Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[Mark CMG]

In the end, everyone is free to be as unhappy and resentful as they like. I just wish they picked some other place to do it, really. Because here the conversation about gaming will always be trumped by this conversation we have here about resentment, and there's just no answer for it.

Almost everyone in this thread has been discussing gaming and the article respectfully and without a tone of resentment. Being unhappy with what WotC does is not equal to being resentful. And just to reemphasize the context, the people taking exception with some of what is being said in the article all seem to be fine enjoying their own games at their own tables and also enjoying discussing gaming in general here and elsewhere. The sticking point seems to be that WotC is saying one thing while having been practicing something else for some time now. There are goals in the article and some paths being suggested in this thread toward achieving those goals. No one is suggesting that these are the only paths, though they are perhaps the most obvious ones to anyone who has been following the dialogue and response to WotC's actions over the past few years. The question raised in the article is Why can't everyone be happy? (and thereby get along) and when others explain what might make people happy rather than respond to the question you seem to feel denigrating others will achieve this elusive harmony. It's odd since no one in this thread seems to be upset with how anyone else in their thread plays, as the article seems to suggest. Rather the disharmony over the past few years seems to stem from how WotC acknowledges it has fans of all editions but doesn't seem to walk the walk of supporting its entire fanabse when so little need really be done to achieve the goal.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

That wasn't my intent (sorry, Danny, if it came across that way).

Then I do indeed, and wholly sincerely, apologize for my misperception and the mention of "appeal to authority" that I mistakenly thought followed from that.

Sorry Mercurius.

 

[Incenjucar]

While I understand why players of previous editions would appreciate continued support for those editions, including editions that WotC had no involvement in whatsoever, there's a good chance that the people on top have determined that selling old materials reduces the chance of people adopting the new materials, and also makes them look desperate for sales, which reduces the survivability of the brand as a whole. It would be like Nintendo re-releasing N64 carts because some fans didn't want to move on to the Wii.

While this is an unfortunate aspect of business, and is perhaps something worth writing to Hasbro about, considering the nature of D&D I seriously doubt that the D&D staff is making choices to spite people who refuse to adopt the new edition. Beyond that, there is no point where vitriol is reasonable.

 

[NoWayJose]

I think it's true that 4E was marketed in a way that directly or indirectly marginalized the 3E fans.

To convince consumers to buy a new model or upgrade, you can a) convince them there's a problem with the original, and/or b) emphasize all the new and improved features, so that you can c) create lots of hype and sell lots of the new product.

Alternatively, you can market the new product as just another variation (ie., a new flavor of chips, a cold water version of Tide, a blu-ray version of the DVD, etc.) with no judgment call on the viability of the original product (which may or may not be slowly phased out over time).

Like 3.5 was to 3.0, 4E was, for the most part, sold and marketed as The New Edition that would fix all that was broken with the earlier edition. As a consequence of this type of marketing, it is not unreasonable that anyone sticking with the original version for whatever reason may feel marginalized.

In contrast, the Essentials D&D was marketed as a parallel option.

So when Mearls tries to assuage feelings by claiming that 'everything is D&D' without acknowledging that some WoTC actions may have been directly or indirectly part of the problem, I can see why some people would consider that disengenious. If Mearls had touched upon WoTC's role in all this, then perhaps his beseechment would have come across as sincere to everyone (and not just to the 'converted') and perhaps this thread would have been spun quite differently?

 

[Raven Crowking]

double post

 

[Raven Crowking]

NoWayJose, I owe you some XP.

In order to convince anyone of anything that they do not already believe, you first have to understand why they do not already believe it. Which means that you have to be willing to put yourself in their shoes, without assuming that they are simply being "jerks" (as I believe someone upthread put it).

Thank you for a reasoned post!


RC

 

[Mark CMG]

While I understand why players of previous editions would appreciate continued support for those editions, including editions that WotC had no involvement in whatsoever, there's a good chance that the people on top have determined that selling old materials reduces the chance of people adopting the new materials, and also makes them look desperate for sales, which reduces the survivability of the brand as a whole.

Has WotC ever given any other reason for nixing PDFs sales other than the 4E PDF pirating? I've often wondered, like yourself, if there was some wider reasoning behind it, but without some other explanation from them I have to take them at their word. And with that being their only reason on the table I have to feel that restarting previous edition PDF sales would be an easy fix to much of their PR problem. So, too, I take them at their word that they wish to mend the PR fence, which is why there is such a strange gap between what they say and what they do, or do not do.

NoWayJose, I owe you some XP.

Got it . . . but now I owe him!

 

[Dannager]

I think it's true that 4E was marketed in a way that directly or indirectly marginalized the 3E fans.

I hear this all the time. I mean, someone pops up with this opinion several times a week here, it seems. And despite how many times I hear it, something about it bothers me every single time:

I was a 3rd Edition fan, and I never once felt marginalized by 4e's marketing.

This makes me suspect that perhaps the feeling of marginalization had nothing to do with whether or not someone was a 3rd Edition fan - some 3rd Edition fans were totally cool with the marketing, and some were not. The deciding factor was not whether or not they were 3rd Edition fans, but was something else.

 

[NoWayJose]

It would be like Nintendo re-releasing N64 carts because some fans didn't want to move on to the Wii.

Nintendo is an entirely different beast... The N64 was effectively nullified by the newest consoles.

The consumer demand for better performance and graphics is so universal and, well, obvious, that the manufacturers don't feel challenged in trying to market the Xbox 360 or PSP 3 as a superior product.

So perhaps a better analogy to D&D and WoTC is to pretend that Microsoft launched a marketing campaign about how the Xbox 360 is lame and clunky, whereas the new Kinect is totally amazing motion capture that replaces any need for the old push button controls. Well, that backfires if some consumers don't like the motion capture and prefer their control pad, or if some people don't like new games offered with Kinect and still want to play the current games for a while longer.

The RPG industry might be unique in that new editions have to be marketed as a complete replacement, but I'm not sure why they would risk alienating fans that way... Every other industry seems to be more careful about managing customer loyalty, no?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If John Doe says "4E isn't D&D", you can be accepting, understand that he is OBVIOUSLY expressing an opinion and be glad that you are both enjoying good games. Or you can stamp your feet and call his statement insulting.

If John Doe could say that, and leave it there, or perhaps elaborate on why he feels that way, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But Mr. Doe frequently can't. Instead of such elaboration, Mr. Doe apparently finds it a better use of his time to dish out the passive aggressive snipes on what anyone else enjoying 4E must be doing with it--since they are obviously aren't [roleplaying, playing D&D, having fun, telling a story, preventing dog and cat abuse, etc.].

And speaking of policing "your side," as much as I can admire the way RC, Danny, you and others can argue on behalf of "your side" of this issue with a calm head, I can't help but think that "4E isn't D&D" as a useful shorthand and simple statement of preference could have been preserved if you (collectively) had spent some time countering Mr. Doe's unwarranted sniping--instead of leaving it to others. (Not that it never happens. I've been lurking here a long time. I've seen it happen occasionally.)

Peter, you are over the line. I'm probably over the line (hard to see when its you). If my rifle is loaded and I'm headed to the roof, it's only because I saw Mearls and Mecurious step out in the street, and immediately several shots rang out. Hypocrisy? Really?