Are people still mad about . . .

[Leatherhead]

So, yeah, that's something that still bugs me. People talk about how insulting the posts were, how the Dev's were trash talking all over the place, but, when you start to actually drill down and take an honest look, suddenly, most of the material is pretty banal and moderate.

Like I said, which is more likely? That people who had a hate on for the edition change started claiming that they were victims of big bad WOTC, or that WOTC really was out to piddle on the community that they'd spent about ten years building?

In the preview books, I remember specifically "The Great Wheel is dead." Now you can justify that by saying that the sacred cow needed to be slaughtered or something about needless symmetry (which I think the book did). But that is an attack on the previous edition, which went so far as to proclaim victory for killing it. You just don't jubilantly pronounce somethings death without implying that you bore malice against it while it lived. Especially when you are the one that killed it.

In fact, using the term sacred cow was rather insulting, but I think that was more of a forumite meme.

Anyway, yes, the marketing was a major contributor to the edition wars. I doubt that WotC activity intended to piss people off, but that happens when you aggressively promote a new product while bemoaning the problems of your last product. Perhaps they needed another editor.

And yes, people are still mad about it, obviously. Especially when they are told they shouldn't be mad at it.

 

[Mournblade94]

To you.

That doesn't mean D&D isn't designed in a certain direction. You can employ the system (however awkwardly) to accomplish whatever you may like, including traipsing off through fairy rings, but that doesn't mean the game doesn't have a core and a focus.

What you stated above is exactly why alot of 3rd edition fans do not like 4e. It is the design direction that shifted from the previous editions (After it evolved into AD&D at least) that has turned alot of people off. I don't want to follow the bullet cam during every battle. D&D now has the dungeon crawl/skirmish design direction in focus.

If you find interacting with little people more interesting than exploring dungeons and slaying monsters, that's cool. Use D&D or don't use D&D; it really doesn't matter. You'll enjoy your game, and we'll enjoy ours. Finding insult in the statement of a designer who was simply pointing out what the game is designed to best accomplish is just silly, though.

Yes but earlier editions of D&D catered to BOTH of these play styles. It did not have to be a "you'll enjoy your game and we'll enjoy ours" type of thing. Previously it was "Oh interesting... you play your D&D that way! Look I play D&D this way" Now if you play D&D off the design direction it is not the game for you.

The designers statement was indicating... we are designing D&D differently now.

People that were into the design direction quite obviously would have no problem.

 

[BryonD]

Sigh.

Instead of simply picking out the one line that is tangential to the point, how about actually answering the question.

Funny thing is, this is pretty much EXACTLY how things went with the marketing for 4e. People would pick one or two lines out of the field, and find THAT to take offense to, pretty much ignoring anything like context or actually trying to engage in anything resembling conversation.

Tangential? It is a central point of your statement and you repeat the theme in your other thread with silly equivalencies to ratings for games and modules.

Appeal to adults and "contains matter inappropriate for children" are not a fixed relationship. And yet you can't seem to find the distinction.

I will agree that this is very much like the 4e marketing. One person will throw out a statement not considering the clear implications of what they have said. And when someone else points out the problem with that statment the response is not an apology or correction, but an immediate attack on the audacity of someone to apply a little thinking to the issue.

 

[evildmguy]

I would not call it a different world, it was just a more explored world. A 20 year old setting pretty much has to change. You can't keep putting out books and boxed sets and not included changes you made to the line in updated campaign setting products

I do agree a roll back or no time jump be better then the junk they put out. That setting was not the setting I have played since 92, where as the 3.0 FRCS was still very much the greybox of 87 with more info. It was not remade, was not reconnected and a whole new setting using names and a vastly altered map. I could roll out the 3.0 FRCS and match it up with the old box, I could match it up with volo guides and the old north box set, just with more info. I can not do so with the new setting they are calling FR

Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I call a more explored world a different world. To me, there is a big difference between Silverymoon being this frontier city on the edge of civilization with a gate to hell nearby in 1355, to the capital of united area next to a kingdom of orcs in 1374 and no more gate to hell close by. I'm not even sure the North was called the Savage Frontier in 3E!

Having said that, I am no more upset about the Spellplague than I was about the Time of Troubles. Which is to say it annoyed me for a bit but then I kept going. Of course, I'm not the same person I was 23 years later!

Thanks!

edg

 

[Mark Chance]

Appeal to adults and "contains matter inappropriate for children" are not a fixed relationship.

Hear, hear. D&D is playable by children, but it is not a child's game.

 

[Mournblade94]

Like I said, which is more likely? That people who had a hate on for the edition change started claiming that they were victims of big bad WOTC, or that WOTC really was out to piddle on the community that they'd spent about ten years building?

Neither. The marketing was bad. I was enthusiastic about 4e until about 2 months in playing it and I still detected the tone which I chalked up to bad marketing. how can one NOT see it? Perhaps insulting is not the right word, btu there was a definite condescending tone inherent in the developers blog to the 3rd edition ruleset.

You would not see it because you were one of those that were fine with the changes.

I was happy about a new edition, until I saw they divereged from the D&D I knew.

 

[Mournblade94]

I think the typical reason for feeling insulted is not sharing the same context as the game designers.

Saying that does not solve anything. There are really two types of insults, intentional and non intentional. The designers certainly were not intentional, but they misread the community and it became an insult.

At least in the united states if you turn on the evening news you will see examples of unintentional insults and the groups they will arouse. You can see the problems in causes in any aspect of life. A gaming hobby is no different even if the level of importance is minimal.

 

[Mournblade94]

Well there's also the idea that while the previous branding was perfect for 10 years ago, it was loosing it's effectiveness in today's market (and the future market) so things had to change. (Despite the fact that it might cause a bit of a commotion as those still attached solidly to the old branding tactics felt left behind.)

Current clients are very important yes, but at the same time, if your current clients are slowly atrophying, and you're not bringing in enough new clients with your current product... What do you do?

Quite honestly I get puzzled when the branding of D&D is more modern now. I don't understand how. Is it the DDI? If you applied DDI to 3rd edition wouldn't that make it just as modern? What about 4e rules design makes it modern compared to third edition?

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

To me, there is a big difference between Silverymoon being this frontier city on the edge of civilization with a gate to hell nearby in 1355, to the capital of united area next to a kingdom of orcs in 1374 and no more gate to hell close by.

True but still the same world. Your looking at 19 years silvermoon was never a frontier city, but a city state in the wilds. It was always a major city, just without a kingdom. but in 19 years it went from a city all alone to the capital of a fledgling nation:that does not make it a new world. The world is the same place it was in 1355 but by 1374 things had changed

Look at it like this in 1760 America was colony's , points of light in the wilderness, by 1780 it was a young country. Still the same world as it was in 1760 but now the area had advanced. The in 1792 the us had 15 states, yet by 1821 a span of 29 years there were 24 states. Even if we keep it within 19 years your looking at 2 more states a large incress in size.

If ya look at the realms history ya see nations rise and fall in 20 years, none of that makes it a new world but does make it more "real"

 

[Hussar]

Tangential? It is a central point of your statement and you repeat the theme in your other thread with silly equivalencies to ratings for games and modules.

Appeal to adults and "contains matter inappropriate for children" are not a fixed relationship. And yet you can't seem to find the distinction.

I will agree that this is very much like the 4e marketing. One person will throw out a statement not considering the clear implications of what they have said. And when someone else points out the problem with that statment the response is not an apology or correction, but an immediate attack on the audacity of someone to apply a little thinking to the issue.

Yet, you still are incapable of answering the question.

When was D&D EVER marketed to anyone other than teens? I was asking Lanefan the same thing since he's claiming that 2e and now 4e are being marketed to a younger audience. My point is that D&D has never contained much if any adult content, has always been directed at teens and nothing has really changed.

So, at what point in the history of the game, has D&D ever been targetted at anyone other than teens? What bit of marketing has been done by either WOTC or TSR that directly targeted anyone other than the teen or maybe the very young twenties market?