Are people still mad about . . .

[haakon1]

However, with just slight tweaking one can easily play an 1e or 2e adventure using 3e rules (same is true for Pathfinder rules) - change some monster stats, replace NPCs with more appropriate to current rules version, some trap and spell mechanics changes, but that's it.

Converting between 2e and AD&D, or AD&D and BECMI, that's trivial.

But those and 3e were a bit further apart -- a 3rd level Cleric/Priest or an ogre were still the same things, but the stats were substantially different, so there was some paperwork involved in running EXACTLY the same adventure.

But I agree with your point about that compared to 4e. 4e to 3e seems about as compatible as 3e and GURPS.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ok, so, just to sum up, we've got one three line quote from a book and a video that actually wasn't made by a developer at WOTC, but by Gamer0, who, IIRC, got canned before the launch of 4e, specifically for posting crap like what was linked.

And that becomes the "Long list of wrongbadfun" stuff?

No, that's just a couple of examples of what got us annoyed. We really don't need to scour the net for everything in the 4Ed rollout that annoyed us, do we? (Especially with all that red text popping up.)

But, I the way I look at it, I see two possible alternatives.

One: People in a highly charged atmosphere, after reading several changes to the game they probably didn't like, become hyper-sensitive to every single thing that WOTC said and took everything personally.

or

Two: The people at WOTC, who spend thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars every year on a marketing department, collectively decide to piddle all over the fan base in the hopes of driving sales.

Or a third option, that WotC's marketers misread segment of their market, failed to understand the effectiveness of previous branding, and turned a deaf ear to the complaints. It's not like bigger corporations with far more extensive marketing departments haven't done that before and in even more mindboggling huge fashion.

QFT, bild91.

I had actually been pretty stoked by some of the early press releases- I was enthused enough to pre-order the Core 3 within a week of being able to do so. But as the rollout continued with revelations about the actual system details, I began to feel like I had been a victim of bait and switch. That aside, the tone and language used went counter to most of what I learned earning my MBA.

So I stopped looking at most of the press releases so I could judge the game on its own merits. When I got it in my hands, my fears were confirmed.

Market research, no matter how thorough, may still miss salient points. New Coke, as I've pointed out before, is cited as THE classic example in marketing classes.

According to Coke's extensive market research, New Coke beat both Coke's traditional recipe and that of Coke's fast-rising rival, Pepsi.

What they missed was that, while New Coke would have flourished as a new product in Coke's line, most Coke drinkers didn't want their classic recipe replaced. Over time, New Coke might have wrecked Pepsi and supplanted Coke's original flavor as #1 in the market...but it wasn't given time to grow. It was just thrown out there.

WotC's release of 4Ed was, in some ways, similar. While comparatively MUCH more successful a product than New Coke ever will be, it did cause a similar kind of rift in the targeted market. The difference is that 4Ed had a broader appeal- it won converts AND new blood- something New Coke failed to do.

 

[gamerprinter]

Of course it's the interwebs so I can just as easily say that Paizo's team is half the size of WotC and unless I back it up with reliable sources it's just internet hearsay

The source I'm going by is WotC layoff's back in December, and they listed who was left on the development staff which I believe was 6 people. I don't know all the developers at Paizo, but I'm pretty sure there's more than six people working on development - I could be wrong. Still they have announced when they got new hires and who they were. Paizo has more the six people based on new hires and existing staff.

Now WotC may have hired new developers since then, but then that isn't public information. From the limited sources it seems true.

 

[Lanefan]

Things I've personally been mad about for years, and still am:

- Since the 1e-2e overlap, ongoing refusal of either TSR or WotC to support previous editions alongside whatever edition is-was current
- After playing the game for close to 20 years, finding my opinions on its development leading up to 3e - and those of most of the people I played with at the time - were deemed irrelevant by WotC's market researchers because we were over 35
- Marketing the game (2e and to some extent 4e, I'm looking at you) to a too-young demographic. It's a game for adults, or close, and should be designed and marketed as such; and if younger players want to dive in that's fine, but this should not affect the game's basic design.
- That this hobby has been allowed to turn into an industry where design is driven by the bottom line, leading to (among other things) endless expansions of an edition until it collapses under its own weight thus requiring a new edition where the cycle starts again...

And some more recent annoyances:

- Subscription-based online content. I don't mind paying to buy a game. I do mind being expected to continually pay more if I want to remain current.
- Increasing requirement that one has a computer in order to play a pen-and-paper game. I don't do pdf's, if at all possible; but a lot of material is only being made available via pdf now - and I don't have a bookbindery in my spare room.

Lan-"I didn't think I was mad about this many things until I read this over"-efan

 

[FireLance]

And some more recent annoyances:

- Subscription-based online content. I don't mind paying to buy a game. I do mind being expected to continually pay more if I want to remain current.

Just thought I'd express an opinion here, even though I'm fairly sure I'm not going to persuade you of anything.

I personally don't see this as any different from subscribing to the print Dungeon and Dragon magazines and buying supplements (including modules) in the old days. In both cases, paying more money means that you get a stream of new stuff, but deciding not to pay any more money doesn't make the game you originally bought unplayable. It just means that you don't use any new rules and other material.

Now, whether there is a greater "pressure" to remain "current" in the present time - due to the presence of online discussions about new material, for example - is another matter entirely.

 

[Lanefan]

Just thought I'd express an opinion here, even though I'm fairly sure I'm not going to persuade you of anything.

I personally don't see this as any different from subscribing to the print Dungeon and Dragon magazines and buying supplements (including modules) in the old days. In both cases, paying more money means that you get a stream of new stuff, but deciding not to pay any more money doesn't make the game you originally bought unplayable. It just means that you don't use any new rules and other material.

Now, whether there is a greater "pressure" to remain "current" in the present time - due to the presence of online discussions about new material, for example - is another matter entirely.

Fair enough.

I never subscribed to either of Dragon or Dungeon. Instead, I looked at them in ye olde FLGS and if what I saw interested me, I'd buy it. I'd usually end up getting about 1 out of 4 Dragons and almost never bought Dungeon after they switched to 3e-only content.

As for the game being playable without extras, that's a matter of opinion. All four editions have been made more playable by later releases, provided one is really careful about separating the wheat from the chaff; but the signal-to-noise ratio is getting worse as time goes on.

And note I'm not saying I never want to pay for the game; in fact the state of my groaning bookshelf and overcrowded minis shelves would strongly suggest otherwise. But that was all purchased by choice. With any subscription-based system, I constantly run the risk of paying for a bunch of stuff I don't find of any use or value; where I'd rather only pay for the things I want.

Lanefan

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I miss getting Dragon in the mail once a month. Even though I subscribe to DDI, I hardly read the articles. I keep the DDI mainly for the fantastic other stuff it does.

I'm sad FR was so drastically changed. I understand why they did it, but I'm not sure it was worth it.

I'm sad we haven't had a new Campaign setting for 4E, other than the PoL default setting. Or rather, I wish they'd fully develop the PoL setting. It has great potential.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I'm sad we haven't had a new Campaign setting for 4E, other than the PoL default setting. Or rather, I wish they'd fully develop the PoL setting. It has great potential.

See I don't play or even like 4e and I'll agree with this. The system really should have had something to call it's own, in place or killing a much beloved world. PoL is a classic type of setting, A new setting to highlight some point and built around the new system would have been great for those that love the system

 

[Neonchameleon]

What setting did 3.0 have to call its own? I don't remember anything new before Eberron.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

3.0 had nothing new, however 4e was such a radical brake from anything that had come before:I feel it would have been better to showcase what all it could do with a new setting. Trying to shove the points of light concept into already established and well loved settings was a bad ideal. What it showed to me and others was that 4e could not handled the setting without mass reworking of the setting.

Now this might not be true, but that is what it seemed. The settings should have been updated without a rewrite and a new setting put out to highlight the "selling" points of the new system. After all the new FR is a new setting in all but name anyhow.