Is Wotc Slipping?

[BryonD]

because Warcraft is connected with the merits of a technology product that is going to be outdated, most probably in the next 5 years.

There is some truth to that, but I wouldn't underestimate Blizzard's ability to adapt and keep up.

Wotc, wanted to enter the digital realm. This was their intention with 4e. 4e was structured on the idea of a product being cool and manageable by a digital environment. Thus the utterly structured tactical encounter environment that 4e limits its balance upon. As a player, you do not want to fight monsters and traps, you do not want to swing mighty swords: your job now is to be a good defender, however the game rules tell you how to do it.

OTOH, Paizo has been trying to focus on the merits of 3.5e as a traditional tabletop rpg.

I think that is all correct. But there is still more to it.
I think WotC wanted to go digital because they saw what a huge boon it was for WOW. And I still don't think 4E is WOW, that isn't my point here.
My point is, I think WotC saw and coveted:

A) Vast numbers of people pretending to be elves
B) Those people handing over credit cards numbers for automatic monthly charges.

With books every single customer looks at each unique title and makes a call whether or not to lay their money down. With a subscription everyone buys everything. It is far more efficient. As long as the average is good enough to keep the customer coming back, every product is tied with your best product. So not only do you have more people, you have more money person. And as icing on the cake, being able to reliably forecast cash flow months out allows you to manage your finances better. Those reliable dollars, in real terms, end up being worth a little more.

Paizo gets very similar advantages from their, admittedly different, subscription model.

But your second point also gets into the game itself. And that is where they tripped up. The assumed, or at least hoped with enough faith to roll the dice, that people willing to be an elf in WOW meant there were a hell of a lot more people willing to be an elf in D&D. There are very fundamental differences and when they designed 4E as a game aimed at the new market, it failed on that front. Yes, there are new players. But there is no evidence that the rate of new blood into D&D is any better now than it has been at any other point in time. Those non-D&D playing WOW fans stayed non-D&D playing WOW fans. And they lost a bunch of their existing fan base for their effort. 4E was not designed to appeal to me. Of course they WANTED me to find it appealing. But priority one was getting those completely new players. And if losing me was the price of five new players, sorry Bryon, but it is a non-brainer choice. And if they were right, it would have been. But the five new players did not materialize. Rather than getting 5 for 1, they are left with fewer people playing the current edition of D&D than there has been in a very long time.

 

[renau1g]

As a player, you do not want to fight monsters and traps, you do not want to swing mighty swords: your job now is to be a good defender, however the game rules tell you how to do it.

OTOH, Paizo has been trying to focus on the merits of 3.5e as a traditional tabletop rpg.

I guess I'm doing it wrong then. I do want to fight monsters and defeat traps (not fight them) and want to swing mighty swords...and *gasp* I play 4e... damn you cruel fates!

Pathfinder has rules for combat also. Fighters/Paladins act as "defenders" in previous editions (they kept the wizards/rogues safe from the front line monsters). 4e did actually state that outright, but rogues have always been about high damage, wizards have always been about controlling the battlefield with their spells, and clerics have always been about keeping the others upright to continue killing their things and taking their stuff.

 

[renau1g]

Rather than getting 5 for 1, they are left with fewer people playing the current edition of D&D than there has been in a very long time.

Allegedly.

 

[DaveMage]

I DO want WotC to fail...

In my mind, they already have.

The success of Pathfinder is vindication for me of all the complaints I've had since 4E was introduced.

I'm very happy to say that the thousands of dollars I would have spent with WotC has gone to Paizo instead.

And, frankly, reading that "Paizo and 4E" thread again (and seeing all of the crow that has been eaten) has made me feel even better.

 

[BryonD]

Allegedly.

Today the only defense available is "we don't know".
That in itself is a radical change.

I allege the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.

 

[BryonD]

And, frankly, reading that "Paizo and 4E" thread again (and seeing all of the crow that has been eaten) has made me feel even better.

It is a lot of fun watching the goal posts move into completely different stadiums.

And don't think the moving is done. Wait and see where we are in a year, two years...

 

[Wicht]

And, frankly, reading that "Paizo and 4E" thread again (and seeing all of the crow that has been eaten) has made me feel even better.

Which one?

 

[renau1g]

Which one?

I believe this one:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/210320-paizo-d-d-4th-edition.html

 

[xechnao]

I guess I'm doing it wrong then. I do want to fight monsters and defeat traps (not fight them) and want to swing mighty swords...and *gasp* I play 4e... damn you cruel fates!

In every game, players are directed to carry on by going against the challenges that the game suggests. Gameplay greatly impacts the player's creativity channels because following the gameplay channels is something that the game does need you and expects you to do.
The problem, regarding 4e, is that many people complain that as a player, you do not end up wanting to show the world that you can fight monsters and traps or that you get to swing the most mighty sword. Instead, your job now is to be as a good defender on the board map as possible, however the game rules tell you how to do it (because it is your duty is to explore and understand these game rules and put them in practice).

Just saying "I am doing it wrong then" proves nothing against this point, when we know what the gameplay channels of 4e are.

Pathfinder has rules for combat also. Fighters/Paladins act as "defenders" in previous editions (they kept the wizards/rogues safe from the front line monsters). 4e did actually state that outright, but rogues have always been about high damage, wizards have always been about controlling the battlefield with their spells, and clerics have always been about keeping the others upright to continue killing their things and taking their stuff.

What is the difference with previous editions?
Older editions tried to respect genre tropes and game balance by designing situations (example dungeon crawl) and conditions (example damage) on a different level, that is without making them one and the same - mixing both in one dimension was a step that 4e took for the first time (this was done for the reasons about being able to manage all game things within a controllable environment as the digital environment, mentioned earlier). So, 4e took things on a totally different level.

 

[renau1g]

I allege the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.

No, that's a fact. Science proves it. Again, we're back to the tail chasing. If you can point out such data proving your suggestion, then I'll agree, if not, c'est la vie.