3e/3.5e split. Your 3e fighter can be played in 3.5e rules, and there'd be only a few tweaks that may or may not come up.

Note that I am not saying "Essentials is 4.5e"! What I am saying, in this case, is that Essentials is a revision of sorts to the 4e rules... just as 3.5e was to the third edition rule set, and Skills & Powers was for 2.5E, and Unearthed Arcana was in 1e.

Really, all of those products have big enough changes to the game that people either have to mention they're playing with those rules in effect, or (if those rule changes are ubiquitous) if they're playing in a ruleset before the rules change. Essentials is that change for 4e... I would honestly compare it more to Skills and Powers in how it impacted the game, as opposed to 3.5E to 3E... in that Essentials is a reimagining of character creation rules for a game that stays more or less the same.

 

[rounser]

NEVER cater to the "hardcore base". You will paint yourself into a corner and you will never get out.

I saw some advertising professionals on a show on the advertising industry who disagree with you. The example they gave that even a church needs to advertise to and cater to it's existing follower base (i.e. the "hardcore") or they eventually leave. You need to work to keep the foundation. It's counter-intuitive, but to amateurs I suppose a lot that seems obvious from the amateur perspective (but actually isn't true) is what makes us amateurs with laymen perspectives, and the professionals professional.

Now look at 4E, which seems to have set out to alienate it's core audience in hopes of attaining a theoretical new, bigger, mainstream audience....I recall mention of "firing the customer" as an option on the table. This seems to be laymen thinking, not marketing professional thinking.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Anyways, onto the point at hand, I think Unearthed Arcana, when coupled with the two Survival Guides, really changed the way the game was played and perceived - which to me, constitutes being considered a "revision" in a way that splat books never will.

Eh, these were really just compilations of rules that grew organically from actual play, IMO.

I think I say I hope I'm wrong

Sounds like a bad song title.

Essentials is labelled as "optional", too.... that doesn't mean that most of the game moving forward is going to implement them.

Skills and Powers et all were absolutely optional.

But did the game mainly move to the S&P ruleset? I never implemented them.

I don't have a problem. I didn't say I had a problem.

But none of that changes the fact that 4E has a problem of having divided the fan base.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. By "your problem" I meant the problem you were stating 4E had as if it were a fact. Dividing the fan base is not the problem you quoted as fact like you do here.

4E's problem is that they didn't want to dance with the one that brung'em.

This was the problem I was replying to. I assumed you meant that this was a problem you perceived with 4E, not an outright statement of absolute truth. IOW, your opinion. Thus, "your (opinion of what 4E's) problem" is instead a selling point to me.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Now look at 4E, which seems to have set out to alienate it's core audience in hopes of attaining a theoretical new, bigger, mainstream audience....I recall mention of "firing the customer" as an option on the table. This seems to be laymen thinking, not marketing professional thinking.

Do you have documents from WotC that I haven't seen? No, the above is merely messageboard hyperbole and hysteria. WotC did not set out to alienate you, nor did they fire you as a customer. They just currently make a game that you don't like. Simple as that.

 

[Sunseeker]

Now look at 4E, which seems to have set out to alienate it's core audience in hopes of attaining a theoretical new, bigger, mainstream audience....I recall mention of "firing the customer" as an option on the table. This seems to be laymen thinking, not marketing professional thinking.

As I stated before, the "core" audience is unprofitable for WotC. You own the books, you subscribe to the service, you likely own many of the accessories already. What more can they sell you? Adventure books are incredibly optional, as GMs can always create their own adventures.

Marketing professionals don't want to base their sales on the slight chance they might create something you deign to purchase. They want to base their sales on something that is guaranteed to sell a lot.

As such, they would rather sell 3 books to a million people than the slight chance of selling 10 books to 100 people.

 

[Raven Crowking]

One of my favorite book series, Dresden Files, came out with a new book last year, and let me tell you, I'm still angry about it! I had just finished reading the last one, and they're pumping out new ones already?!

Like, take Lord of the Rings. Imagine if they had revised that book to make a new one, called The Two Buildings or something stupid like that. How much of a naked money grab would that be, I ask you?!

No, WotC should follow every other book publisher and just never publish anything new, ever, until the end of time. That's the only way to be successful.

That is a very poor analogy.

If WotC puts out the PHB, and then puts out the MM, and then puts out the DMG, that is analogous to putting out FotR, TTT, and TRotK. These are books in the same line that are obviously intended to be used one with the other.

A better analogy would be, if FotR TMP is put out on DVD, followed by FotR Director's Cut, followed by FotR Ultimate Director's Cut, followed by FotR Ultimate Final Director's Cut, etc.

You might prefer one over the other. I, for instance, prefer the LotR extended versions over the theatrical releases, but the release schedule is still clearly motivated by potential profits.

This is not necessarily a bad thing by itself -- I happen to like the remastered Star Treks -- but not recognizing that it is so, and that it is different than splitting the same edition/novel/story into chunks, doesn't bolster your position.

Essentials is labelled as "optional", too.... that doesn't mean that most of the game moving forward is going to implement them. Ditto, in fact, for much of what was presented as "3.5E". Remember all those claims that you could still play the game with your 3.0 rulebooks?

Agreed.

In hindsight, all of the "editions" of D&D or AD&D prior to 3e had a very high degree of interchangeability. You could use 1e assassins and Holmes initiative in your 2e game. Nothing prevents you from using 2e giants in your 1e game, exactly as they are written.

Indeed, the argument (which I accept) that makes 4e essentials not a new edition actually applies to a very high degree to all pre-3e D&D, as well as to the unfortunately-named 3.5.

It might be most accurate to say that there is TSR-D&D (varient forms), 3e (varient forms) and 4e (varient forms) as the three "flavours" of D&D.



RC

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Not to be a stickler here, but I never said Essentials will change your sorcerer or whatever. I said it will change how the game is presented and played going forward.

This is exactly the same situation as the 3e/3.5e split. Your 3e fighter can be played in 3.5e rules, and there'd be only a few tweaks that may or may not come up.

I never used the skills and whatever books for 2e, but here you are objectively wrong.

Your 3e fighter changed drastically because the underlying rules in 3e changed drastically.

You keep saying it's a rules revision. It's not. The rules aren't being revised. The rules aren't being changed. It's nowhere near the same is 3.5, not even in the same category, unless you're going to claim that every single splat book makes for a rules revision. Aside from one or two exceedingly minor differences, what Essentials does is add things.

In fact, let's look at the changes.

1) Races gain options for stat bonuses. Something is added, not taken away or changed.

2) Humans have a new options for their racial power. Something is added, not taken away or changed.

3) Feats are organized different. Nothing is actually changed at all.

4) New classes! Not a change.

5) Melee training changed. Actually a change!

6) Impliment usage altered. Actually a change!

7) Some powers are reworded. Not a change. Some wizard powers have a miss power added. Something is added, not taken away or changed. New powers. Someting is added, not taken away or changed.

8) New magic items that are Uncommon or Rare. Something is added, not taken away or changed.

9) Daily magic items no longer tied to milestones. Actually a change!

So, in the end, what's the big rules revisions? Nothing but common errata.

I played through the 3.5 change. I've read through HotFL. They aren't similar in the slightest.