Heinsoo on Alignment & Rebranding

[TerraDave]

Enough with the random WoW shots. It doesn't even make sense in this context.

And they're part of a public company, where other divisions vastly outperform D&D. So yeah, their corporate masters wanted them to do whatever was necessary to (theoretically) dramatically change their fortunes. That's an incredibly common story inside Corporate America.

Ya, speaking of random shots and not making sense.

WoW was specifically cited by the team (mostly Noonan, but by others) as an influence at the time.

Speaking of corporate masters, wouldn't they want a strategy that worked. I guess it turns out they would, as almost all the principles associated with 4e were ultimately fired.

The question is, why that strategy? Why not just keep milking what had been a very successful 3E?

 

[dd.stevenson]

Enough with the random WoW shots. It doesn't even make sense in this context.

And they're part of a public company, where other divisions vastly outperform D&D. So yeah, their corporate masters wanted them to do whatever was necessary to (theoretically) dramatically change their fortunes. That's an incredibly common story inside Corporate America.

Both you and TD really seem like reasonable good people (and he has 4ognard in his status), so I really want to propound the idea that this is a misunderstanding.

Ya, speaking of random shots and not making sense.

WoW was specifically cited by the team (mostly Noonan, but by others) as an influence at the time.

Speaking of corporate masters, wouldn't they want a strategy that worked. I guess it turns out they would, as almost all the principles associated with 4e were ultimately fired.

The question is, why that strategy? Why not just keep milking what had been a very successful 3E?

And, allowing that such a strategy was worthwhile in 2008, to what extent it still worthwhile now?

 

[TerraDave]

And, allowing that such a strategy was worthwhile in 2008, to what extent it still worthwhile now?

The strategy now is new, but new in a familiar way that makes everyone happy. Not new in a way that kicks the ass of the past edition.

(And yes, I have run a 4E campaign, albeit sporadically, since it came out, I mean, it kicks the ass of the past edition).

 

[the Jester]

That wasn't a WoW shot. In context, it's an important point. 4E was crafted in an era where WoW was the most widely played fantasy game. Computer RPGs were exploring new mechanics, and there was a lot of talk about game design from a videogame perspective.

I think D&D players tend to take any reference to videogames vis-a-vis D&D as either insulting to the video game or as insulting to D&D. In all fairness, it usually is intended one way or the other (though certainly not always! - I don't think that was the intent here, to be clear).

I find it interesting that, more than designers talking about video game influences on 4e, I heard/read a lot about how Euro-style board games influenced 4e's design. (Not meaning this as a shot against anyone or any game style... )

The question is, why that strategy? Why not just keep milking what had been a very successful 3E?

Speaking from no special knowledge, I believe that sales had been progressively dropping year after year. Basically, the core sells the most, everything else less over time; and so the profit-per-book goes (generally) down (not counting the loss leader initial pricing on the 3.0 books).

 

[Umbran]

I guess it turns out they would, as almost all the principles associated with 4e were ultimately fired.

WotC staffing practices in general do not make that a telling piece of evidence. They just don't keep a "standing army" of developers around.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That wasn't a WoW shot. In context, it's an important point. 4E was crafted in an era where WoW was the most widely played fantasy game. Computer RPGs were exploring new mechanics, and there was a lot of talk about game design from a videogame perspective. These absolutely had an effect on the development culture of 4E. The entire edition was an attempt to apply these modern methodologies to D&D, and a lot of refactoring of the game was done to accomplish this.

That isn't an attack. It's merely an observation.

WoW has no alignment system. Zero. D&D, including 4E, has one. Citing WoW as a reason for 4E's alignment change here makes no sense.

This board has a tendency to shout "WoW" whenever someone says "4E," even when -- as in this case -- it's genuinely not relevant. (And, honestly, I often wonder how much those citing "WoW" know about the game, since the alleged influences, as in this case, don't have any correlation at all.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Speaking of corporate masters, wouldn't they want a strategy that worked. I guess it turns out they would, as almost all the principles associated with 4e were ultimately fired.

The question is, why that strategy? Why not just keep milking what had been a very successful 3E?

Because the numbers weren't what they wanted them to be. Continuing to do the same thing wouldn't have suddenly resulted in bigger numbers.

Corporate America -- particularly those with publicly traded stock -- is interested in growth, not a steady rate of return on investment.

 

[DMZ2112]

That they had all burned out on 3E and wanted something more differenty and assumed everyone else did?

To be fair, a lot of us did. A lot of us still do. For me, the alignment decision was the first sign that something was terribly, terribly wrong. It still took me the better part of a year to accept it.

The question is, why that strategy? Why not just keep milking what had been a very successful 3E?

Money. The only reason a corporation ever changes. However successful D&D3 was, it must not have been successful enough. Perhaps management thought that if they introduced a new edition of D&D without the OGL, they could absorb all the revenue being made by third-party developers on the d20 System? I've heard worse business plans, hard as it may be to believe.

WoW

Everybody just shut up. Mentioning D&D4 and WoW in the same breath is never helpful, enlightening, or polite.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Hindsight being 20/20, it really wouldn't have mattered to 4E's fortunes either way... but I'm actually surprised they didn't revamp the "alignment" system (or whatever system they would call/use to indicate morality in the game) completely. It probably would have gone over better if it didn't have any similarities to the grid. Squashing the grid down to "Lawful Good - Good - Unaligned - Evil - Chaotic Evil" resulted I think in most people going "Well, what's the point?" It's not like Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil were the problem children of the alignment grid that needed to be exorcised.

At least had they come up with a completely different system that didn't match the grid at all... it would have been seen at least as them trying something new for a new game. The 4E version was just a middle ground that didn't add or help.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Hindsight being 20/20, it really wouldn't have mattered to 4E's fortunes either way... but I'm actually surprised they didn't revamp the "alignment" system (or whatever system they would call/use to indicate morality in the game) completely. It probably would have gone over better if it didn't have any similarities to the grid. Squashing the grid down to "Lawful Good - Good - Unaligned - Evil - Chaotic Evil" resulted I think in most people going "Well, what's the point?" It's not like Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil were the problem children of the alignment grid that needed to be exorcised.

At least had they come up with a completely different system that didn't match the grid at all... it would have been seen at least as them trying something new for a new game. The 4E version was just a middle ground that didn't add or help.

It really looks like a lame compromise, since it has the tatters of the Chaos/Law axis clinging to it. My guess is that there were pro-grid folks and pro-G/N/E folks and whoever had to make the final call got tired of going around and around about it and went with that.

But I agree: If you're going to get rid of the classic alignment system (which is sort of a dubious proposition, since the battle of good versus evil is part of D&D's DNA, even if someone chooses to play a non-participant in that war), they should really go for it, rather than take an infuriating to everyone half-step.

WotC is capable of that sort of thought: The 3E Manual of the Planes and 3.5 DMG both looked carefully at what would happen if DMs started ripping out the old planar structure and the impacts on the game, which they then used with the 4E cosmology (love it or hate it). It would have been nice if that kind of thinking had been applied to the alignment system: What happens if you remove one axis? What happens if you remove it entirely? What effects are based around it? What monsters are wedded to it?

Given what a problematic spell Detect Evil has been since OD&D, it seems like a serious look at the mechanical importance of alignment is long overdue inside Official D&D Design HQ. (For that matter, has any major publisher ever done so? Has Paizo done anything new with alignment?)