3E & 4E Love and Hate Polls - What does it mean?

[N0Man]

It absolutely was, and is well remembered in the popular culture for being precisely that -- that's why the MSNBC article about idiotic business decisions was entitled "New Coke and other marketing fiascoes".

"New Coke" = boneheaded business decision that becomes a public relations disaster just as surely as "Benedict Arnold" or "Quisling" = traitor.



What makes you think this? How could whining by a vocal minority reverse Coke's biggest strategic move in decades in less than 3 months? Would you care to explain how that could happen?

Isn't more plausible that Coke made a business decision to flip their strategy because they saw in their business results that the new product was a spectacular flop, as popular history remembers it?



There was a period when New Coke was still being forced upon us, after Classic Coke returned. I remember wanting a Coke in restaurants and asking "you have Classic Coke, right"? Oftentimes the answer was an apologetic "no" -- at that time, I think fountains machines didn't have room for both, and the Coca-Cola Company was still pushing New Coke as the default. I'm sure the supply chain took a while to untangle.

I've already addressed your arguments with sources that backed up what I was saying. I didn't argue any of this out of my memory, because it was long ago and my memories of it are very vague. I went to these sources out of curiosity regarding what happened and found the facts that I stated here before I even posted here.

Instead of showing any citations or any quantifiable evidence to disprove me, you just keep saying I'm wrong, everyone knows it was a disaster, you remember it, and you use only a source that doesn't have any quantifiable evidence.

And it certainly was a marketing blunder, because that vocal minority created a very large buzz of negativity and I have no doubt that it swayed more and helped create a climate where it became trendy to bash the new stuff (which I already stated earlier in this thread.

However, show me a source where it shows that tastes tests didn't show that the new stuff was preferred. Show me a source that show it wasn't an immediate flop, and that sales immediately dropped with it's introduction. Show me a source that the hatred was from a majority, and not a vocal minority. Show me information for shortages. Something with numbers, percentages and with quantifiable evidence, because when I searched for it, I couldn't find it. Maybe my sources are faulty and I missed these sources, but I looked for them and came up dry.

 

[N0Man]

I find it unsettling that someone can compare the 1e thru 3e orc and gnoll and find nothing unique about them.



In effect, 4e demands that if the two races do not feel mechanically different in combat, then they step on each other. One of them must either change in some mechanical way-- or it must go.

It is not simply enough that orcs, hobgoblins, and gnolls look different, act different, have different power heirarchies and goals, etc.-- unless such differences find form in a mechanical expression.

4E simply focuses more on the mechanical aspects of how monsters are different from each other, but is lighter in the fluff of why they are different from each other.

From the player's perspective, the mechanical differences are a lot more obvious than the fluff differences, unless you have an amazingly detailed DM who manages to convey all of these elements into the encounter somehow.

From my experience, only the most basic fluff information was really ever conveyed in 2E and 3E games as well, and really weren't any more detailed than what was conveyed to me as a player in 4E. From the standpoint of a player, 4E, the encounters of different monster races felt a lot more different from each other than they ever did in 3E or 2E.

The lack of fluff in 4E seems to be an intentional design decision. They mostly focused on what the player would notice about the monsters and not worry about what's behind the scenes that the players may or may not ever really know. Also, this was done so that monsters would not be defined too rigidly and detailed that DM's might be reluctant to take them and put them in the world in a way that *they* wanted to do with their world.

You may not personally like this design philosophy and it may not be your taste, but it is certainly valid and has good reasons behind it.

 

[N0Man]

On monster races, it is even worse. The flavor of the race comes bolted on. A good DM doesn't need the crutch and can do vastly more variation. Certainly the crutch can help a bad DM perform like an ok DM as long as they stay on script. I'll take the good DM though.

But a good DM isn't required to stick to those anyway, right? In fact, 4E has in many places encouraged changing the flavor of the appearance, society, and even the racial powers to suit what you feel that you want to do. In some of the books they even include the examples of doing all of these things.

I think a lot of the distaste of 4E are misunderstandings in the philosophy and how to actually apply the game concepts in positive ways. Once you really get what 4E does allow you to do, it's a far stronger game than people give it credit for. It still might not be your style, and you still might prefer 3E, but 4E is far from the rubbish it is portrayed as by some critics.

 

[Barastrondo]

Aaaaaand the thread isn't even about the polls any more.

Who had page 11 in the pool?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The lack of fluff in 4E seems to be an intentional design decision. They mostly focused on what the player would notice about the monsters and not worry about what's behind the scenes that the players may or may not ever really know.

You may not personally like this design philosophy and it may not be your taste, but it is certainly valid and has good reasons behind it.

Actually I agree with that design philosophy in principle. There's no value in adding details to a creature to which the players are never privy, and especially not in the case of changes to their combat mechanics.

For example, consider adding two bonus feats to a creature: Power Attack and Cleave would be head and shoulders above Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, in terms of how those two feats play out on the stage.

But that is not to say that the only way to differentiate between two creatures is in their combat mechanics. There is a big difference between an orc barbarian and a hobgoblin barbarian, and it is entirely rooted in their fluff: the orc barbarian plays to stereotype and the hobgoblin barbarian plays against their lawful stereotype; this is a very flavorful distinction despite the fact that their statblocks could be identical.

Of course a new player, coming to Dungeons and Dragons for the first time with 4e, would be oblivious to the difference. The 4e philosophy is to discard any such "fluff-only" differences, and to make sure that every creature is painted with a bold palette of mechanical differences.

 

[The Little Raven]

I find it unsettling that someone can compare the 1e thru 3e orc and gnoll and find nothing unique about them.

There is nothing mechanically unique about them. They don't play any differently in a combat encounter, since they are nearly identical in stats. Sure, their fluff is different, but that doesn't make them unique or distinct in terms of how they interact within the rules of the game. I mean, you can make a Volkswagen look like a Porche with a body kit, but that doesn't make it run like a Porche.

It is not simply enough that orcs, hobgoblins, and gnolls look different, act different, have different power heirarchies and goals, etc.-- unless such differences find form in a mechanical expression.

Exactly. They are extremely biologically and culturally different and those differences should be reflected in a more obvious and mechanical manner. I love monsters that feel distinct not only in how they are described, but in what they do in the rules that is different from other monsters.

The game part of RPG is catching up with the roleplaying part.

 

[Rel]

Speaking as somebody who wishes that New Coke had never been invented, I'm starting to REALLY wish that New Coke had never been invented.

 

[N0Man]

Actually I agree with that design philosophy in principle. There's no value in adding details to a creature to which the players are never privy, and especially not in the case of changes to their combat mechanics.

For example, consider adding two bonus feats to a creature: Power Attack and Cleave would be head and shoulders above Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, in terms of how those two feats play out on the stage.

But that is not to say that the only way to differentiate between two creatures is in their combat mechanics. There is a big difference between an orc barbarian and a hobgoblin barbarian, and it is entirely rooted in their fluff: the orc barbarian plays to stereotype and the hobgoblin barbarian plays against their lawful stereotype; this is a very flavorful distinction despite the fact that their statblocks could be identical.

Of course a new player, coming to Dungeons and Dragons for the first time with 4e, would be oblivious to the difference. The 4e philosophy is to discard any such "fluff-only" differences, and to make sure that every creature is painted with a bold palette of mechanical differences.

What I'm saying is that the mechanical differences and what is described by the DM's are all the player sees. Details that are in the MM that don't come into play mechanically and aren't described by the DM aren't going to be noticed by the player. And in fairness, they didn't discard all the fluff, they just weren't as detailed.

However, in this example of Orc and Hobgoblin, can you tell me what important fluff is missing from these two in 4E? I think it hits the basics to give you an idea of how they fit in and gives you enough space to make them your own, if you decide to bend them a little. They are described both as being differently both mechanically and through fluff in all the ways that would matter the vast majority of the time.

It's more than enough information for your mediocre to average DM, and the great DM's don't need the hand-holding anyway.

 

[Hussar]

4E is a worse game from a creative and rules standpoint. The 4E system is less flexible from a rules standpoint. It gives less rules help for dealing with a situations a player might want to undertake like wrestling and extended strategy that may involve a spell that lasts more than a round or two. It is a better game when it comes to adventure preparation and character building in terms of time spent.

See, this, right there. THIS is what starts edition wars. Stating that X is worse, not based on opinion, but as an empirical fact, just flies up people's noses. Now, I'm not going to say that 3e fans are the source of this. I just happened to pick this particular quote. I'm definitely trying to stay on the fence on this one.

But, instead of saying, "I don't like 4e because I think that it suffers from a lack of rules flexibility" is pretty much an unassailable point. It's simply an opinion and people can take it or leave it. But, claiming that this is some sort of objective truth, like it has been proven somehow is going to rile people up.

Edition wars would definitely calm down if people would remember to speak only for themselves.

So you're persisting in your claim that people actually liked New Coke and preferred it to the Real Thing? While a vocal minority tricked America into mistakenly rejecting the New Coke they deep down loved?

OK then . . . so the overwhelming loathing for New Coke that was displayed at the time, killed the product, and has been remembered ever after in American popular culture wasn't really loathing at all, huh? What really happened is that Americans loved New Coke. We loved it until the vocal minority tricked us into thinking we hated it. We loved it, but we had to kill it.

So, now I totally see your analogy to 4e. My hate for 4e is just because I don't know my opinion, and have once again been brainwashed into thinking I hate what I actually love. That darned vocal minority tricked me again. Doh!

The Silent Majority loves New Coke and 4e . . . what an eye-opener.

You don't think the HUGE amount of media coverage this got had anything to do with it? You don't think that almost daily news reporting on the six o'clock news and several, if not front page, then certainly front section of the paper, stories had any effect at all on people's opinions.

And what did the reports cover? Did they say anything about New Coke's acceptance? No, they covered the vocal minority who were loud, and much more newsworthy (as in sells a newspaper and advertising time) than the much larger majority that were perfectly content with New Coke.

Are you actually suprised by this? This happens all the time. "Coke switches to New Coke - Well Received" is a single story. "Coke Switches to New Coke - People Whinge Endlessly" is a story that just keeps on giving.

 

[Greg K]

I'd like to challenge those who hate the game, players of it, or WotC themselves over the these reasons (or partially these reasons) to ask themselves would they still feel this bitterness and anger if the OGL and old PDF sales never existed. Be honest with yourself on this one, because I have a lot of trouble believing that the answer would be 'yes'.

Hate is a strong word, but serious dislike of 4e and WOTC (in terms of game design)? Yes. The OGL simply gave me options in place of what I thought were WoTCs dreadful race and class supplements and alternate mechanics (e.g, XPH, ToB, ToM MoI) that came out of WOTC, but I was at the least satisfied with 3e core on the whole (provided that I stopped the game at levels 10-12). I cannot say the same for 4e

My actual issues with 3e core were the following:
a. the game after 10th-12th level,
b. xp costs for casting spells and creating magic items
c. level drain (never liked it),
d. non biological racial abilities as part of the racial writeup
e. abilities like rage and sneak attack and, even turn undead being class abilities
f. wanting clerics to be more like 2e specialty priests.
g. christmas tree syndrome
h. wanting some type of hero point mechanic
i. specific spells
j. multiclassing (4e heroic tier multiclassing is close to what I wanted)
k. default leveling speed being too fast for my tastes (but there was always the optional rules in the DMG for changing speed)


In contrast, the only things that I like about core 4e and think the designers got right were the following (most of which could have been done while keeping what I liked about 3e):
a. Spellcasters are toned down
b. No XP costs
c. No level drain
d. removing many of the non-biological apsects of race and making them feats
e. Martial types interesting things even if I dislike the whole encounter/daily thing.
f. the disease track
g. more starting hit points
h. Con does not provide hit point bonus each level (something I wanted officially done in past editions)
i. heroic tier multiclassing
j. the characters share a unified progression for defenses
k. passive perception
l. The Feywild
m. class builds (I love 3e UA style class variant and, in concept, 2e kits)

(I'd like to include skill challenges, rituals, action points and healing surges, among 4e's good things but I like the basic ideas not the implementations)