Forked Thread: Did 4e go far enough or to far?

[Mallus]

Hasbro sacrificed D&D on the altar of Profit.

If this were the case, wouldn't Hasbro/WotC have released a new edition that was very similar to the previous one, basically asking the D&D audience to buy the same game again, a la EA Sports and their annual Madden release? That would have been the safe, money-grubbing choice.

The Marketers have won.

The Marketers didn't design 4e. Isn't your problem with the design team?

 

[Tetsubo]

If this were the case, wouldn't Hasbro/WotC have released a new edition that was very similar to the previous one, basically asking the D&D audience to buy the same game again, a la EA Sports and their annual Madden release? That would have been the safe, money-grubbing choice.


The Marketers didn't design 4e. Isn't your problem with the design team?

Or they could have designed an edition that was incompatible with 3.5 so that there was no "carry over" of books. Sort of like 4E.

My problem is both with the design team AND the marketers. While the design team did D&D a disservice I feel that it was driven by the marketers. Profit at the expensive of our hobby.

 

[Mallus]

Or they could have designed an edition that was incompatible with 3.5 so that there was no "carry over" of books. Sort of like 4E.

I don't think that makes much financial sense. The risk of alienating existing users --which they obviously took-- far outweighs the benefit of obsoleting existing supplemental materials.

While the design team did D&D a disservice I feel that it was driven by the marketers.

You don't think the design team did a solid job, or you don't like the direction they took with their design? Personally, I think 4e is close to, if not the best designed D&D core rule set --which doesn't neccessarily mean I think it's the best game... 4e is still the new shiny for me, and a thorough evaluation of it is going to take time. But I also understand that a segment of the fanbase really dislikes the overall direction they took.

Also, marketers drive nothing.

Profit at the expensive of our hobby.

You run the risk of defining 'the good of the hobby' as 'what I personally like' with statements like that.

 

[Tetsubo]

I don't think that makes much financial sense. The risk of alienating existing users --which they obviously took-- far outweighs the benefit of obsoleting existing supplemental materials.


You don't think the design team did a solid job, or you don't like the direction they took with their design? Personally, I think 4e is close to, if not the best designed D&D core rule set --which doesn't neccessarily mean I think it's the best game... 4e is still the new shiny for me, and a thorough evaluation of it is going to take time. But I also understand that a segment of the fanbase really dislikes the overall direction they took.

Also, marketers drive nothing.


You run the risk of defining 'the good of the hobby' as 'what I personally like' with statements like that.

They've alienated existing users. Too late in that regard. Their target demographic is new players in the 12 - 18 range.

I think the designers took the game in a direction it should have gone in. AND I don't like the new rules they came up with to pull that off.

I've lost track of how many bad business decisions I've seen driven by marketers. marketers that convinced upper management that they knew what they were talking about. When the blatantly had no clue. Marketers are like used car salesmen.

My interest in the 'good of the hobby' is not being driven by a profit motive. Which makes it a far better gauge than that of WotC marketers.

 

[Fifth Element]

I've lost track of how many bad business decisions I've seen driven by marketers. marketers that convinced upper management that they knew what they were talking about. When the blatantly had no clue. Marketers are like used car salesmen.

You're painting a wide variety of people with a very broad brush. It's like when people use "suits" in a derogatory way. You (and I) have no idea how WotC operates, and have no insight into the 4E design process, or rather what the driving force was behind it.

Indeed, the guy in charge of marketing 4E as I understand it (The Rouse) posts here often. I daresay he has quite a bit of a clue.

 

[Scribble]

They've alienated existing users. Too late in that regard.

They've alienated SOME existing users who were/are happy with how the game was working. They've continued to please/ gained support from other users who were not happy with how the game functioned.

Their target demographic is new players in the 12 - 18 range.

Possibly. I haven't seen their statements on this, if any.

I think the designers took the game in a direction it should have gone in. AND I don't like the new rules they came up with to pull that off.

Can't argue with your personal prefference. If you don't like it, you don't like it.

I've lost track of how many bad business decisions I've seen driven by marketers. marketers that convinced upper management that they knew what they were talking about. When the blatantly had no clue. Marketers are like used car salesmen.

Your dislike of all things marketing does not = D&D being effected by a shadowy group of "marketers" working behind the scenes to destroy D&D for some reason.

My interest in the 'good of the hobby' is not being driven by a profit motive. Which makes it a far better gauge than that of WotC marketers.

Depends on what you mean by "the good of the hobby."

Profit doesn't automatically = bad. If you're profiting off of something, most likely you're doing something right. Especially with a luxury item. Why would people buy your item if it isn't something they enjoy? If they enjoy it, and choose to spend their money on it, isn't that good for the hobby?

 

[Mallus]

They've alienated existing users.Too late in that regard. Their target demographic is new players in the 12 - 18 range.

So your argument is that WotC deliberately turned their backs on their established customer base in order to chase a new demographic that they had few, if no, actual inroads in. And their motivation was greed... do you see why I don't think this scans?

I'll say it again: 4e would probably look pretty different if profit was the only thing on the designer's minds (it would look more like 3e, it would be safer). I think it's more reasonable to conclude that the design choices made --whether you like them or not-- were an honest attempt to address perceived system flaws and improve the game.

Marketers are like used car salesmen.

That's patently untrue. You can tell when a used car salesman is successful (someone drives away with a car).

My interest in the 'good of the hobby' is not being driven by a profit motive.

Without profit, there would be a lot less of the hobby to be interested in.

 

[Imp]

Question: how do you know it's so badly executed if you don't even have it?

He might have, I don't know, looked at copies of the material. Learn to think before you post dumb, vain gotchas here, there, and everywhere.

 

[Fifth Element]

He might have, I don't know, looked at copies of the material. Learn to think before you post dumb, vain gotchas here, there, and everywhere.

Looking at a copy is one thing. Actually reading it sufficiently to be able to judge it is another. He may very well have done so, I was asking.

Oh, and reported for rudeness.

 

[Allister]

He might have, I don't know, looked at copies of the material. Learn to think before you post dumb, vain gotchas here, there, and everywhere.

I don't think you should base a game on "how it reads" but more on "how it plays".

Many here think that 4E reads like WoW but as someone that plays WoW, I can assure you the closest analogue isn't WoW but a japanese tactical RPG like La Pucelle Tactics.