D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Nemesis Destiny]

Yes, I agree with you in that I don't support the arguments that the OP was making about the community, and the numbers can speak to that, to at least some degree. That said, I think there is a grain of truth there, even if the arguments don't make a lot of sense.

I think if the poll in question were repeated every few months, or even after every packet, it would be pretty interesting. Speaking for myself, and I've seen this echoed throughout the 4e community (though not universally), that as things progress in the playtest, the material is moving further away from a desirable outcome. When the announcement was made last January, I was very enthusiastic, and packet after packet, that enthusiasm has eroded to the point where I've basically lost most of my interest that Next is going to be something I care about enough to become my "main game."

In that poll, I might have started out in one of the higher-approval categories, then moved into ambivalent, and am now somewhere in between "don't like" and "bloody awful."

That's the only true metric (as I see it) for how well things are going; are they winning people over with their design, or scaring them away?

 

[innerdude]

They made a lot of mistakes with Essentials: The product line was confusing, expensive, and (as you say) divisive. It accomplished none of the things WotC claimed they were trying to accomplish with it. The entire thing was badly bungled, represented a huge missed opportunity for the company, and basically sealed 4E's coffin.

Based largely on descriptions of 4e games here by pemerton and Manbearcat, I actually did a serious read-through of the Essentials "Heroes" books at my FLGS a few weeks ago.

But since I wasn't actually going to run a 4e game any time soon, the criteria for actually BUYING any of those books was more about aesthetics--would it look good on my shelf? Would I use it as reference for playing other games (probably not, since they're all "crunch" and zero fluff)?

If I decided I was ever going to PLAY in a 4e game, which one would I want? Did I need both "Heroes" books AND the Rules Compendium? Even at the lower price point for the softcover books, that was still gonna be $60---a full $20 more than buying a standard HARDBACK PHB for other systems (and a HELL of a lot more than the Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition).

And this was me asking these questions, a guy who's been playing RPGs for 25+ years, knew EXACTLY what I was looking for, and had some understanding of what I was supposed to do with it when I got it home.

If I'm a 14-year-old standing in the same FLGS, just wanting to "try out D&D," I don't even know WHICH QUESTIONS TO BE ASKING, let alone which "product" is going to answer them.

(All of this is to say nothing of the fact that I hated, truly hated the internal layout and artwork of the Essentials books).

In other words, the best possible version of 4e, the one with the most fixed math, the one that should really make 4e "sing" was trapped in an awful presentation, and pre-packaged in such a way as to extend, rather than reduce the initial cost investment.

In retrospect, it should have been a pretty easy call to say that Essentials was doomed from the start.

Here's what I can't figure out---why in heavens can't WotC seem to find capable, competent people to run the business side of things for the D&D product line? Pretty much everything from the Hasbro merger onward is just a never-ending parade of mediocre-to-outright-bad marketing, failed / mismanaged / rushed product launches (lack of core races and classes in 4e PHB? The flat out broken monster and skill challenge math at launch? Digital tools? Gleemax WTF?), bad PR and communication with the press and consumers, legal wrangling (stripping PDF sales from known digital storefronts with less than 24 hours of notice, moving DDI from a downloadable to online format) . . . .

When your products are beyond reproach and held up as the industry standard for design, as a company you can afford to make some missteps along these lines. For 4e fans, that product is clearly good enough to offset the rather obvious missteps everywhere else. For everyone else, it doesn't take long before we're scratching our heads going, "Why so much loyalty to THIS company and THIS product line?"

 

[Balesir]

However, after looking around and finding some excellent alternatives, I came to the simple realization that though "D&D" had been "my game" in the past, the current iteration simply wasn't. (Ironically, in that regard I owe WotC a huge debt of gratitude for helping me branch out into new directions, and discovering new games. I really doubt that would've happened if 4e had been more akin to Pathfinder than its actual end result.)

But if wasn't "my game" anymore, it was definitely "other people's" game, and once my ill-begotten disdain dissipated (in no small part to the intelligent, thoughtful individuals who champion 4e on these boards), it became clear that for the true 4e die-hards, this really was THEIR game--it delivered an experience for them that no other RPG does. And yeah, it's not "my D&D" anymore---but I happen to like the stuff that's now "my D&D" better than the stuff that actually has D&D printed on the cover, so why worry?

I understand this sentiment, but the irony is that, by the time 4E came along, I was way, way past seeing D&D as "my game". As a result, I am really not bothered whether whatever 4E might become remains "D&D" or not, I would just love to see its innovations exploited as I think they can be. WotC even has another RPG brand - "DragonQuest" - that they could use, should they wish to license it somewhere. I don't see it happening, though.

Here's what I can't figure out---why in heavens can't WotC seem to find capable, competent people to run the business side of things for the D&D product line? Pretty much everything from the Hasbro merger onward is just a never-ending parade of mediocre-to-outright-bad marketing, failed / mismanaged / rushed product launches (lack of core races and classes in 4e PHB? The flat out broken monster and skill challenge math at launch? Digital tools? Gleemax WTF?), bad PR and communication with the press and consumers, legal wrangling (stripping PDF sales from known digital storefronts with less than 24 hours of notice, moving DDI from a downloadable to online format) . . . .

When your products are beyond reproach and held up as the industry standard for design, as a company you can afford to make some missteps along these lines. For 4e fans, that product is clearly good enough to offset the rather obvious missteps everywhere else. For everyone else, it doesn't take long before we're scratching our heads going, "Why so much loyalty to THIS company and THIS product line?"

Oh, no disagreement from me that marketing and general handling from a business angle have been atrocious for 4E. If it wasn't such a strong product from my perspective it would be an easy brand to hate. Even as a fan of the system, the handling of the product offering has been a mess - the PDF clustercockup and tools shenanigans, general message giving and Essentials launch - all horrible!

 

[billd91]

Here's what I can't figure out---why in heavens can't WotC seem to find capable, competent people to run the business side of things for the D&D product line? Pretty much everything from the Hasbro merger onward is just a never-ending parade of mediocre-to-outright-bad marketing, failed / mismanaged / rushed product launches (lack of core races and classes in 4e PHB? The flat out broken monster and skill challenge math at launch? Digital tools? Gleemax WTF?), bad PR and communication with the press and consumers, legal wrangling (stripping PDF sales from known digital storefronts with less than 24 hours of notice, moving DDI from a downloadable to online format) . . . .

When your products are beyond reproach and held up as the industry standard for design, as a company you can afford to make some missteps along these lines. For 4e fans, that product is clearly good enough to offset the rather obvious missteps everywhere else. For everyone else, it doesn't take long before we're scratching our heads going, "Why so much loyalty to THIS company and THIS product line?"

Did you think that WotC was more competent for the 3e launch or 4e? 3e's launch was after the Hasbro merger as well and it seemed to go much better than 4e's. Why? What has changed at WotC during that time?

 

[Ratskinner]

Did you think that WotC was more competent for the 3e launch or 4e? 3e's launch was after the Hasbro merger as well and it seemed to go much better than 4e's. Why? What has changed at WotC during that time?

Not to answer for [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION], but IIRC the merger (September 1999) was close enough to the 3e launch (in 2000) that the impact didn't really hit 3e off the bat. Some of the most relevant departures didn't happen until later 2000 or 2001. Whether Hasbro or its influence is responsible for WotC's perceived ineptitudes since then is a harder question, but I think its reasonable to say that it had much less, if any influence on 3e's launch process. Recall, also, that Hasbro originally took the position of giving WotC much more of a "free hand".

 

[delericho]

3e's launch was after the Hasbro merger as well and it seemed to go much better than 4e's. Why?

I had to look that up, but you're right. However, the 3e launch happened almost immediately after the buy-out. My suspicion is that that launch was basically a done deal by the time of the merger, and went ahead as was previously planned.

What has changed at WotC during that time?

Well, there's been an almost complete revolution in the staff - almost nobody who was on the D&D team then is still on the D&D team now. However, I'm inclined to think that it's more a corporate thing - that immediately after the buy-out WotC operated basically as WotC always had done, but by now they're well adjusted to the Hasbro culture, they have their processes, management, and objectives set by Hasbro... they're basically a Hasbro company first and a game company second, where before they were a game company first and a Hasbro company second.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Did you think that WotC was more competent for the 3e launch or 4e? 3e's launch was after the Hasbro merger as well and it seemed to go much better than 4e's. Why? What has changed at WotC during that time?

New to the thread here, but I recall a lot of positive run-up to 3E when it came out - publicity in non-traditional areas, and news that would appeal to old-school gamers (bringing back "demons" and "devils" from their exile in name in 2E, for example), as well as the idea of cleaning up a lot of the mechanics from 1E and 2E. I think there were also widespread calls for playtesting as well.

Prior to 4E, I was more closely involved in gaming and running a 3.5E campaign. However, I don't remember nearly as much in terms of calls for playtesting as well as publicity outside of the regular gaming websites when 4E was coming out. Plus, when it came out, it was a much bigger change to what D&D was in all prior editions - in 1E, 2E, and 3E, a fireball would kill a roomful of goblins or orcs. In 4E, a fireball would be lucky to bloody a roomful of goblins... self-healing in second wind, and a whole new healing mechanic in Healing Surges instead of healing spells, as well as the concept of giving everybody Vancian "Daily" powers, instead of just spellcasters. While I expected changes for 4E, I had no idea it was a radical redesign of what I had known as D&D for almost 30 years.

 

[Libramarian]

I'm sure they'll do well with "Don't care about the rules? Then buy our new rules!" as a sales pitch.

You wouldn't sell D&D Dads rules, but the idea and feel of the D&D they played as kids. This segment could be a more lucrative market than all of us put together. Maybe the best shot at making D&D as profitable as it was in the 80s is to market to those exact same people 30 years later. Someone who was 12 in 1984 will be 42 in 2014, probably with a couple of children. Tell them that weird game they played in the 80s is back (refrain from mentioning the intervening editions) and that it's cheaper than buying their kids Warhammer minis and MMO subscriptions. DDN seems like a fine game to play once in a while with kids. I'm sure I could run it for my 4 and 5 year old nephews and have a good time.

Actually, if the goal is profitability, there are two groups WotC should ignore completely when designing 5e: those who won't under any circumstances switch to the new edition, and those who certainly will. Because any effort made to reach those two groups is wasted - it's not going to result in additional sales.

I think casual players who don't care much about the rules are right in the middle of those two groups--they're amenable to edition change, but they're not certain to change because their rules work fine and system doesn't matter much anyway. You do have to market to them, they just respond less to marketing based on how the rules are better.

Strangely, the design goals seem to be very much aimed at one of the two---they're clearly trying to target 3e holdovers and the OSR crowd, many of whom are going to be a very hard "sell" on Next.

(But there's assuredly going to be "early adopters" who just migrate with the system regardless, just out of brand loyalty, and yeah, why market to them?)

I don't think DDN is aimed at hardcore fans of 1, 2 or 3e. There's enough in there to turn off people who are hardcore fans of any particular edition. I think they're primarily looking for casual/lapsed 1-3e players.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Here's what I can't figure out---why in heavens can't WotC seem to find capable, competent people to run the business side of things for the D&D product line? Pretty much everything from the Hasbro merger onward is just a never-ending parade of mediocre-to-outright-bad marketing, failed / mismanaged / rushed product launches (lack of core races and classes in 4e PHB? The flat out broken monster and skill challenge math at launch? Digital tools? Gleemax WTF?), bad PR and communication with the press and consumers, legal wrangling (stripping PDF sales from known digital storefronts with less than 24 hours of notice, moving DDI from a downloadable to online format) . . . .

I don't see any reason to believe this is Hasboro's doing. Jonathan Tweet has implied that it was one particular person who was driving the D&D brand into the ground. And I recall a couple of recent posts from Lisa Stevens sorta slyly indicating that Paizo fans shouldn't be holding grudges against/disrespecting wotc for what happened in the past, because the decision maker(s) responsible for certain decisions aren't there any more. That's just off the top of my head--no doubt there's more of this sort of stuff out there if someone cared to go looking for it.

 

[DnD_Dad]

They do sell my rules. It's called savage worlds.