On the marketing of 4E

[Fifth Element]

It matters because it gets to the heart of why people say they were insulted. I am of the opinion that people were being "insulted" simply because they were pissed off about 4e and wanted to find something to be insulted about. That there are more than a few people out there who began spreading the whole "WOTC is pissing all over gamers" meme in an attempt to somehow prove they were right about how bad 4e was.

Indeed. It boils down to:

"They said some really insulting things!"
"Like what?"
"They said my playstyle was totally lame!"
"I don't remember that. Can you show me where they said that?"
"No but they said it! I'm sure they did!"

 

[Imban]

The only example of that which I really remember is one about treasure parcels which was basically completely full of nonsense. Sadly, I forget what the nonsense was, but I felt they were actively lying about the faults of 3e. (I seem to recall it was something about slimes not dropping treasure?)

But even disregarding how I felt they totally invented a flaw of 3e there, it backs up the impression of this stuff in general, though, because they definitely took pains to point out that 3e stopped being fun as soon as you... er... fought a gelatinous cube.

In retrospect they might have actually had a point - that numbered treasure parcels make it easier to tell when you're not giving out enough treasure because the party's been fighting enemies with no treasure for half of a level - but actually stating the point like I just did would have been amazingly better marketing than what they did.

And no, I don't have a link to this preview. If only those of us who didn't like the previews knew we'd be called upon to carefully document all evidence only a month or two after the preview! (Seriously, though, it was on WotC's site and about treasure or treasure parcels and I'm pretty sure it involved fighting a slime. Best I can do.)

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Indeed. It boils down to:

"They said some really insulting things!"
"Like what?"
"They said my playstyle was totally lame!"
"I don't remember that. Can you show me where they said that?"
"No but they said it! I'm sure they did!"

Once again, I don't have my books on hand, but I'd be very appreciative if you didn't constantly accuse me of something I have not done. If you really don't give two damns about what I say, do me a favor and don't be a dick to me about it.

 

[Gimby]

This is probably the article you are thinking of Imban:

4th Edition Excerpts: Economy & Reward

Note he doesn't say anything about fun, or that the 3e version was un-fun, just that randomly generated treasure makes it difficult to match the expected wealth-by-level and attempting to do so produced unneccesary bookkeeping for the DM.

 

[Imban]

This is probably the article you are thinking of Imban:

4th Edition Excerpts: Economy & Reward

Note he doesn't say anything about fun, or that the 3e version was un-fun, just that randomly generated treasure makes it difficult to match the expected wealth-by-level and attempting to do so produced unneccesary bookkeeping for the DM.

See, I kept finding that one, but I'm sure that one wasn't it because I remember being really, really pissed at one when it came out, and that one sticks to facts and actually provides what 4e does.

That one sure isn't offensive, though, and accurately lays out the differences. (I mean, it doesn't make 3e's case that some of us really prefer randomized treasure, but it's 4e advertising and doesn't have to and shouldn't.)

 

[Greg K]

Here are two examples of designers and developers telling people that their playstyle is unfun or not playing the game correctly.

"Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun."
Mike Mearls Design and Development article: Rust Monster

"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people."
James Wyatt, Races and Classes

The above statements may be true for some D&D players. However, for others, the challenge of adapting to having your gear destroyed is fun and "traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people" is just as much a part of D&D (or even a more important aspect) as slaying horrible monsters .

 

[pawsplay]

4th Edition Excerpts: Multiclassing

We’ve introduced the Player’s Handbook and one of its classes—the warlord. But what of multiclassing? In today’s preview, we asked Mike Mearls to explain 4th Edition’s design goals for a multiclass system.

His response:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“We'll get to you,” we'd tell it, “but first we have these shiny new classes to finish first. You used to push classes around and tell them how they had to be designed. Well, now the tables have been turned, you bullying jerk.”

This made multiclassing very sad. Even game mechanics hate being called jerks, but deep down it knew it was true. Back in the old days, it was a great tool for building what amounted to your own class. Magic-user/thieves, fighter/clerics, and even the rare but potentially awe-inspiring fighter/magic-user/thief walked the land, like chimeras wrought by strange rites involving Player's Handbooks, an overactive imagination, and a DNA splicer.

3rd Edition gave us a simpler, elegant, and intuitive solution that worked wonderfully… for characters who didn’t cast spells. The system also forced the core classes to delay abilities after 1st level to avoid cherry picking, where “clever” players simply took one level of as many classes as possible (or layered single levels on to a primary class) to reap the benefits of ungodly saving throws and bizarre but ultimately frightening combinations of class abilities that—like chocolate and pickle relish—were never meant to be combined by men and women of good taste.

Obviously, how this article reads depends a lot on whether you prefer 3e's multiclassing system or 4e's. How would 4e's multiclassing system like it if I called it a jerk, eh?

This would be an example of one of the developers touting 4e's superiority in a way that insults other people's playstyles and preferences.

 

[Gimby]

See, I kept finding that one, but I'm sure that one wasn't it because I remember being really, really pissed at one when it came out, and that one sticks to facts and actually provides what 4e does.

That one sure isn't offensive, though, and accurately lays out the differences. (I mean, it doesn't make 3e's case that some of us really prefer randomized treasure, but it's 4e advertising and doesn't have to and shouldn't.)

I think that's Hussar/Fifth Element's point. Perhaps, at the time, you did find that article offensive - that it mentions the one detail of content (slimes not dropping treasure) that you remember suggests that it may well be the article you were thinking of. Reading again in retrospect can produce a different impression.

Its certainly possible to take it in a bad light as it seems to suggest that randomised treasure is inherently a net bad and was bad for dilligent (ie good) DMs. Or that the amounts of treasure *should* be well known over a level rather than a suprise (or solely the purview of the DM's whims).

I'll agree that this is (or at least can be seen as) poor marketing as the first reading of an article should be positive, not re-reading it years later. Just that its not, objectively, ragging on 3e.

As an aside to anyone interested in the edition wars, check out whats happening over the 3rd edition of WHFRP - not only is it another war but its almost the same war. Same complaints about the crunch (boardgame! MMO!), same complaints about the fluff (the designers don't understant WHFRP)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Indeed. It boils down to:

"They said some really insulting things!"
"Like what?"
"They said my playstyle was totally lame!"
"I don't remember that. Can you show me where they said that?"
"No but they said it! I'm sure they did!"

You can start with this presentation (Note: some of the commentary below the videos are "rough"- read at your own discretion):
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_e5wAUwdmM]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Presentation: Part 1[/ame]

Mockery of previous editions- both playstyle & mechanics? Check.

Using subjective language like "better, faster, stronger" that the installed base might not agree with. Check.

Quotes like "we made character advancement fun..." as if it weren't before. Check.

The subsequent portions of the presentation are unquestionably much better. By and large, its textbook hyping the new product without explicitly badmouthing the previous product.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slLNNbcgiSs&feature=related]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Presentation: Part 2[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aLXuMb6WWw&NR=1]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Presentation: Part 3[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-9vMYGu0Q&NR=1]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Presentation: Part 4[/ame]

Now, this is just one presentation, and on balance, its not that bad. But by the time they stop using potentially inflammatory language- more than 8 minutes into the presentation- people are already starting to form opinions.

Here, in another fairly decent presentation, the interviewee closes by talking about "wizards not having to make the poor choices." Again, this is judgmental language. (And personally, its that kind of resource management that sets D&D apart from most other FRPGs.)

Classes :

I'm sure there are other press releases- good and bad- still floating around "Teh Interweb", but I'm not going looking for them.

 

[Imban]

Well, it's certainly possible, I'll admit! I'd still be a little surprised, because I remember my anger being based on a false statement rather than an accusation that I wasn't having fun, but still.

same complaints about the fluff (the designers don't understant WHFRP)

I don't play WHFRP, but there's a fairly decent chance of this from what I understand. Or at least, if they do understand WHFRP, they made a conscious decision that it was but bad rubbish to which good riddances are said.

While it'll be interesting how it actually shakes out, the accusations that they're gearing 3e far more towards the sort of gameplay featured in WAR (i.e. "play an Archmage, or a Swordmaster of Hoeth!" vs. "play a common man who might eventually work his way up to being a hero") seem to be a fairly reasonable indictment of the fluff.

Of course, since I don't play WHFRP, they might not be doing this at all, because I have no investment whatsoever and thus not much reason to follow the development.