WotC Hasbro selling D&D IP?

[Parmandur]

More to the point you're engaging in revisionist history of the bad kind, because you're acting like people knew 4E's rules before the bad marketing happened, but that's completely false. The bad marketing, the GSL, etc. that was all known for months before the details of 4E's rules were. People were really mad with 4E already when the rules hit so they were basically getting out of limo into a mob full of villages with pitchforks and torches.

I mean, personally, I was excited up until the point that ai began reading the book and playing. I even liked the Lore previews quite a bit. But, the actual game did not excite.

 

[Nikosandros]

In 1999, I think everyone understood Hasbro purchased WotC because of Magic the Gathering.

Magic might have been a factor, but the main reason was the Pokemon TCG.

 

[payn]

I think we really need to get over the idea that voicing a negative opinion is edition warring. I didn't like 4th edition D&D because I thought it was a bad game. And that's okay. We don't all have to like the same things.


Who retconned it? When I started playing 4th edition back in 2008 I had been looking forward to it. But after a few sessions figured out that it wasn't the game for me. I thought it was a bad game back in 2008 and I think it's a bad game now. It's not the worst game ever. I'd rather play 4th edition than 1st edition at this point, but that doesn't make 4th edition any less bad.

I think saying "4E is bad for my playstyle" is a bit different than saying "4E is bad period". The same is leveled at 3E/PF1 often as well. As if the badness is provable fact. I think the stakes were elevated there because of the E war and it continues because there is a fight amongst the enthusiasts of the game over its direction that is waged to this very day.

 

[Retreater]

Can we take it way back and argue about "2.5" - Skills and Powers?

 

[MGibster]

I think saying "4E is bad for my playstyle" is a bit different than saying "4E is bad period". The same is leveled at 3E/PF1 often as well. As if the badness is provable fact. I think the stakes were elevated there because of the E war and it continues because there is a fight amongst the enthusiasts of the game over its direction that is waged to this very day.

It seems to me that the vast majority of discussions on this site revolve around difference in preferences. The majority of people who participate in these threads are adults who understand the difference between a statement of fact and one of opinion. When I say D&D was a bad product, it is with the assumption that you all understand this is a statement of opinion. I don't feel the need to write preface statements with "in my opinion" or "for my playstyle" because I assume everyone here understands what an opinion is.

And that's it, I'm done. I didn't mean to start a discussion about 4th edition. Maybe at D&D's 100th anniversary, after the 6th World Edition Wars, we'll be able to talk about it.

 

[Umbran]

It seems to me that the vast majority of discussions on this site revolve around difference in preferences. The majority of people who participate in these threads are adults who understand the difference between a statement of fact and one of opinion. When I say D&D was a bad product, it is with the assumption that you all understand this is a statement of opinion. I don't feel the need to write preface statements with "in my opinion" or "for my playstyle" because I assume everyone here understands what an opinion is.

What folks need to understand is that this statement can be largely correct, but that behavior still not be a great choice. This habit of not explicitly stating it, and relying on folks to assume it, still probably contributes to most of the arguments on the site.

You see, even if most of the folks on the site either understand it is a statement of opinion, or don't care to argue, that most is not all. So, there are some who take you at the explicit word you wrote, and will argue the point. That is not "most" people, but it is enough to cause disruption and have someone like me have to come in with red text.

Lacing your posts with phrases like "in my opinion" (or "for my group", "it seems to me", "imho", or "your mileage may vary", etc.) that make it explicit that you are limiting the scope of your assertions is like wearing a mask in public during the pandemic. "Most" people are safe, but the few that are not are still going to be a significant problem such that it is worth protecting yourself.

In addition, while you may be cool, other people do intend their statements as fact, not personal opinion, and you are now actively choosing to leave your posts looking like theirs. I am glad if that's worked out for you, but it may not be the wisest choice you can make.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think we really need to get over the idea that voicing a negative opinion is edition warring. I didn't like 4th edition D&D because I thought it was a bad game. And that's okay. We don't all have to like the same things.

I disagree. I think you're engaging in very straightforward edition-warring by insisting the game is "bad" rather than engaging in any specific critiques of bad design - even I gave some examples of that - rather than saying "I didn't like this game" or "this wasn't game for me". You specifically said the game was rejected because it was "bad", which implies it was objectively bad, not that you personally disliked it.

There's a vast difference between a bad game, and a game you don't like.

I don't like 3.XE. It isn't a bad game. I would say somewhat mediocre, and I could that with specific arguments about how it failed to achieve its own objectives, but it's not "bad".

Whereas for example Shadowrun 5th edition, I would happily call bad, not because it's "not to my taste" - actually it kind of was - but the rules were not rules I disliked, they were rules that were a terrible mess that ground the game to a halt frequently and were full of huge errors and problems.

Negative opinions are fine - disliking something is fine - asserting something is "bad" because you dislike it is clearly not the same thing as that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What folks need to understand is that this statement can be largely correct, but that behavior still not be a great choice. This habit of not explicitly stating it, and relying on folks to assume it, still probably contributes to most of the arguments on the site.

You see, even if most of the folks on the site either understand it is a statement of opinion, or don't care to argue, that most is not all. So, there are some who take you at the explicit word you wrote, and will argue the point. That is not "most" people, but it is enough to cause disruption and have someone like me have to come in with red text.

Lacing your posts with phrases like "in my opinion" (or "for my group", "it seems to me", "imho", or "your mileage may vary", etc.) that make it explicit that you are limiting the scope of your assertions is like wearing a mask in public during the pandemic. "Most" people are safe, but the few that are not are still going to be a significant problem such that it is worth protecting yourself.

In addition, while you may be cool, other people do intend their statements as fact, not personal opinion, and you are now actively choosing to leave your posts looking like theirs. I am glad if that's worked out for you, but it may not be the wisest choice you can make.

Personally I'd suggest more people should just say they didn't like things, rather than try and say they were "bad" as an unhelpful shorthand for them not liking it.

Also as you say, an awful lot of people do mean something is "bad" when they say "bad", so it's particularly unhelpful to use it as code for "I didn't like it". Personally to me it's really jarring because there are so many games, musicians, films, directors, writers, books and so on which I don't particularly like or enjoy, but absolutely would never call "bad", because I respect what they're doing, I just don't like it. That seems like a better way to live your life than trying to condemn any game or edition or whatever you don't jive with.

Also to be clear, the original statement about 4E doesn't even make sense unless you're talking objectively, because the claim was that 4E was rejected by the audience in general, not the specific poster, because it was "bad".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, personally, I was excited up until the point that ai began reading the book and playing. I even liked the Lore previews quite a bit. But, the actual game did not excite.

Sure, and some people were like that, saying "I'll reserve judgement until I get the books" and then having varied responses. But the general tone on ENworld was extremely negative long before then.

And not without reason, sadly!

Even at the time, I remember being completely mind-boggled by the marketing campaign. That's why I remember it so well, because it was like "Are you genuinely trying to stir controversy or something?" because insulting your own audience with a generic "Snooty European" accent is just bizarre behaviour. And the CEO coming out with the WoW statement, I remember cringing when I read it, because I knew what he meant, but I also knew how people - especially people who didn't play MMORPGs but did have "OPINIONS" about them would take it! And MMORPGs were widely blamed for damaging TT RPGs, especially WoW, in 2008. It was frequent to see posters here complain that X members of their regular group had become "WoW addicts" or the like. So it was such an ill-advised thing to say. It's like he thought only business people would read it or something, not the general public.

 

[mamba]

Hugely so. Absolutely night and day. 5E's marketing was clean and straightforward and avoided any major mistakes.

wasn’t around for the introduction of 4e or 5e, but current 5e marketing is nonexistent as far as I can tell. If I weren’t looking for it, I’d never see anything.

Of course that does not invalidate what you wrote, nor does it intend to, it’s simply my 5e marketing experience

The marketing CAUSED the core audience to reject it even. The main marketing campaign literally implied that you were stupid and bad for liking older versions of D&D. Like I said, it was like a Simpsons bit - it was even narrated by someone who sounded like generic "Snooty European". I was amazed that didn't go even worse than it did based on that.

well, they knew their audience well, apparently the marketing and the design showed this

I obviously don't agree and your rationale is "WotC had to back down when it tried to do it again and they were fine!" and you're ignoring the bolded bit. I think 5-10% audience loss would be true in the short term, but five years from now? We'd have seen bad consequences. We may still.

my point is more that losing 5-10% would be manageable and also a lot less than they did actually lose with 4e

Did changing course with the 5e OGL prevent the worst, sure. The impact we had because of that is almost nonexistent. It will be hard to pin any future downturn on it (without just making it up as the cause)

And none of the others had an alternative waiting in the wings. There was no Pathfinder equivalent for 4E because of the GSL.

no, but if there had not been a PF people could simply stayed with 3e, plenty did with 1e to 2e

My point is that most groups don't have a strong preference for new edition over old edition and don't care about the details of the rules very much.

which means 4e was in trouble even without PF

More to the point you're engaging in revisionist history of the bad kind, because you're acting like people knew 4E's rules before the bad marketing happened, but that's completely false. The bad marketing, the GSL, etc. that was all known for months before the details of 4E's rules were. People were really mad with 4E already when the rules hit so they were basically getting out of limo into a mob full of villages with pitchforks and torches.

some people probably were turned off by that, others genuinely might not like the wow-ification of D&D that 4e represented - and that was not just marketing, the game was significantly different from previous versions

They did not just lose half their audience because they acted stupid with dropping the OGL and bad marketing, they also made a game that a significant part genuinely did not want.

They admitted as much and we have the playtests to prevent such a disconnect going forward