Never Say The Fans Don't Matter

[Intense_Interest]

Pfft. I fully believe that, at some point, they intended to make 4e much more tied to an official "the world of Dungeons and Dragons" setting than it is as of the final release. They wouldn't have spent nearly as much time - heck, it made it into print preview books that they sold for money - as they did pumping up what was going to be the new spell schools of 4e if they were just going to be cut out of the final books. It's quite possible that some bits - in fact, a good few, like Dragon Tail Cut - were floated just to see how we would react to them, but I think it's pretty silly to insinuate that all of the changes we saw to 4e were part of their overarching marketing plan from the start.

EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure every single person who is posting on this board has serious investment in 4e D&D regardless of anything WotC would do.

For one, my post was about Damage Control in the specific case of Golden Wvyren Adept and Tier-Specific ring rules. Not the "all of the changes" that you are assuming I spoke of. Flawed Micro-criticism is a weak response.

"Floating it by to see what our reaction would be" is Damage Control for a company that is in full control of the design cycle as the 4E Development was. The design meetings that would debate problems like what the heck a gnome is and playtest groups that would respond honestly and intelligently would not leave such a charged subject like "assumed setting names" and "arbitrary level limits" alone.

And yet passing references to easily-changed and oblique alterations to the base product, directed towards a group that would not only react strongly against it but publicly and in full view of fellow consumers is a documented tactic of Damage Control.

Also, saying that you are "pretty sure every single person who is posting on this board has serious investment in 4e D&D regardless of anything WotC would do." is a wrong opinion. Not only are we merely generic Roleplayers that could easily purchase any products that are on the market that can occupy 4E's mindspace, but the the Greatest Possible Foul-up of marketing 4E would be that the consumers would have zero informed opinion about it. Damage Control generates discussion and investment into your product that does not hurt actual sales.

Again, I'm not saying that our fact of Damage Control is an intentional result of any marketing plan, overarching or simple, especially because the assumption of such would lead down the Solopism rabbit hole: "I accuse you all of being tools to sell a product to me!" Yet crowing about how our contribution to the product objectively proves our worth smacks of ignorance.

 

[Jack Colby]

Personally, I'd rather the developers were left alone to design what they truly wanted to create. Instead, thanks to the internet outrages, we seem to be getting half-assed or nerfed versions of some really cool, different ideas (Forgotten Realms revision, etc.) Ah well.

 

[lutecius]

I have long held the theory that the whole Golden Wyvern name and the ring level deal were at best test balloons to see what the reactions would be to something they had a pretty good idea already about. Or They were intentionally wrong and designed to slicit the reactions they elicited and were never intended to be real parts of the game. I am leaning toward A, but not entirely willing to dismiss the idea of B.

Y'know, looking at it, I do wonder if those names and whatnot were floated simply to generate conversation. I imagine at some point in development, all of them existed, but, I wonder if the WOTC guys were just giggling to themselves when they posted them for general consumption.

What makes you think so, i mean besides some wild notion than wotc can never go wrong?

 

[Dausuul]

Yet crowing about how our contribution to the product objectively proves our worth smacks of ignorance.

Or optimism.

I see two possibilities here. #1, you're right and this is a deliberate marketing strategy. #2, you're wrong and they did originally intend to have Golden Wyvern Adept as a feat name, but changed their minds and took it out.

If we believe it's #2 and the truth is #1, no harm done; we just get an unwarranted ego boost. If we believe it's #1 and the truth is #2, however, we might miss the opportunity to get something fixed next time around. Therefore, it makes more sense to assume the reason was #2.

 

[Henry]

What in the Nine Hells is a Golden Wyvern Adept? I have never heard of it in all of 3E....And I've certainly never heard anyone complain about being limited to two magic rings.

Forum Drama History Lesson:

A while back a designer (Dave Noonan?) floated a couple of feat names -- Golden Wyvern Adept was one. Dragon's Tail Cut was another. Dragon's Tail Cut was reviled across most of ENWorld and the WotC forums as a terrible, stupid, or terribly stupid name. Same thing happened to Gold Wyvern Adept. In the end, the name and level of the feat has apparently been changed, possibly because of said uproar.

It was revealed in a preview article on WotC's site that characters would not be allowed the use of rings at all until 11th level (paragon tier), then only be allowed use of one ring at a time at paragon, and two at epic tier. It was shouted and railed against, and has apparently been changed at the last minute as a result.

Thus, this "power to the people" thread.

 

[Toryx]

Personally, I'd rather the developers were left alone to design what they truly wanted to create. Instead, thanks to the internet outrages, we seem to be getting half-assed or nerfed versions of some really cool, different ideas (Forgotten Realms revision, etc.) Ah well.

Agreed.

 

[Stormtalon]

Dragon's Tail Cut was another. Dragon's Tail Cut was reviled across most of ENWorld and the WotC forums as a terrible, stupid, or terribly stupid name.

However, look in the list of Rogue powers very carefully and you'll find that it yet lives in print. Have to say, I smirked when I saw that whilst browsing the pre-release books at my FLGS.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I distinctly recall reading about how developers were often split over decisions. One group would want something and the other would be against it. An example of this is including a map of the area around Fallcrest in the DMG. Half the developers wanted it, half thought it would be constraining.

I imagine that several of the excerpts from last year were along these lines. The two groups can't decide amongst themselves, so they post it on a Design & Development or a blog or something. The fan reaction gives one or the other side the momentum they need to either keep or remove it.

At least, that's my theory.

 

[Imban]

Before I start, what's up with you and Capitalizing words which you are pulling out of a Textbook?

For one, my post was about Damage Control in the specific case of Golden Wvyren Adept and Tier-Specific ring rules. Not the "all of the changes" that you are assuming I spoke of. Flawed Micro-criticism is a weak response.

I can't refute it for the tier-specific ring rules because honestly I can't think of any good mechanical reason for it to have been implemented in the first place, though its legacy somewhat lives on in that the lowest-level ring in the PHB is level 14.

However, I fully believe Golden Wyvern Adept is symptomatic of the "all of the changes" I was speaking of, rather than being a marketing device from beginning to end. On a casual look, I noticed many feats that match up to other of 4e's excised "schools", now without their proper names.

"Floating it by to see what our reaction would be" is Damage Control for a company that is in full control of the design cycle as the 4E Development was.

Perhaps you've just taken a marketing course in college and they chose to call it that, but floating a controversial idea as fact to see whether it causes consumer outrage or is widely approved of is typically done to see what the consumer base's opinion is, rather than to somehow deceive the consumer base.

Also, saying that you are "pretty sure every single person who is posting on this board has serious investment in 4e D&D regardless of anything WotC would do." is a wrong opinion. Not only are we merely generic Roleplayers that could easily purchase any products that are on the market that can occupy 4E's mindspace

You're posting on ENWorld, not RPG.net. There are a hell of a lot of D&D-only gamers here, and it would take 4e literally being a pile of crap between hardbound covers in order to get a majority of people on this board to not want to buy it.

Again, I'm not saying that our fact of Damage Control is an intentional result of any marketing plan, overarching or simple, especially because the assumption of such would lead down the Solopism rabbit hole: "I accuse you all of being tools to sell a product to me!" Yet crowing about how our contribution to the product objectively proves our worth smacks of ignorance.

I believe it's due to the fanbase's wishes that we avoided having a much more setting-bound 4e than we ended up with. As someone who very much wants to avoid this, I can't help but feel good about those of us who couldn't stand that Emerald Frost nonsense.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Before I start, what's up with you and Capitalizing words which you are pulling out of a Textbook?

Its a side-note, but I find speaking like a Textbook works when dealing with a Textbook Case.

However, I fully believe Golden Wyvern Adept is symptomatic of the "all of the changes" I was speaking of, rather than being a marketing device from beginning to end. On a casual look, I noticed many feats that match up to other of 4e's excised "schools", now without their proper names.

Perhaps you've just taken a marketing course in college and they chose to call it that, but floating a controversial idea as fact to see whether it causes consumer outrage or is widely approved of is typically done to see what the consumer base's opinion is, rather than to somehow deceive the consumer base.

You believe that an Implied Setting Name is an objectively terrible decision? Why would they "float" an objectively terrible decision with little-to-no support, follow-up, or explanation?

It doesn't even need to be an outright deception by all parties: the designer might have believed his revelation would be like Moses from the mountain, but yet the marketing hack in the background that gave the breaking of the NDA a once-over knew that not only was it not a popular idea but if coached in Damage Control philosophies it could be a good tool for the product.

If the consumers love it, we're solidly increasing market share.
If the consumers hate it and we don't make it look like we're spending days trying to convince the players "They're wrong and their opinions are wrong.", we can change it and make the players feel invested in the product.

If the Implied Setting Names was considered a strong seller, it wouldn't have appeared in a half-discussion designer blog with little-to-no flash or hook.

You're posting on ENWorld, not RPG.net. There are a hell of a lot of D&D-only gamers here, and it would take 4e literally being a pile of crap between hardbound covers in order to get a majority of people on this board to not want to buy it.

Part two of my point was that if we had less controversy we probably would have less people on the forum as a whole because of the lack of things to discuss or even discuss strongly about. Less people, less consumers, less ability to have the late-stage advertisement achieve penetration.

I believe it's due to the fanbase's wishes that we avoided having a much more setting-bound 4e than we ended up with. As someone who very much wants to avoid this, I can't help but feel good about those of us who couldn't stand that Emerald Frost nonsense.

That is a fully supported opinion. I differ and I believe my own. The Optimism that you have I can choose to view as Hubris, considering how many intelligent and capable playtesters and designers worked on 4E. Neither of us is going to be proven wrong by a discussion on these forums, and I really don't feel like hunting for internal memos the day Golden Wyvern Adept was revealed.