Are people still mad about . . .

[Hussar]

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.

I believe it would be more accurate to say they misread a portion of the community.

It would possibly be a better question to find out why that portion reacted the way they did when another portion did not. What sets that group apart? What makes two groups, who likely have at least gaming in common, react almost entirely oppositely to the same statement? What commonalities do these groups share within themselves?

I think the answers to those questions would shed a lot more light on the issue than possibly simply dumping everything back into WOTC's lap for misreading the reactions of particular groups.

 

[renau1g]

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.)




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.

Of course by this reckoning 3e and 3.5e should never have been released. They were just "thrown out there" and seemed to do ok. Comparing it to "New Coke" is not fair as that product was a universal failure and 4e is certainly not, it may not be the colossal success that say the IPOD is, but I think to classify it in the same category as New Coke, The Vega, Ford Nova (in spanish speaking countries), Gerber baby products in Africa, which featured a baby on the outside and in Africa they usually put what's inside the product on the label due to low literacy rates (ironically, Gerber is vomiting in french), list goes on and on (Atari Jaguar?)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Apparantly it doesn't solve anything.

It makes a big difference to me whether someone intentionally insults me or it just happens become he oversaw something. It seems not everyone feels the same way.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

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?

Stealing, uh, i mean, including rules that other RPGs on the market used when they were still absent in D&D. Compare some stuff in Earthdawn, forex, which parses over to 4e pretty well (healing is based on the character, not on healers / self-contained talents for all classes / choose from powers when levelling, regardless if you´re a figher or wizard). Another example are the minion rules. Modern in this regard means "influenced by contemporary sources."

 

[Gimby]

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.

I suppose the question is *how* did earlier versions cater to those styles of play, mechanically? Sure, you could traipse through fairy rings and deal with the little people, but you still can. What's actually been lost here, aside from statblocks telling you how good said fairies are in a fight?

Compare to something like Changeling, where the themes of innocence and wonder are important mechanically, or Exalted's Shaping combat, which invokes fairytale logic when interacting with the Fae.

If something wasn't supported (as in, had mechanics to back it up) before, and still isn't now, then what's been lost?

 

[CleverNickName]

Seems like I am late to the party as usual. I am only sore about three things that WotC has done to my beloved game:

1. Banning PDF sales of out-of-print books.
2. Making Dragon magazine an e-publication.
3. The GSL, which seriously limits 3pp material.

But as for everything else I was bent out of shape over in 4E (healing surges, WoW influence, dragonboobs, etc.), I'm over it. The bottom line is, 4E isn't my kind of game...and that's my fault, not the fault of WotC.

EDIT: I was going to link my Edition War Flowchart, but I can't find it.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Well said and XP given. This is how I felt.

Now, to clarify, I play 4th Edition. I do this in order to say current. And with my multiple system mastery group (Champions from the early 80s, GURPS, Rolemaster, Top Secret, Gamma World, Traveller, etc.) we have no problem playing our way in the new system of 4th. Load's of fun.

But the narrowing of focus is noticeable. And when we discuss mods locally offline with other groups, this is the first time we get told...oh you need a different game to play that way.

But we will stick with DnD.

 

[Mournblade94]

Modern in this regard means "influenced by contemporary sources."

Thank you.

 

[Piratecat]

Yet, you still are incapable of answering the question.

Careful with the direct accusations, please. It's possible to discuss or argue a topic without getting pugnacious.

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?

As far as I can tell or remember, it has never been marketed towards anyone other than teens or young adults. That doesn't mean that the reading level was artificially lowered - quite the reverse, really, except for some 2nd edition stuff - but I can't remember the marketing ever targeting the older demographic.

Certainly not the D&D cartoon, and remember these 1e ads? (That's Alan Ruck from Ferris Bueller's Day Off with the glasses, incidentally.)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnPz4qKnLds[/ame]

Or this?

 

[Aeolius]

The bottom line is, 4E isn't my kind of game...and that's my fault, not the fault of WotC.

That's a fair assessment that applies to me as well. Not everyone was bothered by WotC's "end your old games now and get ready for 4e" push, the loss of the ethereal plane, the disregard for the World of Greyhawk, the whole succubus/erinyes, debacle, weird dryads, loss of many traditional MM entries(as well as flavor text), loss of standard races and classes, etc etc etc. But I was.

Yes, I could have spend aeons converting the 3e material that I enjoyed over to 4e, but I'm lazy. It was far easier to simply stay with an edition of the game that already had those elements.

And yes, subsequent supplements (pardon me.. core rules) may have added in a race, class, and beastie that had been missing. But I am quite unwilling to ask my players to spend another chunk of change on additional rulebooks.

I was ready to try 4e, to flesh out a campaign idea of mine, but alas the first 3 books had no greenhags, Awaken spell, or druids. Oh well.