Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5266300" data-attributes="member: 3400"><p>I have my doubts. I find it hard to fathom that WotC couldn't see the competition they face from their own old products much less the products of other companies. Now, maybe they had fallen into a bit of a thought pattern based on the success of 3e's launch, that the success of 3e under WotC's stewardship did very well so 4e would as well. But that doesn't ring very true with me.</p><p></p><p>My guess would have more to do with the designers trying to come up with a game that worked well for their easiest-tapped feedback source, organized play, assuming it would be sufficiently representative to base a game around for the general market. 3e had gone through some pretty strict limiting to support Living Greyhawk in a reasonably balanced fashion. 4e has clearly been designed to make the sort of balance you want in organized play a central focus.</p><p>I think that may be a bit of a limited scope, personally, but it does serve to make a pretty robust skirmish subgame within D&D. I think that the designers made their choices honestly thinking they'd be good for the game, not because of some arrogant idea that their disgruntled (former-) customers would have no place to go. Most of the designers at WotC, I'm sure, play more than one RPG. They would <strong>know</strong> quite well that competitors (including their own previous editions) would exist even if they didn't know Paizo would become one of them.</p><p></p><p>I also think that there's a separate element at WotC, let's call them the business management side of things, who moved to keep WotC intellectual property home on the farm rather than releasing it for anyone else to run with. I think it's probably the business management end that is responsible for the GSL trouble and probably withdrawing PDFs from sale.</p><p></p><p>I can see why, taken together, one might see these moves indicating a certain arrogance, an entitlement to their base of customers who would follow the brand no matter what. But I really do think it's a stretch. I have no reason to believe the designers weren't honest and forthright in their attempt to improve the game.</p><p></p><p>Now, if WotC had correctly divined what would happen with a chunk of the fan base and Paizo, what would they have done? I honestly don't know. The designers might have designed the game for a little more backward compatibility, which would have been pretty easy to do with the flavor side of things if not mechanics. I have my doubts that the business side of things would have changed much, though.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="billd91, post: 5266300, member: 3400"] I have my doubts. I find it hard to fathom that WotC couldn't see the competition they face from their own old products much less the products of other companies. Now, maybe they had fallen into a bit of a thought pattern based on the success of 3e's launch, that the success of 3e under WotC's stewardship did very well so 4e would as well. But that doesn't ring very true with me. My guess would have more to do with the designers trying to come up with a game that worked well for their easiest-tapped feedback source, organized play, assuming it would be sufficiently representative to base a game around for the general market. 3e had gone through some pretty strict limiting to support Living Greyhawk in a reasonably balanced fashion. 4e has clearly been designed to make the sort of balance you want in organized play a central focus. I think that may be a bit of a limited scope, personally, but it does serve to make a pretty robust skirmish subgame within D&D. I think that the designers made their choices honestly thinking they'd be good for the game, not because of some arrogant idea that their disgruntled (former-) customers would have no place to go. Most of the designers at WotC, I'm sure, play more than one RPG. They would [b]know[/b] quite well that competitors (including their own previous editions) would exist even if they didn't know Paizo would become one of them. I also think that there's a separate element at WotC, let's call them the business management side of things, who moved to keep WotC intellectual property home on the farm rather than releasing it for anyone else to run with. I think it's probably the business management end that is responsible for the GSL trouble and probably withdrawing PDFs from sale. I can see why, taken together, one might see these moves indicating a certain arrogance, an entitlement to their base of customers who would follow the brand no matter what. But I really do think it's a stretch. I have no reason to believe the designers weren't honest and forthright in their attempt to improve the game. Now, if WotC had correctly divined what would happen with a chunk of the fan base and Paizo, what would they have done? I honestly don't know. The designers might have designed the game for a little more backward compatibility, which would have been pretty easy to do with the flavor side of things if not mechanics. I have my doubts that the business side of things would have changed much, though. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?
Top