Love the Game, Hate the Baggage

[Ourph]

I enjoy the heck out of 4e, it doesn't mean I'm responsible for anything WotC does or did. Being a fan of the game doesn't need to equate to being a mouthpiece and a defender for the people who produce it.

 

[samursus]

I don't think 4e's marketing was a fiasco, and no amount of squeeky wheel diatribes from faceless online usernames is going to convince me otherwise.

4es marketing did the job it was supposed to, and it successfully sold the new edition. There are a few really angry (and pitiable) fans of older editions who trot out bitter tears every opportunity they get, but don't confuse the volume of their histrionics for widespread sentiment.

QFT XP-given

 

[renau1g]

Yeah, there are a few people I know who aren't sold on 4e, but we can discuss the things they dislike (including WOTC marketing of it, of which I'm no fan of) in a proper manner. I don't think it was a fiasco, although I'm still not happy about the virtual tabletop, but c'est la vie.

P.S. Hobo, great comments

 

[Rechan]

I don't think 4e's marketing was a fiasco, and no amount of squeeky wheel diatribes from faceless online usernames is going to convince me otherwise.

I also had no problem with the marketing, and feel that those that do are from another planet than I.

And as far as the rules, I feel that 4e didn't go far enough.

What I have a problem with is not even being able to talk about the game without getting the conversation tainted by WotC/4e hate.

I would say that it's the Internet that does it, or the passions of gamers, but I see it far too much in other areas to say that. But I believe that, just because you have an opinion (and a right to have it), that does not mean you should grab a bullhorn and give that opinion at every opportunity you can.*

I made a new years resolution to not pour negative into the water. If someone I'm around (internet or RL) is discussing something they LIKE (such as say, a Movie) that I Dislike, I bite my tongue. Because I don't want to ruin the mood by saying "I dislike something You obviously like". Especially if they're not talking directly TO ME. If they are talking directly TO ME, I downplay my dislike to neutrality, for the sake of politeness.

For this same reason, when I have a broken leg, but someone with a broken arm complains, I do not say "Yeah well try a broken leg! It's more inconvenient!"

*For instance, this is the only time I bring up my feelings on this, instead of posting it every time the edition war or threadcrap pops up.

 

[Thasmodious]

I don't think 4e's marketing was a fiasco, and no amount of squeeky wheel diatribes from faceless online usernames is going to convince me otherwise.

4es marketing did the job it was supposed to, and it successfully sold the new edition. There are a few really angry (and pitiable) fans of older editions who trot out bitter tears every opportunity they get, but don't confuse the volume of their histrionics for widespread sentiment.

I agree completely. Every move they make is interpreted by some to be the dastardly machinations of an evil empire and nothing will make them think otherwise.

But it's hard, from an objective standpoint, to call the 4e launch a "fiasco". The launch was hugely successful, their marketing efforts had people anxiously awaiting every single little update they made previewing 4e material for months before the game came out. Every update was greeted here with about four threads that were merged within a few minutes into one and then discussed for pages. Worldwide Gamedays were big hits, as were other media setups, GenCon, etc.

The complaint always levied is that they "trashed" 3e to sell 4e. This is nonsense. Even the game designers, especially the designers who worked on both, can say "after eight years, we though we could do this part better, and didn't like this element." That's not trashing, that's discussing. And it was popular. The haters hated, sure, but people wanting to know more about the new edition, how it was coming about, and what it would look like really relished the updates, previews, blogs, etc. They were certainly ravishingly consumed here.

 

[Oryan77]

I defend the game to people i respect and like. I feel no need to defend it against the yahoos who troll and attack.

Why feel anyone needs to defend an edition or company to anyone? That's what I don't understand. Not to sound like a shmuck, but I really don't care what edition any of you guys like or don't like. Why would I give a crap? You guys all play D&D and basically do the same thing I do....geek out and have fun. Why am I going to care if someone doesn't like my edition?

Why am I going to blabber on for 5 pages in a thread and complain that I find a sig offensive? Really? A person is that sensitive that he has to bait a mod into removing the guys sig or locking a thread?

And yet, here we go with another thread about the exact same discussion right after a thread was locked for the same discussion. Discussing editions because you like it or don't like it is one thing. The problem on Enworld is that people say things like, "I'm offended" or people try to say things to piss people off. You guys can never just discuss it without taking it personally, and that's why these threads get locked. And it's both ways...the people making it personal are a problem, and you guys that take it personally are a problem.

There wouldn't be any baggage if you didn't take what people said so personally.

 

[Ariosto]

I don't see any reason you should have to defend Wizards' roll-out. From what I have seen, it was a reasonably accurate message when it was not self-mocking; in any case, it was not your doing.

Neither, of course, were the other decisions WotC made. If you like the product so much you see no problem with the "collateral damage", then you're just going to be at odds with many people.

That might include people who like the game quite a lot, yet cannot consider it "D&D". Some people do like to play more than one game, which would be impossible if there were no such things as different games.

The designers blatantly decided that D&D, in one way after another, is not fun. They designed an "anti-D&D" game -- and apparently that's just what a segment of the public really wanted. Perhaps a bit oddly, many of them seem also to be attached to the notion of its "legitimacy" as D&D. That's just never been a problem with Hero Questers, Vampires, the Munchausen syndrome, etc., as far as I know; rather naturally, as their books don't read Dungeons & Dragons on the covers.

Love the Game, Hate the Baggage should be feasible if one really does regret the circumstances that the detractors dislike. If one has no such sympathy, then it may be hard.

I have seen at least one person go so far as to express the hope that the "4e fiasco" will bury the "D&D gorilla" so surely that both the brand and the kind of game to which it formerly referred shall become extinct.

Sincerity is essential; if you can fake that, you've got it made!

 

[wedgeski]

Like so many things in the iterim, constant repetition has turned certain half-truths into accepted fact on this board (and others)... about Wizards, the launch, and the game itself. Unfortunately those half-truths (or downright UNtruths) are now part of the background noise on 4E and colour a lot of posters' opinions on the matter, no matter what the facts of the situation.

It certainly seems that a lot more people are a *lot* hotter under the collar about the marketing now, than they were when it was actually underway.

 

[Stalker0]

Kind of like Super Mario Brothers 2 right?

It is indeed vastly different and if someone likes it or not is a personal taste thing. I just wish more folks could wrap their heads around the concept of more tolerant/less argumentative conversations like this one.

A bit of trivia on this one. The reasons Super Mario Bros 2 doesn't seem like any other mario game...is because it isn't!

Super Mario Bros 2 in Japan was the Lost Levels. SMB 2 was actually a completely different game where Mario elements were added in.

 

[darjr]

They designed an "anti-D&D" game

Please. They did no such thing.