• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E 4E WotC way of saying your fired?

Raven Crowking

First Post
SPECTRE666 said:
I have no problem with the Warforged if they do it right.

Every edition of the game has included elements that impose base assumptions upon the game, unless the players & DM do the work of changing them.

It would be better, IMHO, if they made elves into fey in 4.0 than if they kept them humanoids. If you're going to let in non-humanoid PCs, then go the whole nine yards.

RC
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kae'Yoss

First Post
Maggan said:
If I would give out the rules to publishers, I would first require a contract saying they won't publish until the three core books are out.

That'd be fine by me. But they should give out the rules or stop pretending.
 

shocklee

First Post
delericho said:
So far. Of course, this is the first edition where the OGL has allowed another company to simply reprint the rules once the new edition hits, thus preventing the books from going out of print.

It will be difficult for any modern game to go out of print given the availability of electronic version of the rules. What Delericho mentioned has already happened with Hackmaster. I don't see WOTC pulling all of its PDFs of 3.5 material off the market just to force people to the new edition.

I think the better observation is that we are returning back to the earlier days where the market was fragmented. I think that the move to 4th edition is in some ways legitimizing the other competing D20/OGL rulesets, and could be a marketing opportunity for some of those companies. I think that companies, like Paizo, may be forced to provide stats for multiple systems. (Maybe printing the main adventure for 4th edition, but also providing stats for 3.5, True 20, etc. either as embedded text or in an appendix.)
 

GreatLemur said:
They're saying you can't possibly recreate all the character options of 3e (the version of D&D that really opened the character option floodgates) with the rules available in brand new, we-haven't-got-any-suppliments-yet 4e. They're saying that you probably won't be able to convert your characters accurately, so your best bet will be a rough reinterpretation, or else a whole new campaign. My memories of 2e are admittedly indistinct, but I suspect 3e characters are far more varied, mechanically.

Do you remember what the 3e Conversion Booklet looked like? It was a short booklet showing how to convert core 2e characters to core 3e characters, and introduced changes in terminology and explained how to convert 2e multiclass/dualclass characters to 3e characters (a formula I still remember off the top of my head).

I wouldn't ask for the dawn of 4e to include a conversion guide on how to convert a half-illithid kalashtar totemist/soulknife with a Vow of Poverty into 4e, but I would consider it a good thing to at least get an acknowledgment that 3e characters that are generally core could be turned faithfully and accurately into 4e characters (except gnomes, and druids, and anything else from 3e core that's being omitted).
 

JVisgaitis

First Post
DaveMage said:
The whole "firing your current customer base" does have precedent, IIRC.

One of the miniature companies (Games Workshop?) essentially did this a while back. They came out with an entire new mini line that was not compatible with the old line. Apparently, this strategy *was* successful for them.

Games Workshop still does this. When I went to England back when I was working on Lustria, we were sitting in Bugman's Bar at their Studio in Nottingham. We were talking about their player base and how the see their customers. GW's entire philosophy is to replace their current set of gamers every 4 to 5 years.

I know they have changed from this somewhat in recent years as their prices became too high and their market share started to dwindle. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people who have been playing GW games for years, but their main target (if I recall correctly) is 9 to 15 year old males.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
JVisgaitis said:
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people who have been playing GW games for years, but their main target (if I recall correctly) is 9 to 15 year old males.

I find that really hard to believe. I'd put their target market at 18+.

They may not want to admit that, or maybe that's what they think they'd like to target, but presumably they've actually looked around the floor at any one of dozens of tournaments they run every year. Not a lot of 9 to 15 year olds in attendance.

Their support structure doesn't cater to 9 to 15 year olds, at all.

On the other hand, maybe that's a UK/US split.

I wonder, in fact, how autonomous GW-US is these days. I would guess "largely."
 

Charwoman Gene

Adventurer
Wulf Ratbane said:
Assuming of course his objection isn't simply on religious grounds, in which case he need say no more; but then I am sure you wouldn't mock someone's religion in an open forum.

Ah but what about those who share the religion and not the conclusion...
 


Glyfair

Explorer
JVisgaitis said:
Games Workshop still does this. When I went to England back when I was working on Lustria, we were sitting in Bugman's Bar at their Studio in Nottingham. We were talking about their player base and how the see their customers. GW's entire philosophy is to replace their current set of gamers every 4 to 5 years.

I know they have changed from this somewhat in recent years as their prices became too high and their market share started to dwindle. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people who have been playing GW games for years, but their main target (if I recall correctly) is 9 to 15 year old males.

While I've never been a fan of GW, an interview with the head of the US operations on ICV2 was interesting. It's never been a secret that GW feels that getting new players introduced to the "GW Experience" has been the key part of their plan. That's been the focus of their corporate stores for a while. Unfortunately, getting new players these days has been a steeper hill to climb.

It's also no secret that GW has had a rocky road with those independent stores that carry their product. They had very strict demands about what must be carried, how much of the store it occupies and how it is displayed. They had such a strong, fanatical player base that they could say "our way or the highway." In the worst case situations their strict demands forced a retailer to invest significant amounts in a GW display, and then GW opened a store in the same town (in one case I heard it was almost across the street).

It seems that strategy is backfiring in the current climate of the hobby industry. At least in the US, GW wants to start working with the independent retailers because they serve the existing player base. They consolidated their regional offices into one US office, implying that some of the rocky relationships were some of the regional offices not following the company's customer service mandate.

I believe GW sees the market is dwindling and changing, and that they need to keep the old players because the supply of new gamers is harder to attract.

BTW, here is the link to the first part of the interview (which links to the rest).
 
Last edited:

Glyfair

Explorer
Wulf Ratbane said:
I find that really hard to believe. I'd put their target market at 18+.

They may not want to admit that, or maybe that's what they think they'd like to target, but presumably they've actually looked around the floor at any one of dozens of tournaments they run every year. Not a lot of 9 to 15 year olds in attendance.

Their support structure doesn't cater to 9 to 15 year olds, at all.

On the other hand, maybe that's a UK/US split.

I wonder, in fact, how autonomous GW-US is these days. I would guess "largely."

From the article I quoted above:
The reason for that is the goal of our own Games Workshop retail stores is recruitment. They are really there to draw people in. The reason 50 percent of the store is gaming space is because they can run introductory games. What we find is these stores generate a lot of interest in an area, they recruit a lot of gamers into the hobby, they sell an awful lot of core games. But then after a while, these people actually want something else, they want something more. The average age in our own retail stores is actually quite low. Once they get to a certain point or a certain ceiling, then the Games Workshop store doesn't offer them all the stuff they want, because they want a club, they want to play bigger games or they want to run campaigns. They also want a wider variety of choice as well, because once you're into playing miniatures games, you want to see a wider choice of miniature games. That's where they feed into the independents around them.
 

Mustrum_Ridcully

Adventurer
Arashi Ravenblade said:
Sheesh, I hope someone does do a 3.75. There is nothing wrong with 3e that cant be ironed out.
Maybe it is more a matter of play style and personal preference, but balancing the game to reduce the "Christmas Tree Effect", make Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels more reliable, reduce the chances for the "short adventure day" doesn't look to me as if a 3.75 could actually address all this. Unless you count Iron Heroes as a possible version of D&D 3.75.

Though I wouldn't mind if someone made a 3.75 and improved these aspects...

I think there is nothing wrong with D20 that can't be ironed out. But since D&D 4 is also a d20 System, that should be obvious...
 

The Little Raven

First Post
JeffB said:
EDIT: I should note that I didnt always agree with Skip, or Monte or Tweet or Ryan, but I felt like these guys really did care about trying to adhere to D&D "history and themes". After the HAsbro buyout and everyone had left, thats when things really went downhill for me.

Hasbro purchased Wizards of the Coast one year before 3rd Edition was released, and most of the people that worked on 3rd Edition with Monte, Skip, and Jonathon are still with Wizards, and are the people responsible for 3.5... James Wyatt, in particular, has been with Wizards since the launch of 3rd Edition.

So, it's kinda odd to me that you view the Hasbro buyout as going downhill, when the first major action taken after the purchase was the launch of 3rd Edition, which you seem to hold in the highest regard.

He's always been a stand-up no BS guy. The partnership with Bill and Clark just makes it all the better.

I agree with these statements, but don't agree with trusting Erik Mona over Wizards. While Erik's a great guy, he seems to want to keep D&D in the mold of a 1970s/1980s game, and I don't really vibe with that. I left D&D during 2nd Edition because it couldn't get passed behind that game, and there were plenty of other systems that weren't hampered by grognards and sacred cows.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Wulf Ratbane said:
Not if you feel that it is indicative of a more pervasive (and unnecessary) change of tone.

Yes, even if you feel that. Because "feel it is indicative" is not "know it is indicative". Single data points don't generally indicate anything. Single data points don't demonstrate patterns.

It is entirely rational to look at the system, not like it, and avoid it. Deciding to avoid it because of one setting element before actually reviewing the system as a whole is not rational, IMHO.
 


WhatGravitas

Explorer
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Maybe it is more a matter of play style and personal preference, but balancing the game to reduce the "Christmas Tree Effect", make Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels more reliable, reduce the chances for the "short adventure day" doesn't look to me as if a 3.75 could actually address all this. Unless you count Iron Heroes as a possible version of D&D 3.75.
4E shows many good ideas and improvements. I rather hope that Paizo goes the "alternate player's handbook"-route, similar to IH, AE and similar books. Make a 4E sans "hyper" - something like "4E for D&Ders" - take the good stuff, and clean it up.

Would appeal to me much more than 3E+.

Cheers, LT.
 

JVisgaitis

First Post
Wulf Ratbane said:
I find that really hard to believe. I'd put their target market at 18+.

I agree with you 100%. In fact, I remember thinking the same thing. I never did ask about that though and I can't remember why.
 

Imaro

Hero
Umbran said:
Yes, even if you feel that. Because "feel it is indicative" is not "know it is indicative". Single data points don't generally indicate anything. Single data points don't demonstrate patterns.

It is entirely rational to look at the system, not like it, and avoid it. Deciding to avoid it because of one setting element before actually reviewing the system as a whole is not rational, IMHO.

Well they've also thrown half-demon...quarter-demon(tieflings) in as a default race. I can see where the man is coming from, even if I don't totally agree with it one way or another. As far as being rational...I think if you have a major issue with how a company is presenting things the rational thing is not to buy it or support it.

You know this is funny to me because D&D 4e is suppose to have new gamers as a target market yet these two changes alone are definitely going to put some parents off...of course they could be going for the publicity angle that saturated D&D with the whole satanic vibe in the 80's. You know what they say, bad publicity is better than no publicity. Plus it will appeal to all the angsty, rebel without a cause, world is gloom and doom, type impressions alot of the teenage years foster in people.
 

WayneLigon

Adventurer
Mourn said:
While Erik's a great guy, he seems to want to keep D&D in the mold of a 1970s/1980s game, and I don't really vibe with that.

Eh, I wouldn't much agree with that. Pathfinder shows a lot of innovation. They're re-imagining the look and feel of a lot of classic monsters: different ecologies, looks, societies, etc. If they did their own variant players handbook (something I'm sorry we didn't see more companies do), I wouldn't blink at getting one, even if it was for 3.5. I can always mine it for ideas, art, fluff, etc.
 

The Little Raven

First Post
WayneLigon said:
Eh, I wouldn't much agree with that. Pathfinder shows a lot of innovation. They're re-imagining the look and feel of a lot of classic monsters: different ecologies, looks, societies, etc. If they did their own variant players handbook (something I'm sorry we didn't see more companies do), I wouldn't blink at getting one, even if it was for 3.5. I can always mine it for ideas, art, fluff, etc.

I was talking about core D&D itself. Most of his concerns I've seen about 4th Edition are about the slaughter of sacred cows in the core game and it's assumed setting.
 

Grog

First Post
mmu1 said:
So the fact that WotC is making it a priority to conduct a PR campaign they're calling a "playtest" rather than providing any of the 3rd party publishers with information would worry me as well, if I was in Mona's shoes.

How could the playtest possibly be a PR campaign when everyone involved in the playtest is under an NDA?

WotC employee #1: "Okay, we want everyone participating in this fake playtest to generate tons of good PR for us! How can we best make sure they do that?"

WotC employee #2: "We could make them sign legally binding documents saying they can't talk to anyone about 4E?"

WotC employee #1: "Brilliant!"
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top