Legends and Lore: What's With the Polls?

[Dannager]

As for the "grognard dollar," it's lost. It is lost. They don't hate WotC because wizards are no longer gods, though that was certainly one of the original reasons. They hate WotC because they hate WotC. They think WotC fired them as a customer, and pooped on their head, and destroyed everything they love, and those three things are things I have seen put at WotC on places like the Paizo forums.

That dollar is never coming back, no matter how many changes to the game you make.

Does the fact that I'm pretty okay with this make me a horrible person?

 

[Incenjucar]

Does the fact that I'm pretty okay with this make me a horrible person?

Not really. I expect that much of the specific ideals that people cling to in older editions contributed to some of the negative stereotypes popularized in media, much like the Malicious DM concept, and it's possible that the various power trips that older editions are famous for chased many potential players away. Ideally, WotC should capitalize on the new fairness of the edition in order to bring in new players rather than trying to bring back players who thrive on power disparity.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I mean here at EN World we had a thread where people were lining up to applaud and pat on the back an illiterate book burner because he hated 4e and thought it was literally World of Warcraft.

Those aren't fans you're going to get back.

Those aren't fans you want back.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I mean here at EN World we had a thread where people were lining up to applaud and pat on the back an illiterate book burner because he hated 4e and thought it was literally World of Warcraft.

Those aren't fans you're going to get back.

Those aren't fans you want back.

Link?

 

[Truename]

What I hate is the idea is that Essentials is all we're going to be getting.

(I assume that you mean "boring" martial-style Essentials classes here.) This is the second time you've said this, but I've seen nothing from Wizards supporting this. (Lots of cloudy crystal balls and soggy tea leaves from fans, though.)

What I have heard from Wizards is this (paraphrased): "The psionic classes taught us that we have the flexibility to try new things with our power structures, and we're going to apply this to the Essentials classes. We'll also take what we learned from the Essentials design and apply that to new classes in the future."

To me, that says that we're going to see more creativity, more innovative class design, more new ideas. (Those ideas may be wrapped in old brands, just like Nintendo does with Mario and Link.) Mearls is a schmot guy who combines flavor and crunch beautifully. I have faith in what we'll get from him.

 

[pemerton]

I expect that much of the specific ideals that people cling to in older editions contributed to some of the negative stereotypes popularized in media, much like the Malicious DM concept, and it's possible that the various power trips that older editions are famous for chased many potential players away. Ideally, WotC should capitalize on the new fairness of the edition in order to bring in new players rather than trying to bring back players who thrive on power disparity.

I tend to agree with this, and think that the rulebooks for 4e could have been better written to communicate this, and to make it clearer that a number of older approaches to the game (like arbitrary GM fiat) weren't intended to be part of 4e play.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I tend to agree with this, and think that the rulebooks for 4e could have been better written to communicate this, and to make it clearer that a number of older approaches to the game (like arbitrary GM fiat) weren't intended to be part of 4e play.

I don't know about that. I'm inclined to believe that it was deliberately left out. I get the impression that they don't want to tell you what's right at everyone's table, and leave that up to you to decide.

Some people enjoy that style of play, others don't. Who can tell them what edition they can or can't use that play style with? It's really nobody's business but those around the table.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Some people enjoy that style of play, others don't. Who can tell them what edition they can or can't use that play style with? It's really nobody's business but those around the table.

I think the arc of 4e has changed on this.

The 4e DMG infamously includes a bit where it tells you that talking to NPC's isn't fun. The idea of many of the rules were "basically handwave everything except combat, and get very detailed on combat."

Mearls alludes to that with the "gnome problem:" when they first decided to ditch the gnome, they had found that only 10% of players even bother to play a gnome. They didn't think ditching the gnome would be a big deal, but they didn't imagine that the 10% of players translates into half of all gaming groups. Even a small percentage that wants something can affect a huge number of gaming groups.

That's part of what I see Essentials as addressing: WotC isn't going to tell you that you have to play D&D in a particular way anymore, and Essentials is a toe in the water that says: "We want to support your campaign, whatever your campaign happens to want," rather than "We're going to make a game, and if you don't like it, you're wrong, and we don't want your money, and you can go play Pathfinder."

They can't get every dollar back, but those they can get back, I imagine, they want to get back. And if all it takes is making a few marvelously effective builds without daily powers...well...that's really not even a big deal, since there is certainly more than one way to balance a class.

 

[Dannager]

Link?

Enjoy.

 

[Nork]

When 4E came out, there were a number of people who said that 4E was terrible because they couldn't play a fighter who "just swung a sword" and that they couldn't understand the system because of that.

Then you had the 4E and Pathfinder schism that cost WotC customers. I suspect that many of those customers were perfectly fine with 4E but were in groups where they had a die-hard anti-4E holdout saying they couldn't figure out how to swing a sword in 4E.

I think Essentials is an attempt to address the expressed complaints about 4E in a bid to get back part of their market that they lost to Pathfinder.

The problem is that I strongly suspect that they didn't lose many of those customers for the reasons that those customers claim. Very rarely will someone admit to negative behavior like wanting to play a "god" class or that they simply hate change, and as such they will come up with elaborate complaints about a system to justify that their dislike of the system is for rational reasons.

Hence all the "I can't understand martial classes! How do I swing a sword! This is sooooo confusing!" noise. The mistake was to not recognize that this is just nerds giving nerds a well deserved reputation for being people nobody likes, and that they are pretty much completely unreasonable and that any attempt to court them in a reasonable manner is going to be about as successful as getting them to stop flipping out over minor continuity points in a TV show.

Hence you have Essentials. A set of perfectly reasonable classes targeted at people who supposedly get confused about how to swing a sword in 4E. The problem is that it was never about the sword. They are not coming back because their stated problem was addressed, they will rationalize a new reason because they are operating on Xbox vs PS "logic" at this point. Now you are left with the 4E population that is split between people who were happy with 4E and look at the reasonable classes and find them to be a nice change of pace that adds to their existing options and you've got the nerds who migrated over to 4E now pitching a fit about change, dumbing down the system, 4.5/5E conspiracy theories, 3E retrograde conspiracy theories, imagined slaps in the face, and all sorts of irrational behavior.

So while I happen to like the Essentials classes, just like I like the non-Essentials classes, and play in a game where there are both Essential and non-Essential classes at the table... and I see the inexperienced player with the Thief constantly get confused by when all the different bonuses apply... I don't feel like anyone at that table really needed Essentials to make them a customer or keep them as a customer.

So I see Essentials as a mistake, because it won't get them the "I play Pathfinder because XYZ is wrong with 4E" players back, it didn't address an actual failing in 4E, roleplaying games are sufficiently complicated that a simple version won't lower the bar to entry, and it is causing another mini edition wars. (All of this ignores people who just like Pathfinder for Pathfinder, as they either buy 4E books too or the only way to get them is to re-write the system from the ground up to be a Pathfinder clone.)