Upset about another edition!

[Dannager]

This is where I feel like there's a little spin going on (but not a lot). That is, a lot of people felt that WotC wasn't saying "this game is more fun," but rather "your game wasn't fun."

Yeah, but everyone knows that wasn't actually the point WotC was making. Some people like to pretend that it was, because it putts their narrative downrange a bit, but I think even they know that's not actually what they were trying to get across.

They said things were terrible because they had heard about a pile of concerns over these things for years. They were cool things, on their face, but in practice were often way less cool than they could have been.

No one at WotC thought that D&D 3.5 wasn't fun. They all thought it was a great game. Every last one of them. They all had points of concern, or things they thought could be better, but they all loved D&D 3.5. And they all love 4e. If 5e comes out, and we start seeing WotC guys saying things like, "Y'know what, this part of 4e just wasn't fun," (we won't see that, mind you, because they've discovered that it's like trying to pet that one really angry cat that hates everyone) it won't be because they thought 4e wasn't fun. It will be because they listened to people and made improvements to things they thought needed it.

 

[Dannager]

By the way, malkav666, calling someone unreasonable in a +XP comment is really not okay in my book. It's not cool in an actual post, and sliding it into a pat-on-the-back is a notch down.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And pretty much everything that WotC has said bad about 3.5 has come back to bite them on the butt. They were repeating what some players were saying. Not all, not most, but rather a vocal majority.

WotC could have added qualifiers - they didn't.

They could have listened to playtesters telling them that their skill challenge DCs were a mess - they didn't.

They could have said that 4e was in the works - they denied that it was.

Again - they are already apologizing - telling them they are right does not make them right.

Telling me that I am wrong does not make them right.

Telling me that I am wrong does not even make me wrong.

WotC misjudged their market. They tried playing a negative game.

As a result 4e has failed.

If 3.X was as wrong as WotC was trying to claim then WotC would not now be standing, hat in hand, saying that they had made a mistake, would me and my players please come back?

They lost ground to a game that was, by their own marketing 'not fun'.

If it were not fun then it would not now be outselling D&D.

I do not claim that 4e is not fun, but if I did then the market would support my claim better than it has WotC's - 3.X, in the form of Pathfinder, is outselling their 'fun' game.

WotC's position was untenable. They have acknowledged it.

Those folks that were claiming that the success of 4e was inescapable, that Pathfinder was nothing but a haven for Grognards? Well, they were wrong.

So, I might as well say it - 4e was less fun than 3.X.

As a result WotC has lost marketshare, and they lost it to a game that they labeled 'not fun'.

They deserve their loss. Hopefully they learned their lesson in time to prevent the collapse of the brand.

But, really, I would be hard pressed to say that I care all that much - they lost me as a fan with their marketing.

They lost my players with their marketing.

They lost the support of my local game store with their marketing.

That is not the mark of a successful marketing campaign.

TheAuldGrump, nobody can tell you what is fun. But at least take into context that WotC had a very large contingent of vocal gamers (like me) swearing off further purchases because D&D 3.5 was getting stale (to us). They would be understandably nonplussed, having delivered what they thought they were asked for, then being responded to with torches and pitchforks.

EDIT: None of this is meant to absolve them of incompetent (or non-existent) market research to get the actual tenor of the D&D community. I only intend to blunt the idea that WotC approached 4E with malicious intent.

No, they had a very loud contingent of vocal critics, not the same thing, not at all....

The Auld Grump

 

[Crazy Jerome]

When someone comes down even half as hard on the incestuous relationship between textbook publishers and university professors, where they make minor tweaks to the book, require a new "edition" almost every two or three years, and then the publisher provides a kickback to the professor because he helped them change a couple of minor lines ... when all that happens, I'll think about giving a rip about any game company making a buck. Moreover, unlike RPGs, if you want that degree, those purchases aren't optional. And one semesters' worth at most universities would let you buy a fairly impressive, all new, set of gaming books for everything that was popular at a given time.

 

[Dannager]

And pretty much everything that WotC has said bad about 3.5 has come back to bite them on the butt.

Well, yes, in the sense that some fans decided to get really offended and bite them.

Again, it's that really angry cat that hates everyone. Don't touch it.

They were repeating what some players were saying.

A lot of players.

Not all, not most, but rather a vocal majority.

I think you meant "minority", but I'm happy to agree with what you said.

WotC could have added qualifiers - they didn't.

Do you feel like you need qualifiers in order to understand what WotC is saying and where they are coming from?

They could have listened to playtesters telling them that their skill challenge DCs were a mess - they didn't.

I don't think that's where your actual beef is coming from.

They could have said that 4e was in the works - they denied that it was.

Oh. Yeah. That. Because, y'know, that happened.

Again - they are already apologizing - telling them they are right does not make them right.

They're apologizing because you're making them apologize. It's like an abusive husband who pounds on his wife for not cooking the meatloaf exactly to his tastes and then makes her apologize for the "mistake". How dare she.

Telling me that I am wrong does not make them right.

No, but it does mean that they have an opinion. How dare they.

Telling me that I am wrong does not even make me wrong.

That's right. The only thing that would make you wrong is being wrong.

WotC misjudged their market. They tried playing a negative game.

No, they tried to sell their new product by comparing it favorably to their old product. Tons of companies do that. My favorite recent example is Domino's stupidly successful new crust campaign, in which they actually called their old crust tasteless and cardboard-like. Way more negative than anything WotC did during the 4e release, and now everyone has a much-improved opinion of their pizza.

As a result 4e has failed.

We're not going to get into a discussion of whether 4e has failed or not. You don't have a non-arbitrary definition of failure, so that's dead on arrival.

If 3.X was as wrong as WotC was trying to claim

How wrong, exactly, were they claiming 3.X was?

then WotC would not now be standing, hat in hand, saying that they had made a mistake, would me and my players please come back?

Unless, of course, they were doing that because they want your business.

They lost ground to a game that was, by their own marketing 'not fun'.

Really?

Where did they say 3.5 wasn't fun?

I'd love to know.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yeah, but everyone knows that wasn't actually the point WotC was making. Some people like to pretend that it was, because it putts their narrative downrange a bit, but I think even they know that's not actually what they were trying to get across.

They said things were terrible because they had heard about a pile of concerns over these things for years. They were cool things, on their face, but in practice were often way less cool than they could have been.

No one at WotC thought that D&D 3.5 wasn't fun. They all thought it was a great game. Every last one of them. They all had points of concern, or things they thought could be better, but they all loved D&D 3.5. And they all love 4e. If 5e comes out, and we start seeing WotC guys saying things like, "Y'know what, this part of 4e just wasn't fun," (we won't see that, mind you, because they've discovered that it's like trying to pet that one really angry cat that hates everyone) it won't be because they thought 4e wasn't fun. It will be because they listened to people and made improvements to things they thought needed it.

Yes. And I think their presentation is key. Saying, "we heard that this was a problem for some people, so we took that into account when we developed our mechanics" will go over much better than "the plane of void wasn't fun. What was anyone thinking? Gates guards? Not fun. Skip it, and get to the fun part. Talking to the little people? Not fun, go kill things. Disagree with our decisions? A dragon pooped on you."

Presentation is key here, and I think it's a little misleading (intentional or not) to say that people were upset that because they said 4e is fun. I think the problem was that people felt like they were being told "the way you play(ed) isn't fun." I think they did learn from 4e's presentation. I hope so, too, because as this is supposed to be a more unifying edition, and I'd love to see that goal be realized for most D&D players.

WotC may not have tried to alienate people, but they certainly did by specifically calling out certain play styles as not fun. They need to make sure that they cater to "this is fun" to many play styles. Presentation is key. As always, play what you like

EDIT: 1,000th post!

 

[Mallus]

Are people still mad about the "traipsing through fairy rings" comment?

Hell, I go way beyond "traipsing" in my campaigns... in one of my 3e sessions I had a demon lord recite a parody version The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock (well, a stanza or two at least). Par for the course, really, in that campaign.

Despite that, I was not offended by any of 4e's marketing. I never felt my somewhat idiosyncratic notion of "fun" was being attacked or disrespected.

Perhaps I am just stupid. Or thick-skinned. Or lack the violent allergic reaction to marketing.

 

[Halivar]

Really?

Where did they say 3.5 wasn't fun?

I'd love to know.

There is nothing new to be gleaned in that line of questioning in the three years since it was last discussed, except more locked threads.

 

[Dannager]

Yes. And I think their presentation is key.

I don't think it's that important. I think that the people who are willing to be understanding and actually hear what's being said won't care much about the presentation, and I think that the people who aren't getting what they want can use the presentation as an excuse for being far more upset with the whole situation than is really warranted.

 

[SKyOdin]

So, I might as well say it - 4e was less fun than 3.X.

So why am I playing and enjoying a 4E campaign, and not a 3.X/Pathfinder campaign? You do realize you are doing exactly what you are lambasting WotC for doing. I for one can't stand the thought of having to play 3.X again. I realize that some people don't agree with me, but going on about how 4E has supposedly failed isn't going to change my gaming opinions in any way.