This issue of whether or not WotC is 'bashing' 4e in their run up to Next is interesting to me on a few of levels.
I'm a big 4e fan. I liked it so much I pretty much converted wholesale and spent a lot of time convincing folks in my group who were far less comfortable with it to convert. I understood their concerns-- primarily having to do with the presentation and how brazenly open the mechanics were-- but the good far outweighed the bad for me.
As for WotC 'bashing' 4e:
First-- in my opinion-- I don't think that they are doing that at all. In fact, I've found their discussion of mechanics-- for the most part-- interesting and thoughtful. They've made it pretty clear they want to support a 4e playstyle as well as that from previous editions. And I get the distinct impression that in constructing Next they have heeded some of the most important aspects of 4e design-- solid math and balanced classes for example. It strikes me that they are trying to build better flavor and better immersion around those foundations and also trying to bring back concepts from earlier editions by using 4e-esque strategies to make those concepts work effectively.
They have spent a lot of time wooing lovers of earlier editions-- perhaps at the expense of being clear that 4e isn't being dropped wholesale. It makes sense out of the gate. They are reaching out to folks they want to bring back in as customers. It seems less like 4e bashing and slightly more like temporary 4e neglect-- this is probably also influenced by the fact that the stripped down core rules that are farthest along probably most closely resemble earlier editions in playstyle.
In short, I haven't read 'bashing' into their articles at all. When I see some of the twitter and messageboard chatter from folks who are convinced 4e is being kicked to the curb, I find myself baffled. I feel like I've read a different blog or article entirely. It really does seem like people are looking hard to find a narrative that doesn't actually exist.
So that's one level. Another level is that I understand why some folks are reacting that way. Putting aside the possibility that some are just contrary by nature, I understand the fear. WotC has been talking a lot about earlier editions in order to get the attention of people who haven't been paying much attention since 2008. It's a necessary step to meet their goals. I also think it's true that in trying to meet those goals, some of the press articles-- not the blogs and WotC articles-- did send the message 'we screwed up with 4e, please come back'. I take that to mean they went about presenting the game in an ineffective way and lost aspects they should have kept, but someone else could fairly interpret that as '4e bashing'. WotC has also done the most work on the base game which, as I mentioned, probably resembles earlier editions more than later, leading to a lot of talk about 'Gygaxian style' D&D.
So if you are a 4e fan, and you're worried they are going to dump the parts of the game that you like, you might well be inclined to look for 4e bashing in everything they write just because you fear it might be the truth. It's very easy to fall into that pattern, and it's impossible to argue cleanly against because all of our readings of the WotC material are simply interpretation until we actually get the ruleset. You can't really prove that they mean one thing or another (even if it seems like some interpretations are absurd).
To summarize my opinion-- I don't think the designers are trashing 4e. I tend to think that folks who are worried about it are finding things in these articles and blogs that aren't really there. I could be way off. We'll see in a few months.
But this leads me to the final thing that interests me about it-- Even if I'm right and people who are seeing 4e bashing are being absurd (to use an extreme). Even if WotC Trevor's suspicion is right-- that some folks are working very hard to find offense where none is intended. It doesn't really matter.
As I once said to a friend about successful romantic relationships-- It isn't about being right. When you are in an argument with your girlfriend or boyfriend, winning that argument by successively and logically proving your partner wrong might win the argument but it could well murder the relationship.
Who knows? People who think that WotC designers hate 4e might be a blip, a tiny minority, a problem that will disappear once the playtest starts. But, on the other hand, if the perception takes hold, becomes a meme that attaches itself to the conversation about the Next design process, then it is bad for all of us that want the next iteration of D&D to be successful. Perhaps then WotC might want to address it directly and cleanly and consistently.
I suspect WotC Trevor's appearance here (and on Twitter feeds) might well be the first step in exactly that strategy. So long as they don't try to 'win' but rather to 'explain'-- 'Hey guys, I really do understand why you think that, but it really isn't the case. Here's some examples of how important your edition is to us . . . ' blah blah.
Anyway, I'm no marketer. I'm just another rambling messageboard poster. Might just all be a tempest in a teapot.
But I still think it's interesting.
AD
I'm a big 4e fan. I liked it so much I pretty much converted wholesale and spent a lot of time convincing folks in my group who were far less comfortable with it to convert. I understood their concerns-- primarily having to do with the presentation and how brazenly open the mechanics were-- but the good far outweighed the bad for me.
As for WotC 'bashing' 4e:
First-- in my opinion-- I don't think that they are doing that at all. In fact, I've found their discussion of mechanics-- for the most part-- interesting and thoughtful. They've made it pretty clear they want to support a 4e playstyle as well as that from previous editions. And I get the distinct impression that in constructing Next they have heeded some of the most important aspects of 4e design-- solid math and balanced classes for example. It strikes me that they are trying to build better flavor and better immersion around those foundations and also trying to bring back concepts from earlier editions by using 4e-esque strategies to make those concepts work effectively.
They have spent a lot of time wooing lovers of earlier editions-- perhaps at the expense of being clear that 4e isn't being dropped wholesale. It makes sense out of the gate. They are reaching out to folks they want to bring back in as customers. It seems less like 4e bashing and slightly more like temporary 4e neglect-- this is probably also influenced by the fact that the stripped down core rules that are farthest along probably most closely resemble earlier editions in playstyle.
In short, I haven't read 'bashing' into their articles at all. When I see some of the twitter and messageboard chatter from folks who are convinced 4e is being kicked to the curb, I find myself baffled. I feel like I've read a different blog or article entirely. It really does seem like people are looking hard to find a narrative that doesn't actually exist.
So that's one level. Another level is that I understand why some folks are reacting that way. Putting aside the possibility that some are just contrary by nature, I understand the fear. WotC has been talking a lot about earlier editions in order to get the attention of people who haven't been paying much attention since 2008. It's a necessary step to meet their goals. I also think it's true that in trying to meet those goals, some of the press articles-- not the blogs and WotC articles-- did send the message 'we screwed up with 4e, please come back'. I take that to mean they went about presenting the game in an ineffective way and lost aspects they should have kept, but someone else could fairly interpret that as '4e bashing'. WotC has also done the most work on the base game which, as I mentioned, probably resembles earlier editions more than later, leading to a lot of talk about 'Gygaxian style' D&D.
So if you are a 4e fan, and you're worried they are going to dump the parts of the game that you like, you might well be inclined to look for 4e bashing in everything they write just because you fear it might be the truth. It's very easy to fall into that pattern, and it's impossible to argue cleanly against because all of our readings of the WotC material are simply interpretation until we actually get the ruleset. You can't really prove that they mean one thing or another (even if it seems like some interpretations are absurd).
To summarize my opinion-- I don't think the designers are trashing 4e. I tend to think that folks who are worried about it are finding things in these articles and blogs that aren't really there. I could be way off. We'll see in a few months.
But this leads me to the final thing that interests me about it-- Even if I'm right and people who are seeing 4e bashing are being absurd (to use an extreme). Even if WotC Trevor's suspicion is right-- that some folks are working very hard to find offense where none is intended. It doesn't really matter.
As I once said to a friend about successful romantic relationships-- It isn't about being right. When you are in an argument with your girlfriend or boyfriend, winning that argument by successively and logically proving your partner wrong might win the argument but it could well murder the relationship.
Who knows? People who think that WotC designers hate 4e might be a blip, a tiny minority, a problem that will disappear once the playtest starts. But, on the other hand, if the perception takes hold, becomes a meme that attaches itself to the conversation about the Next design process, then it is bad for all of us that want the next iteration of D&D to be successful. Perhaps then WotC might want to address it directly and cleanly and consistently.
I suspect WotC Trevor's appearance here (and on Twitter feeds) might well be the first step in exactly that strategy. So long as they don't try to 'win' but rather to 'explain'-- 'Hey guys, I really do understand why you think that, but it really isn't the case. Here's some examples of how important your edition is to us . . . ' blah blah.
Anyway, I'm no marketer. I'm just another rambling messageboard poster. Might just all be a tempest in a teapot.
But I still think it's interesting.
AD
Last edited:
