Edition Bias and 4e Sales Perception

[Mournblade94]

Some people don't mind if the mechanics change if it better supports the archetype. Some believe the mechanic DEFINES the archetype.

The archetypes were not well supported by the 4e mechanics which is one reason I dislike the game so much. I can see how the mechanics support the roles (roles have always been part of D&D, but the roles in table top were not parallel to the roles familiar to video gamers), but I do not see how 4e better defines an archetype from the time tested versions of D&D. The only archetype I would say that maintained its flavour is rogue and cleric, possibly paladin. If you want to play the noncombat rogue though your up the creek because then you are skinting on your party role.

* Really, 2000 broke the trend with sorcerers (non-vancian casting) and the replaced the thief class (with its backstab and % thief skills) with the rogue (who had sneak attack and skill system), yet I don't recall a lot of complaining then...

People do not complain when things are done well.

The sorcerer was a nice new alternative concept. Vancian magic did not define the caster archetype anyway. The rogue was added to with its special abilities to fit into the 3rd edition rules set. The 1st edition rogue would have been a disaster if left as is. Back stab was redefined as sneak attack, and the % skill system was blended to non weapon proficiencies.

 

[Treebore]

What would I have done to rewrite 3E?

Well, with monsters the full stat blocks would go away, they would be more like 4E, the monster only has written what is needed to be known, if the DM wants the monster to have more they just add it. The detailed, everything must be perfect mentality will be gone, it just has to be perfect at challenging the PC's, not in how accurate the details of its skills and feats are.

To make high level play more playable the power level needs to be scaled down.

Damage reduction, spell resistance, immunities, need to be cut back in amounts and numbers given, buff spells would scale with level, things like this.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I can't speak for Treebore, but I would have preferred to see a game that still had the core gameplay present in OD&D through 3rd Edition. That would mean fighters who still play like fighters; wizards who still play like wizards; and so forth.

All of these things remain true of 4th Edition.

This is bordering on threadcrap at this point, but what I state is an objective fact of reality.

To boil it down to a basic and easy-to-understand element: Pre-4E fighters featured virtually no daily resource management. Pre-4E wizards, at the other extreme, featured gameplay that was 99% about daily resource management.

Neither remains true in 4E: The gameplay for both fighters and wizards feature a mix of daily, encounter, and at-will powers.

Using something similar to your X/Y/Z example:

A - Players that would play 3rd, but not 4th (or prefer 3rd)
B - Players that would play either
C - Players that would play 4th, but not 3rd (or perfer 4th)

At the moment, they are 'giving up' on A, and splitting the B group. If they were to make a new edition that was very similar to 3rd, they would completely ignore the potential to bring in C, and fight with the previous edition over the combined A+B group.

Your analysis is flawed because it ignores the other option: The hypothetical 4th Edition that remained true to the core gameplay of OD&D through 3rd Edition. Let's call it Alter-4th. That gives the full list of categories as:

A - Players that would play 3rd, but not 4th or alter-4th
B - Players that would play 3rd or alter-4th, but not 4th
C - Players that would play 3rd or 4th, but not alter-4th
D - Players that would play alter-4th, but not 3rd or 4th
E - Players that would play alter-4th or 4th, but not 3rd
F - Players that would play 4th, but not 3rd or alter-4th
G - Players that would play any of them

Or, to sum up: The sales of this hypothetical 4th Edition (faithful to the core gameplay of previous editions while fixing the problems of 3rd Edition) could potentially include (a) gamers returning who wanted a fix to the problems of 3rd Edition and (b) a higher conversion rate among existing 3rd Edition gamers.

I think it possible that the the number of gamers willing to try this hypothetical alter-4th Edition after rejecting 3rd Edition would be smaller than the number of gamers willing to try the actual 4th Edition after rejecting 3rd Edition (because the game is so radically different that it appeals to types of gamers who had no previous interest in D&D). But, OTOH, I think it equally likely that the number of gamers willing to convert from 3rd Edition to alter-4th is probably substantially higher (because, by not being radically different, it continues to appeal to gamers who were alienated by the changes the actual 4th Edition made to gameplay).

So the real question remains: Is the number of people you gained by choosing 4th Edition over alter-4th larger than the number of people you lost by choosing 4th Edition over alter-4th?

There's really no way to know.

None of us has ever seen a game printed on a book that is perfect from the outset, so quality ain't what sells a game system...

It's clearly not the only thing. But, OTOH, arguing that "nothing's perfect, therefore perceived value has no relevance in the marketplace" is an absurd claim.

 

[SteveC]

I seriously, seriously doubt that - just saying. You don´t generate profit through lawsuits or anti-piracy activities.

Sure, but the situation I'd imagine is that the people at the top had no idea that WotC was actually selling PDFs or had a problem with piracy until the bottom-line numbers weren't met. That's been my experience at any large corporation I've worked on: major initiatives that tend to be problematic come from the reaction of a management team that becomes engaged in areas they typically don't oversee directly, and don't have a lot of information about.

That's just my theory, of course, but it's a theory that comes from working in three different large scale corporations who made the same sort of decisions. Call it my anecdotal hunch.

--Steve

 

[Mournblade94]

I think it possible that the the number of gamers willing to try this hypothetical alter-4th Edition after rejecting 3rd Edition would be smaller than the number of gamers willing to try the actual 4th Edition after rejecting 3rd Edition (because the game is so radically different that it appeals to types of gamers who had no previous interest in D&D). But, OTOH, I think it equally likely that the number of gamers willing to convert from 3rd Edition to alter-4th is probably substantially higher (because, by not being radically different, it continues to appeal to gamers who were alienated by the changes the actual 4th Edition made to gameplay).

So the real question remains: Is the number of people you gained by choosing 4th Edition over alter-4th larger than the number of people you lost by choosing 4th Edition over alter-4th?

There's really no way to know.

I am often hit with the "I told you so" by my friends for being such a strong supporter and optimist for 4e. I really thought 4e was going to be an improvement on D&D gameplay and not a complete redefinition.

It was precisely this "alt-4e" for which I was hoping. Assuming it would have been an improvement over 3rd edition and not a huge drastic change, there are lots of gamers I could convert. In my rather large gaming circle I am one of the few DM's so it is an easy matter for us to "choose" the games we play.

I simply think a less drastic change would of fractured the hobby less, and retained more old customers whilst bringing in just as many new ones.

 

[Treebore]

There's really no way to know.

Oh, there are ways to know. It would require WOTC giving us a firmer number than "hundreds of thousands of core books sold", better numbers than "Over 1 million 3E PHB's sold in the first year" and solid sales numbers for Paizo's Pathfinder Beta book.

We still wouldn't get exact numbers, but we would get a pretty clear picture/indication.

 

[tyrlaan]

The other one in SF seems to be reccomending people not buy or play 4e. (Or at least the sales guy on shift the last time I was in there was.)

At the risk of tangenting (and laziness because I didn't see if anyone else made this comment)...

This is a really, really stupid business practice. The funny thing is, I've experienced the exact same thing over here on the east coast.

There's really only one store near me that sells gaming material, so when one of the assorted 4e support books came out, I decided to buy it there to "support your local gaming store." When I got to the checkout counter, the clerk literally huffed and grunted. He even went so far as to point out that 4e was a "horrible system." For my part, I told him that I am happy to play 4e and 3e and see no reason to be forced to choose.

Needless to say, that's a store that won't get future business from me. Actually, I'm tempted to post up the store name here to further hurt their customer base.

Whether you like 4e or not, the goal of a retail store is to sell product. Period. Bashing the choices your customers make is the perfect way to lose sales fast.

 

[billd91]

Whether you like 4e or not, the goal of a retail store is to sell product. Period. Bashing the choices your customers make is the perfect way to lose sales fast.

Bashing choices, yes. That's bad customer service. Making recommendations or politely commenting on products, particularly based on customer questions or even unsolicited, is a feature of a good FLGS. After all, if I wanted to just get the product, I could go to Amazon. But one of the reasons I shop at my FLGS is to talk with the staff about the games I'm buying.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Bashing choices, yes. That's bad customer service. Making recommendations or politely commenting on products, particularly based on customer questions or even unsolicited, is a feature of a good FLGS. After all, if I wanted to just get the product, I could go to Amazon. But one of the reasons I shop at my FLGS is to talk with the staff about the games I'm buying.

If I ask an employees opinion on something, or ask for a recommendation then they are welcome to grumble all they want about things. If I just bring my 4e PHB to the counter to get rung up and they go on a diatribe about how 3e is better then I would consider the person a bitter basement dweller.

Nothing grabs my goat more than having to listen to whiny employees.

DS

 

[Beginning of the End]

Oh, there are ways to know. It would require WOTC giving us a firmer number than "hundreds of thousands of core books sold", better numbers than "Over 1 million 3E PHB's sold in the first year" and solid sales numbers for Paizo's Pathfinder Beta book.

Is the "1 million 3E PHB's sold in the first year" thing an actual quote from somewhere? I hadn't heard it before.

I'm not particularly convinced that first year PHB sales are a completely reliable indicator of successful conversion, either. I know lots of people who own 4E PHBs who bought them, read them, and are unlikely to ever give WotC another dollar of their money. (I've also known a fair share of people who bought 3E PHBs, read them, and never bought another 3E product.)

And Pathfinder isn't a perfect substitute for our hypothetical alter-4E for a number of reasons. Off the top of my head:

(1) The lack of the trademark. The D&D trademark is just flat-out valuable. Leader of the pack and all that. If you had taken 3E and published it as Awesome Fantasy Roleplaying in 2000 while WotC continued producing AD&D, AD&D would not have noticed the flea biting its ass.

(2) The religious fervor of the 3E vs. 4E in many circles, leading to meaningful "geek tribalism". Pathfinder is getting criticized by lots of 3E fans for not being a reprinting of the 3.5 ruleset in a way that probably would not be true if it was what WotC had published as 4th Edition. Speaking in generalities, 4th Edition has made 3E Loyalists more suspicious of change and made 4E Loyalists more critical of grognard luddism.

(3) The lack of D&D support material not accessible through the OGL. The WotC-owned campaign settings are one obvious example.