Marketing criticisms miss the point

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

What that poll told us was, at best, that 39% of the ENWorld posters who chose to answer that poll said that they would not be going over to 4e.

Message board polls are useless for assessing what's really going on. Even if we assumed that ENWorld is representative of the core audience of D&D, the people who voted on that poll are entirely self-selected.

True. But they are an informed, motivated, predisposed to buy self-selected group. In other words, they are the kind of group that should be selling themselves on 4e. I don't trust the number, either, but it's because I think theirs a substantial number of people that will say 'nyet' just to make a point. The real proof is in the pudding; and more than in the core books, in how many people pony up for DDI. That's the point of 4e more than anything else -- to guarantee the ongoing revenue stream from the subscription model. And ENWorlds really are the target demographic for that -- we're already online and used to using the internet and computers to enhance/replace the tabletop experience.

It also, I think, says a lot about how much 3e did to rejuvenate the community and serve as a central touchpoint, even if many people did eventually gravitate away from core D&D to M&M or True20 or something else entirely. It became the gaming watercooler, so to speak, and I don't think 4e is going to replicate that.

And finally, I think it speaks to how distrusted WotC is now, after the 3.0/3.5 bit, the (admitted understandable) closed-mouthedness over 4e, the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon, and a whole lot of other corporate missteps. They've pissed away a lot of customer goodwill, and that's damned hard to replace.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

The poll here on EN World shows 39% of responders are not buying 4E. This poll is being taken from the core audience of D&D. The 4E marketing team failed to convince 39% of its core demographic to buy their new product. That is failure on a grand scale. Almost on a New Coke scale.

1. Insert obligatory comments about validity of EN World polls.
2. Then mention: "Let's pretend we're drunk and assume those numbers are valid. The question becomes - 'Did WotC's marketing strategy with their new game bring in a greater number of gamers than those 39% that are not going 4E?'"
3. If Yes, then: "We're not the next New Coke."
4. If No, then: "We're money-grubbing suits, and we're stupid."

4E is D&D in name only. It may well be a fine fantasy tactical miniatures game but it isn't D&D.

The title on the books say otherwise. I suspect those will garner more attention than the Word of Tetusbo.

I really wonder if these 3.x/4E discussions would even be taking place if things like the great wheel cosmology were still intact - but only had add-ons. The feywild could still be added to the great wheel, and even the elemental whatever could be a new (added) realm that was discovered/created along side the traditional cosmology.

You speak wisdom. WotC did themselves no favors in tossing out the Great Wheel and the other 'iconic' aspects of D&D. I can understand why they did it, but I don't like it. As mentioned, I bet a (significant?) number of non-4ons would have at least sipped the Kool Aid had their familiar concepts still be around - druids, barbs, Great Wheel, etc.

Sweet, sweet regret.

Wis

 

[Scribble]

I'm thinking we'll see a couple of things:

1. When the manual of the planes comes out it will mention the great wheel as a way some people have of viewing the planes.

2. They will do a Greyhawk campaign book in the future, that will have the great wheel.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

True. But they are an informed, motivated, predisposed to buy self-selected group.

I disagree, in part. These folks are a segment of the gaming community that is heavily bound in inertia due to previous investments in 3E. Despite the fact those 3E books on your shelf are a sunk cost, it's hard - for some, not all - to validate switching due to price constraints alone.

The real proof is in the pudding; and more than in the core books, in how many people pony up for DDI. That's the point of 4e more than anything else -- to guarantee the ongoing revenue stream from the subscription model.

Again, yes and no. I think the main business driver for 4E is to make money, and money is made by publishing a new edition. We know precious little, but we do know 4E is out-selling both 3E and 3.5E at similar points in their product lives.

Does WotC want DDI to succeed? You bet it does.

Do I think it will? Glad you asked - no.

It also, I think, says a lot about how much 3e did to rejuvenate the community and serve as a central touchpoint, even if many people did eventually gravitate away from core D&D to M&M or True20 or something else entirely. It became the gaming watercooler, so to speak, and I don't think 4e is going to replicate that.

Time will tell on 4E, but I agree with you on 3E - it was a wonderfully shot of adrenaline for a dying hobby.

And finally, I think it speaks to how distrusted WotC is now, after the 3.0/3.5 bit, the (admitted understandable) closed-mouthedness over 4e, the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon, and a whole lot of other corporate missteps. They've pissed away a lot of customer goodwill, and that's damned hard to replace.

I don't mind the closed-mouth bit (that much), but I agree on the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon. That was a blunder. A big one. Paizo did it right - better than Wotc and TSR, in fact.

Throw in the GSL ridiculousness and you've got an ugly mess wherein one of the premier 3rd Party Publishers has (unwisely, IMO) decided to make their own game.

Poop. Yep. Just poop.

Wis

 

[Zelligars Apprentice]

First, if you run out of sourcebook ideas when your setting is the multiverse, well, I don't think you're really trying.

Second, there were two things that Wizards could have done that would have staved off much of this (IMO - for me, anyway).

1) Show people that their library of 3.5 (and 3pp) products could be used in the new system. Also, It seems trite, but WotC showing - even once - that they give a damn that some people have
heavily invested in 3.5 would have been a nice olive branch. All we got though, is the feeling that we were suckers for buying - and god forbid liking - 3.5. (And thus, it behhoves us not to be suckers again with 4.0.)

2) Keep the 30-year-old fluff. If they wanted to vary the fluff, then ADD ON to existing fluff - don't kill the old.

I really wonder if these 3.x/4E discussions would even be taking place if things like the great wheel cosmology were still intact - but only had add-ons. The feywild could still be added to the great wheel, and even the elemental whatever could be a new (added) realm that was discovered/created along side the traditional cosmology.

Oh, well.

What he said. In spades.

In addition, the rules being slanted towards a more mainstream crowd makes me very, very sad. Now, I understand the reasoning (after all, growing the player base is good for everybody), and I think I could swallow that and have more enthusiasm for the new game if the above-quoted points were not so painfully true.

I think the baby just went out with the bath water.

 

[The Highway Man]

First, if you run out of sourcebook ideas when your setting is the multiverse, well, I don't think you're really trying.

Second, there were two things that Wizards could have done that would have staved off much of this (IMO - for me, anyway).

1) Show people that their library of 3.5 (and 3pp) products could be used in the new system. Also, It seems trite, but WotC showing - even once - that they give a damn that some people have
heavily invested in 3.5 would have been a nice olive branch. All we got though, is the feeling that we were suckers for buying - and god forbid liking - 3.5. (And thus, it behhoves us not to be suckers again with 4.0.)

2) Keep the 30-year-old fluff. If they wanted to vary the fluff, then ADD ON to existing fluff - don't kill the old.

I agree on all counts.

4E does have some merits, but these are legitimate beefs playing against it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It also, I think, says a lot about how much 3e did to rejuvenate the community and serve as a central touchpoint, even if many people did eventually gravitate away from core D&D to M&M or True20 or something else entirely. It became the gaming watercooler, so to speak, and I don't think 4e is going to replicate that.

All it says is that ENWorld started as a site for those interested in 3e. Eight years after its publication and only seven days after the debut of 4e, there are still lots of 3e fans around here, particularly in the General forum.

Anyway, I think we need Hong and his beer pic to tell us all we need to know about JDWiker.

 

[Scribble]

1) Show people that their library of 3.5 (and 3pp) products could be used in the new system. Also, It seems trite, but WotC showing - even once - that they give a damn that some people have
heavily invested in 3.5 would have been a nice olive branch. All we got though, is the feeling that we were suckers for buying - and god forbid liking - 3.5. (And thus, it behhoves us not to be suckers again with 4.0.)

2) Keep the 30-year-old fluff. If they wanted to vary the fluff, then ADD ON to existing fluff - don't kill the old.

I really wonder if these 3.x/4E discussions would even be taking place if things like the great wheel cosmology were still intact - but only had add-ons. The feywild could still be added to the great wheel, and even the elemental whatever could be a new (added) realm that was discovered/created along side the traditional cosmology.

Oh, well.

I'm not sure I agree with this...

I think a lot of people just took it as an insult when it really wasn't intended to be an insult.

All I've ever seen teh 4e crew say was: These are the problems we've uncovered in the past 8 or so years. These are the explanations for why they were problems, and how we intend to fix it.

I also think they were right to do a new flavor set and do away with some of the old. The new flavor reinforces the design choices in many ways. The old flavor reinforces the old design choices.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Second, there were two things that Wizards could have done that would have staved off much of this (IMO - for me, anyway).

1) Show people that their library of 3.5 (and 3pp) products could be used in the new system. Also, It seems trite, but WotC showing - even once - that they give a damn that some people have
heavily invested in 3.5 would have been a nice olive branch. All we got though, is the feeling that we were suckers for buying - and god forbid liking - 3.5. (And thus, it behhoves us not to be suckers again with 4.0.)

Everyone *hated* 3.5. Hated it. At least, hated the idea of it before it came out. Everyone complained that they'd already spent all this money on 3E, and grumbled about "having" to re-buy what was essentially the exact same system. Of course, these days, people have fond memories of 3.5.

WotC learned its lesson. They'd have been crucified if they'd dared to come out with a minor increment, a "3.75E", and call it a new edition.

They knew they had to come out with something that was more than just a few tweaks to the same old thing. They had to listen to the customer, and make the new edition an actual new Edition.

2) Keep the 30-year-old fluff. If they wanted to vary the fluff, then ADD ON to existing fluff - don't kill the old.

Why not kill the old? Are you saying that you'd prefer to just re-buy what you already own? WotC had an opportunity to throw out all that baggage, and they took it. The articles that explain their reasoning are quite well thought out and revealing, but really, one just needs to look at other beloved genres like superheros, and James Bond, and so on. Essentially: you need to refresh your content, or it grows stale.

It seems like JD is arguing that D&D should never innovate, and always just sort of lightly fluff the same old content every few years. That's... that's silly.

Seriously, here's a quote from that LiveJournal:

"Wizards' brand team's vision of the game is not your vision of the game.

Ultimately, 4E is a completely different game. Throw out what you know about races, classes, skills, feats, spells, magic items, monsters ... basically, the whole shebang except rolling the d20. how many times have you been playing in a D&D campaign, and someone presented the group with the hot new game to try--and you said "No, thanks, I'm sticking with D&D"? That new game might have been excellently reviewed and even have won awards, but you'd spent a lot of time and money learning D&D inside and out, and you just weren't interested in learning a new game system. If I was interested in changing game systems every few years, I would go with something very different: Ars Magica, maybe, or d20 Modern, or Feng Shui, or maybe Pendragon.

These are the words of a man who doesn't understand the concept of "brand." The popularity of D&D is not, was not, and never will be due to game mechanics.

The reason people don't want to try Ars Magica, Pendragon, or Feng Shui isn't because those games use different systems. It's because those games aren't called "Dungeons & Dragons." If 4E had the exact same game mechanics as Pendragon--exact same--it'd blow Pendragon out of the water and be a huge success.

4E is a success because of the words in front of 4E: "Dungeons & Dragons." It's the new edition, everyone will buy it, and we'll come to love it.

 

[DaveMage]

I'm not sure I agree with this...

I think a lot of people just took it as an insult when it really wasn't intended to be an insult.

All I've ever seen teh 4e crew say was: These are the problems we've uncovered in the past 8 or so years. These are the explanations for why they were problems, and how we intend to fix it.

I also think they were right to do a new flavor set and do away with some of the old. The new flavor reinforces the design choices in many ways. The old flavor reinforces the old design choices.

Well, speaking only for myself, this is how the 3E original designers/marketers convinced me - before the books were out - to go from 2E to 3E.

I had a ton of 2E stuff - among my favorites being the planescape box sets - and when the 3E folks said that *all of the fluff in those box sets you love is still good* (hence, the products were still usable), I was much more open to a new way of doing things.

PLUS, they even made a conversion book for me. (Yeah, I admit I never really used the thing (and those that did use it have said it was not perfect) because 3E wowed me once I got the books. But the idea that they had spent the time to create something to try to make my conversion easier went a long way with me - especially since it was free with my Player's Handbook.)

Heck - maybe that's why I'm so anti-4e now. Not only are my 3.x books' fluff unusable, but so is my 2E stuff!