Excellent point on WotC mishandling

[ProfessorCirno]

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.

The analogy was poor on purpose - the OP claimed that the RPG market was literally the exact same as the book market and claimed LotR never changed or had any additions added to it. It was a pretty dumb statement and I was making light of it.

 

[Filcher]

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.

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Vyvyan Basterd again.

But for the record, 4e killed my goldfish and spat on my mom.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But for the record, 4e killed my goldfish and spat on my mom.

Having previously being labeled both a WotC and 4E apologist, I am obliged to say that at least it wasn't the other way around.

 

[Filcher]

Having previously being labeled both a WotC and 4E apologist, I am obliged to say that at least it wasn't the other way around.

Sophistry!

And yes, I still can't hand out XP. I need to make an alt or something.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The analogy was poor on purpose - the OP claimed that the RPG market was literally the exact same as the book market and claimed LotR never changed or had any additions added to it. It was a pretty dumb statement and I was making light of it.

Fair enough, and agreed that rpg = book seller is poor analogy.

 

[BryonD]

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.



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.

And again, I don't for a second dispute that the people WotC is dancing with are more than happy to be danced with. You are doing nothing more than stating the obvious. Some people like 4E, some people don't. Having one person from each group raise their hand and yell "me! me!" is nothing more that confusing personal preference for market reality.

The reality that WotC's problem benefits you personally in no way reduces my point.

It is certainly my opinion that not dancing with the one that brung'em CAUSED the problem. So I will accept that refinement. (though I certainly stand by the opinion) But they still have a problem with divided fan base.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It is certainly my opinion that not dancing with the one that brung'em CAUSED the problem. So I will accept that refinement. (though I certainly stand by the opinion) But they still have a problem with divided fan base.

I can agree on the divided fan base, that is self-evident. But I think they could have encountered the same division if they made 4E hew closer to 3E. I actually believe they would have lost more of their fan base. (I can hear the theoretical cries of "4E is just 3.75!!!1!!one!! WotC just wants our moneyz!" from beyond the grave of What-Might-Have-Been.)

Paizo seems to thrive with Pathfinder because their fabase isn't seeking the same crunch-filled expansions that WotC used to produce. I'm beginning to wonder if WotC really lost many customers to Paizo. Those customers don't seem to mind the lack of crunch and probably weren't buying much, if anything, from WotC. And they probably already enjoyed Paizo's adventures immensely (and for good reasons), again not buying them from WotC. So what did WotC lose from these types of customers when they "switched" to Pathfinder?

I think each game serves its niche well. And WotC is faced with retaining and gaining players in a new RPG market. Because of the OGL they created a competitor for life, something that never occurred for prior versions of D&D. You could always play older versions, but until 3E there was no official support once the company moved on to the next edition.

 

[rounser]

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.

See, this strikes me as potentially the kind of superficial thinking that got D&D into this position.

Hands up who was introduced to the game through friends? What does that imply?

Phenomenons like Facebook (seemingly Gleemax), WoW (seemingly online tabletop), New York Times online (seemingly subscription publications) and M:tG (seemingly randomised collectable minis) seem to have been built to be those things from the start. Bending what D&D is to fit into something like those moulds, let alone all of them, is one hell of a Hail Mary pass to make, and spreading themselves very thin...although I can see why they wanted to try.

 

[rounser]

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.

I didn't come up with this "fire the customer" thing out of thin air, but it is just rumor (my memory tells me that one of Ryan Dancey's posts or one of Monte Cook's blogs was probably the source, but I'm not sure, so don't quote me on that). The story as interpreted it goes that they were considering it, including mass culling of sacred cows, as of 3E, but caution stayed their hand because they knew there was no proof that people would transfer from 2E. 4E doesn't seem to have seen that caution in play, perhaps because 3E was embraced so well.

A more recent and verifiable one is Mike Mearls saying that the 4E design team sought to prevent RPGs undergoing the same near-extinction process that tabletop wargaming did, and that that was an impetus for the 4E design radicalisation. IMO it seems to have hastened that process rather than prevented it, although arguably any incarnation of 4E would probably be in trouble due to the greater depression unfolding before our eyes, from it's release time forward.

 

[Wik]

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

SNIP

I wouldn't say objectively wrong. What's going on is we're looking at different things and calling it the same thing. And I've been in enough battles of semantics online that I don't really find it worthwhile to do it again; I'd imagine you'll agree.

My view on what constitutes a "revision" is when the perception of the game changes enough that fans of the game have to differentiate whether they are using the product or not.

Whether you use the original Dark Sun boxed set or the re-release, for example. Original 2e, or 2e with S&P/C&T/S&M. Or 1e core vs. 1e w/ Unearthed Arcana. Or 4e vs. Essentials.

I agree with you that the underlying rules change is much smaller than all of those changes I've described above (with the debatable exception of Dark Sun). However, the perception of the changes in the game are a bit deeper than that.

Sure, Essentials is mostly adding stuff, but it's also changing the way PCs are being made. And for a game like D&D, where character creation is almost a sub-game in and of itself, this is a pretty big change.

When people have to mention they're making that change when using shorthand to talk about their campaign, in my mind, I consider that a "revision", even if it may not fit the classical sense.

(FYI, using my usage of the term means that 3e went through two main revisions - 3.5E and Bo9s/Arcane Power/Incarnum).