Edition wars...a GOOD thing? or if not, an APPROPRIATE thing?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Whether McDonalds sells veggie burgers in a country that mostly does not eat eat beef is an absurd counter argument, and completely and blatantly ignores the idea of my statement.

Actually, no it isn't. At first, they didn't- THAT was absurd. They had 2 optioins: continue selling primarily beef-burgers and suffering OR altering their menu to fit the local cuisine.

AND, if you'd go back and read the next few lines of that post, you'd note that I also pointed out regional alterations to the AMERICAN McDonald's menus, again, based on market research and customer feedback.

1) A vocal minority that would not convince McDonalds to stop selling their BigMac that a majority wanted and start selling Veggie Burgers because the minority thought it was a wrong.

Depending upon the the size of the minority, they may convince them to ADD a veggie burger. As I pointed out above, that's how McDonald's came up with certain regional variants to its menu.

(In fact, I was part of the test market for the McRib. I hated it. I was also in the test market for Magic Shell ice cream topping, and I hated it as well. In the former case, I wasn't part of that majority. In the latter case, I was still not part of the majority, but subsequent poor sales of the product caused them to reformulate it in a manner similar to what I suggested.)

2) A vocal minority would not convince a vegetarian restaurant to start selling steak. It's not only part of their identity to be vegetarian, it's part of their business model, and even their core philosophies, and they would be catering to a group that really aren't that interested in their style of restaurant in the first place.

Its not anywhere that I live, but Food Network featured a story on a veggie burger joint that did bow to pressure to add a single non-vegetarian option.

(They don't sell many, but those they sell go to family members of some of their most frequent customers.)

So when a bunch of people constantly bash WotC, claim they feel insulted, betrayed, say they will never buy another WotC product again, insult the designers and their game design philosophies, and either demand they go back to the way things were or constantly complain about the way things are, those criticisms frankly don't carry a lot of weight.

I agree with you to some extent, which is why I don't do any of that...with the sole exception that I do note that I felt insulted by the 4Ed rollout. But I do that not just as a person who loves 3.X, but also as a person with an MBA in marketing who couldn't believe how many basic marketing rules WotC violated. IOW, I was insulted at both a personal and professional level.

Should they change horses midstream to coddle a vocal and hostile minority when they've gained success and acceptance from a fairly wide audience (which might be lost if they turn around and go back)?

Again, we won't know what they should do until 5Ed design time rolls around. If 4Ed has continued to be the 800lb gorilla or grown into a 1000lb gorilla, then the answer is that they should continue what they're doing.

If, OTOH- and its a BIIIIIIIG "if"- 4Ed is in serious competition with 3.X (or any other game), then design decisions will need to be re-evaluated.

Also, comparing customers asking for McRibs and such is very different. This is a company meeting a request for a product that doesn't require them dumping or changing their core product, changing their business model, or changing their core philosophies.

There is no data in the RPG market telling us what happens if a single company supports multiple RPG systems. I don't know what Hackmaster is doing as far as sales go, but it is, essentially a 1Ed/2Ed type game. A couple of WotC staffers could probably have kept 1Ed/2Ed viable at the same numbers Hackmaster is hitting.

3.5 is a bit more problematic, given its level of success at the time of the 4Ed rollout. I wouldn't be surprised to find continued support of 3.5 by WotC somewhat cannibalizing 4Ed's sales- possibly with more market share than the 3.X games have at this point. OTOH, more of that money would be going into WotC's coffers.

The question is whether a single game company can support multiple RPGS- like a soft-drink company has several drink types; like automakers have different product lines, etc.- and nobody has a definitive answer on that, because we don't have anyone doing that.

The nearest data we have on that, AFAIK, is from the early days of WotC when they killed off Everway.

But Everway wasn't anywhere NEAR the product that 3.5 is.

The thing is, the future of 3E/4E/5E isn't going to be decided by people arguing with each other on message boards. They are going to be decided by demographics, and D&D's owners reading of those demographics. Color me wrong, but I don't think all the "arguments" between people on the internet have much effect on the demographics of the RPG community. If I am right that we are all mostly just spewing hot air this will be decided by people playing and buying games and not by people talking about them, nothing good can come from any of this. Nothing aside from the perverse satisfaction we might derive from arguing with people on the internet.

You talk about conceding the battle or argument. There is no battle or argument, or at the very least, the real battle has nothing to do with what we do here.

Again, one of the things designers themselves said with the rollout to 4Ed was that they paid attention to things they heard on the boards. Just because 4Ed is a fait accompli doesn't mean those designers that frequent this board and others- and they DO show up here- are necessarily ignoring the EWTs and going "LA LA LA! CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

We won't know WHAT the designers of 5Ed will be considering until "5Ed: Coming Soon!" threads show up.

Until then, there is clearly something going on...otherwise EWTs wouldn't exist at all.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Again, one of the things designers themselves said with the rollout to 4Ed was that they paid attention to things they heard on the boards. Just because 4Ed is a fait accompli doesn't mean those designers that frequent this board and others- and they DO show up here- are necessarily ignoring the EWTs and going "LA LA LA! CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

We won't know WHAT the designers of 5Ed will be considering until "5Ed: Coming Soon!" threads show up.

Until then, there is clearly something going on...otherwise EWTs wouldn't exist at all.

For the 114th time:

I would point out, that the things the designers paid attention to was criticism and comments from within the 3E community. Concerns and criticisms of non-customers who disliked 3E had little impact on the development of 4E.

In fact, you can see it happen in real time. If you look at the errata and revisions for 4E, to the "fixes" released in later books and Dragon articles, and the development of later classes you can see that the feedback from people who are actually playing and supporting 4E is being heard loud and clear while complaints from non-players and dissenters are being almost completely ignored.

Unless the demographics force them to listen to dissenters, I don't see how you could believe that complaining about 4E will have any impact on the next edition.

 

[N0Man]

Actually, no it isn't.

Why do you keep keep going on tangents about how some companies use some market data to add new items to their line-up and ignoring the main point of the argument which is that a company is not going to give up on a product or even style of product that is core to their identity (at least in a given market), their a sales model, or a specific philosophy that the company strongly believes in, in order to cater a vocal and hostile minority that largely isn't going to be a customer anymore anyway?

Especially when it's likely to make them lose the larger audience that they've gained?

Many of those most critical of 4E have claimed to never buy from them again because they want something that is against the design philsophy WotC has publicly stated they aren't happy with (the complexity and balance of 3E), and want business models that the company wasn't happy with (such as the OGL). It just seems far-fetched WotC would cave at this point, *IF* they did, it would alienate more gamers than it would appease, and many still would be bitter and hostile towards WotC and continue with OGL D20 games, Pathfinder or whatever else is NOT made by WotC. It's a not a winning strategy.

However, the one thing that I do concede is that I really do think they should bring back Ebook / PDF format of older edition books, without a doubt.

The danger of piracy argument doesn't hold a lot of weight when it's for a book they aren't even selling at all in paper format. There seems to be some demand for it, and that's a reasonable step that *might* make some people less hostile.

Besides, I still like the old books too. I don't have interest in going back to 3E, but they definitely have ideas, concepts, stories and other value to borrow from (as do even older edition books).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For the 114th time:

I would point out, that the things the designers paid attention to was criticism and comments from within the 3E community. Concerns and criticisms of non-customers who disliked 3E had little impact on the development of 4E.

I bet if you polled each designer, you'd find that they paid attention to more than just that. Just like the designers of 2Ed and 3Ed before them, they probably paid attention to the market as a whole because that's what intelligent designers do. Apple never captured more than 11% of the entire PC market, yet design decisions Apple made were often emulated or improved upon by other computer companies.

Note that I'm talking about paying attention. Merely paying attention does not mean that this will be reflected in the final design by incorporating ideas in what they're paying attention to. In some cases, you make note of the market environs, see if there is anything worth emulating or improving, and work in that direction. In MOST cases, you make the same analysis and either keep doing what you're doing or you try to come up with a way of doing what the other guys are doing...but so much better that you change the nature of the market.

In fact, you can see it happen in real time. If you look at the errata and revisions for 4E, to the "fixes" released in later books and Dragon articles, and the development of later classes you can see that the feedback from people who are actually playing and supporting 4E is being heard loud and clear while complaints from non-players and dissenters are being almost completely ignored.

Again, I'm not expecting WotC to change 4Ed in response to the ideas of supporters of 3.X. That would be idiotic of me to believe and of them to do.

What I expect is that IF 3.X continues to be a force in the market when 5Ed is in the works, WotC designers will consider the reasons why.

As pointed out above, that doesn't mean that 5Ed will be "3.95Ed" or a hybrid of 3.X and 4Ed, though it could be that. It could also be that 5Ed looks about as much like 4Ed as 4Ed resembles 3.5.

...or it could mean WotC tries a dual RPG system model, with 5Ed following closely on 4Ed's successes, and a revised 3.5-based game.

...or it could simply mean a rollout for 5Ed that is handled without insulting the fanbase for 4Ed.

Unless the demographics force them to listen to dissenters, I don't see how you could believe that complaining about 4E will have any impact on the next edition.

Dude- that's what I've been saying for a while now.

If and ONLY if 3.X is a force in the market when 5Ed rolls around will you see any kind of 3.Xian influence on it.

Why do you keep keep going on tangents about how some companies use some market data to add new items to their line-up and ignoring the main point of the argument which is that a company is not going to give up on a product or even style of product that is core to their identity (at least in a given market), their a sales model, or a specific philosophy that the company strongly believes in, in order to cater a vocal and hostile minority that largely isn't going to be a customer anymore anyway?

I never said they would nor that they should give up on 4Ed. That would be insane- the game is a success. At this time.

If, for whatever reason it falters (and no, I don't expect it to), WotC will have to re-examine its marketing data in the light of the market at that time.

In addition, even if 3.X is/continues to be a true economic competitor to 4Ed in the market when 5Ed rolls around, there still wouldn't be a reason to give up on 4Ed's design style unless its no longer the market leader.

However, in a hypothetical market in which you have 4Ed and 3.X as close economic competitors, it may make perfect business sense for WotC to try a dual system product line.

Especially when it's likely to make them lose the larger audience that they've gained?

Again, the only time to make that assessment is going to come years from now.

Many of those most critical of 4E have claimed to never buy from them again because they want something that is against the design philsophy WotC has publicly stated they aren't happy with (the complexity and balance of 3E), and want business models that the company wasn't happy with (such as the OGL). It just seems far-fetched WotC would cave at this point, *IF* they did, it would alienate more gamers than it would appease, and many still would be bitter and hostile towards WotC and continue with OGL D20 games, Pathfinder or whatever else is NOT made by WotC. It's a not a winning strategy.

That there are several people who have sworn off WotC for life, badmouth the company, etc. is not arguable.

That they are anything resembling the majority most assuredly is.

Like the weightier issues of the RW, though, it is the radicals who generally seem to set the tone of the conversation...if they are allowed to.

Personally, I don't. If you look at my sig, you'll see "4ED is made of people!"- that was my mockery of a 3Ed supporter who was espousing some serious vitriol in WotC's direction, so I paraphrased Charlton Heston's famous line from Soylent Green.

However, the one thing that I do concede is that I really do think they should bring back Ebook / PDF format of older edition books, without a doubt. <snip>

That may be an entirely viable market strategy for WotC, and as you point out (and I agree) it may heal some wounds.

And in all honesty, if they moved enough 3.5 product, they may even be moved to have a couple of staffers or freelancers continue to extend the product line...

Again, only time will tell.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Naturally, it is. It just requires some changes to be more inclusive to the tastes of those currently displeased and marketing toward those who are yet unreached.





These are all separate issues and hypotheticals fashioned to prove your point in isolated extreme cases rather than continuing the discussion in the general vein in which is was proffered. I'd imagine we could both come up with additional examples of possible scenarios where the general premise might not work but we'd only need come up with one where it would work for the original statement to be true. You are also lacing a great deal of hyperbole and negativity in your post that seems counter to spirit of finding common ground. EN World seems to be finding some new territory lately where people can discuss their opinions of the various rules and rules sets without the discussions necessarily erupting into the sort of contentious behavior that is counter productive to useful debate. BryonD made a statement that struck a chord for more inclusivity and I agreed that was a worthy and possible goal, again requiring no more than bringing a single person on board to make it true, but your post seems to be against the very idea of bringing more people to the table. I cannot agree with that stance.

You are creating this hypothetical more inclusive edition. But does it exist?
Even if there is a more inclusive edition, does it automatically include me? Or you? Or BryonD? Or Jack99? Or pemerton?

Maybe another question might be - why are people so unhappy with Pathfinder or D&D 3rd Edition that they start edition wars about 4E? What's so wrong with "their" game? Does it need the "D&D" brand to be a valid choice? Does it need support by Wizards of the Coast? What's so bad about Paizo and all the other supporters for 3.x? Are they not creating good material for their game?

What is so important about that the D&D brand owner producing for your game of choice? Why do people think that makes their game better? In what sense does it make their game better? And is it impossible to achieve that without Wizards of the Coast, without the D&D license?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Y
Maybe another question might be - why are people so unhappy with Pathfinder or D&D 3rd Edition that they start edition wars about 4E? What's so wrong with "their" game? Does it need the "D&D" brand to be a valid choice? Does it need support by Wizards of the Coast? What's so bad about Paizo and all the other supporters for 3.x? Are they not creating good material for their game?

The simple answer is that some of them feel betrayed by WotC. They wish 4Ed had been an update and revision (which I agree with), not a radical departure from 3.5, and they took that personally (which I disagree with).

That's not me, but I can see that position.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm sorry, but I have to say that this is the edition war right here in a nutshell.

Well, part of it anyway.

Does it accomplish something to fight against the tyranny of 4E, or could embracing 3E/PF/OGL in its current state and letting the chips fall where they may be the right thing to do? If 4E runs 6-8 years, 3E slowly fades into the past with a few diehards(or settles into a stable, modestly sized indie group), and 5E is released as the next step in the direction 4E laid out, moving even farther away from the game's history, what has all the bitterness acomplished?

Nothing, but that still doesn't invalidate it; as at least the resistance tried.

I find myself in a strange position here. I like both 3e and 4e for what they did to revitalize the game and bring it back into the public eye. But I dislike both of them as games I would want to play on a regular basis. 2e didn't revitalize the game very much at the time, so it doesn't even have that going for it; but its system was close enough to my game that I could far more easily adapt its material while continuing to play what I wanted. But, to use your term above, I'm still to some extent "fighting against the tyranny" of 2e, 3e *and* 4e; and in so doing I am also trying to do my tiny little bit to push 5e back to the game's 0e-1e roots even if nobody listens that matters.

Am I a minority? I very much suspect I am (though it's nowadays very hard to tell just how many 0e-1e-OSR players are out there).

Am I gonna quit? After this long? You gotta be kidding!

Lan-"vive-le-resistance!"-efan

 

[Raven Crowking]

I meant move on with your life.

You are assuming waaaayyyyyyy too much.

But thank you for turning what was intended to be a positive thing into a negative.

That's why edition wars keep going, you know.

 

[Umbran]

You are assuming waaaayyyyyyy too much.

And so, are you, I think. In particular - it isn't all about you, personally. It was the general "you" not the specific you, RC.

Take the comment in the context of this discussion. How many edition wars discussions have there been in the past year and a half? How many times have they run over the same territory, ad nauseum? What's new about them? You think you're the first to suggest that they retread old modules? You aren't, by a long shot.

In this context, the suggestion to move on with your life, rather than keep coming back to the same-old reiterations of these discussions makes a whole lot of sense. The general behavior is bordering on the obsessive - and obsession is not constructive or healthy unless it is focused on a specific creative endeavor (and even then it is only questionably healthy).

If you think of the community as one vague organism, it has some serious hangups it needs to get past. Things we don't like happen. We need to deal with the fact, not sit and mutter about them to ourselves over and over for a year and more.

But thank you for turning what was intended to be a positive thing into a negative.

That was done long, long before I spoke in this thread, dude.

 

[tyrlaan]

In this context, the suggestion to move on with your life, rather than keep coming back to the same-old reiterations of these discussions makes a whole lot of sense. The general behavior is bordering on the obsessive - and obsession is not constructive or healthy unless it is focused on a specific creative endeavor (and even then it is only questionably healthy).

If you think of the community as one vague organism, it has some serious hangups it needs to get past. Things we don't like happen. We need to deal with the fact, not sit and mutter about them to ourselves over and over for a year and more.

Yay, you can give mods experience points!

This is so beyond true and incredibly precise. If any of you are fans of the DnD page on facebook, you can see this perverse obsession in action perhaps more glaringly than here on the forums. In fact, the facebook fan page was what made me reach the same conclusion Umbran has stated here.

To put this in a bit of perspective, we all likely know people who have moved on from failed romantic relationships in less time than some have moved on from their edition hatred.

Seriously, what is it about this that makes people unable to let go?