On the marketing of 4E

[Dannyalcatraz]

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 .

<snip>
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.

Exactly.

 

[Gimby]

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.

I don't think he's saying that peoples playstyles and preferences are bad there - he's saying that 3e's multiclassing system heavily informed the process of class design. Specifically, the frontloading of features into the first level of a class. You can see the results of this in the move from 3e to 3.5e - Ranger and Paladin in particular.

He seems to be speaking as a designer there - its tough to make a class interesting because the multiclassing rules are dominating influence over all aspects of class design (it "bullies"). Not saying "you are a jerk if you like this" or that this system produces "jerks"

 

[Echohawk]

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

Wait a moment. I think it would be prudent to examine that quote with some more context:

"Development's understanding of the game tells us that a monster who destroys your gear isn't fun. Simply put, it makes the next encounter prohibitively more difficult. The rust monster requires a lot more DM skill and a deeper understanding of the game than other creatures in its CR range.

However, that doesn't mean it cannot have a place in your game. A DM who understands how a rust monster works, or who builds his story to account for it, can have a lot of fun with the critter as written. If the PCs lose their weapons and armor, they might go into debt to a shady merchant to get replacements. That merchant can then play an important, interesting role in the campaign."

It does not look to me as if this article is saying that anyone's play style is "unfun" or that they are "not playing the game correctly". Instead, both the fun and not-so-fun aspects of losing gear are pointed out. The article even makes the same point you did, which is that adapting to having your gear destroyed can indeed be fun if handled correctly by a good DM.

Rather than demonstrating that the designers were criticising anyone's gaming style, I think that providing that particular quote as an example more accurately demonstrates how easy it is to take a quote out of context and then get upset about it for reasons that don't really stand up to closer scrutiny.

 

[AllisterH]

Thank you for posting these examples.

Honestly, I don't see any mocking. I see designers talking in DESIGN talk.

Multiclassing WAS a bully in 3e since it did force changes in how a designer had to create a class. It's the same reason why Polymorph eventualy got neutered in even PAthfinder. Namely the fact that the designers hated having to worry about designing a class/monster and factoring in how a disparate part of the system (multiclassing, spells) will affect it.

How do you go from that to the designer calling "players are jerks"?

 

[Gimby]

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.

Its entirely possible that theres another, worse, article thats somewhere else, a blog perhaps. You may be more justified than you think

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.

The issue is that the developers have come out and said that its still largely about the common man and that ratcatchers (and their small, but vicious dogs) are still a playable career. It seems wholely based on them reusing some of the iconic MMO art.

Its more that its illustrative of the modern, internet based edition war, with the range from "They changed it so it sucks! Real fans will hate it!" to "Newandshiny! Funny coloured dice! I can't wait!" and "Change is good, suck it grognards!". Its interesting to watch, in that it seems to be panning out the same way as the 3e/4e war. Well, I find it intereting, anyway

 

[Echohawk]

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

"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

Now that I've tracked it down in context, I'm afraid that this second quote also does not give me the impression that James Wyatt was criticizing anyone's play style or accusing anyone of playing the game incorrectly. As with Mike Mearls's article, the excerpt on the fey and the feywild presents both the pros and cons of using the feywild. Here are the full two paragraphs from Races and Classes to provide some reasonable context for your quote:

"Fey have always been a part of D&D that has both proponents and detractors. The detractors have some good points, in my estimation -- cute pixies and leprechauns aren't fun opponents, and good-aligned creatures are hard to use in combat-heavy adventures. Yes, people recognise pixies from fairy rales. But D&D is emphatically not the game of fairy-tale fantasy. D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people.

On the positive side, though, there is something very appealing about the legends of a faerie land, a world that's an imperfect--or a more perfect--mirror of our own. There's something genuinely frightening about the idea that a traveler in dark woods at night might disappear from the world entirely and end up in a place where the fundamental rules have changed. Magic is more real there, beauty is more beautiful and ugliness more ugly, and even time flow differently in the fey realm. Books like Susannah Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell depict that world in vivid language."

In the first paragraph -- the one you quoted from -- Mr Wyatt is clearly presenting the point of view of detractors of using fey in D&D, and that includes the claim that D&D is about slaying monsters, not chatting to fey. But the following paragraph stresses the positive aspect of the fey in D&D.

It seems just a little unfair to take half of that fairly balanced presentation of the pros and cons and use it as a demonstration of the author's bias...

 

[Gothmog]

Rather than demonstrating that the designers were criticising anyone's gaming style, I think that providing that particular quote as an example more accurately demonstrates how easy it is to take a quote out of context and then get upset about it for reasons that don't really stand up to closer scrutiny.

Bingo. Taking a quote out of context is probably the best way to have someone misconstrue someone's else's meaning and generate an emotional response. Its done by politicians to demonize their opponents, by news agencies to generate needless sensationalism, and in this case by people angry with WotC to make their point they were demeaned or mocked. The full quote (and indeed all the quotes cites so far), when also shown with their proper context are not demeaning at all.

Another example, from the videos on the previous page:

"We made character advancement fun..."

The actual, in-context and non-edited quote?

"We have made character advancement a fun and meaningful thing at every level of play. We have made high level play as playable and fun as low-level play (much applause). We have made the player and DM experience easier by streamling rules mechanics in places where they needed it, by improving overall presentation and layout of our books, and with the online tools we'll be talking about a little bit later. We have simplified stat blocks...A LOT (much applause)."

I don't see anything objectionable there. He wasn't saying 3.x was unfun, but addressing issues people had with 3.x even before the announcement of 4e. If I'm not mistaken, these were some of the major issues a huge number of players had with 3.x. Specifically, the "fun" comment was made due to a number of people saying there were "dead" levels in 3.x when a character gained nothing but skill points, and maybe a BAB or save bonus increase. Isn't it more fulfilling to have your character progress and have new options every level, rather than these dead levels? 4e has addressed these problems, and Pathfinder has even tried to address several of these issues.

Basically, a lot of this comes down to people wanting to find a reason to be angry, and using whatever is at their disposal (in many cases out-of-context quotes) to justify their arguements. And this is understandable- as humans we tend to remember outlier events that get our attention, and hearing or seeing something which produces an emotional response resonates with people- thats why politicians and news agencies do this. But this sort of thing also doesn't reflect reality, or the true meaning of statements by those that said them.

If you don't like the game because it doesn't appeal to your personal preferences, thats cool- I can respect that. If you have to resort to fabrication and emotional manipulation, and then present that information as fact, then its a whole different matter.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Bingo. Taking a quote out of context is probably the best way to have someone misconstrue someone's else's meaning and generate an emotional response. Its done by politicians to demonize their opponents, by news agencies to generate needless sensationalism, and in this case by people angry with WotC to make their point they were demeaned or mocked. The full quote (and indeed all the quotes cites so far), when also shown with their proper context are not demeaning at all.

Another example, from the videos on the previous page:

"We made character advancement fun..."

The actual, in-context and non-edited quote?

"We have made character advancement a fun and meaningful thing at every level of play. We have made high level play as playable and fun as low-level play (much applause). We have made the player and DM experience easier by streamling rules mechanics in places where they needed it, by improving overall presentation and layout of our books, and with the online tools we'll be talking about a little bit later. We have simplified stat blocks...A LOT (much applause)."

I don't see anything objectionable there. He wasn't saying 3.x was unfun, but addressing issues people had with 3.x even before the announcement of 4e. If I'm not mistaken, these were some of the major issues a huge number of players had with 3.x. Specifically, the "fun" comment was made due to a number of people saying there were "dead" levels in 3.x when a character gained nothing but skill points, and maybe a BAB or save bonus increase. Isn't it more fulfilling to have your character progress and have new options every level, rather than these dead levels? 4e has addressed these problems, and Pathfinder has even tried to address several of these issues.

Basically, a lot of this comes down to people wanting to find a reason to be angry, and using whatever is at their disposal (in many cases out-of-context quotes) to justify their arguements. And this is understandable- as humans we tend to remember outlier events that get our attention, and hearing or seeing something which produces an emotional response resonates with people- thats why politicians and news agencies do this. But this sort of thing also doesn't reflect reality, or the true meaning of statements by those that said them.

If you don't like the game because it doesn't appeal to your personal preferences, thats cool- I can respect that. If you have to resort to fabrication and emotional manipulation, and then present that information as fact, then its a whole different matter.

It seems to me - and that's not limited to 3E - is that fans take criticism against their game as criticism to them.

Maybe it is bad marketing then to talk about the flaws of the current edition and talk about how they will be fixed in the next edition.

But I disagree. As a player and fan of 3E, I loved hearing what they changed and was reassured that they identified flaws I had recognized too and promised to have them fixed. I didn't take it as an insult to me that I was stupid for playing 3E for so long or whatever. I did take it as a sign that they knew what they were doing and that I might like what they would be offering.

No matter how much you love roleplaying games - your choice of game or edition does not define you. If someone criticizes your game, it doesn't mean he criticizes you. Don't feel offended by critique to your game. (And that's certainly not something limited to 3E marketing, it's a general problem in most of the edition wars on either side.)

Of course, some might try to offend you with their critique. I am pretty sure 4E marketing did not have that goal. But even if it would, it's aiming at the wrong target - you're not your game.

 

[Maggan]

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)

Yeah, it makes me very tired of RPG discussion on the Internet. It's the same thing all over again and again and again.

And to top things off, I'm a Mac user ... which has a lot of those same discussions, again and again and again.

I'm growing weary of the Internet as a place for discussions.

As a place for finding resources for my WFRP and D&D4e games, the Internet rocks!

/M

 

[Gimby]

Yeah, it makes me very tired of RPG discussion on the Internet. It's the same thing all over again and again and again.

And to top things off, I'm a Mac user ... which has a lot of those same discussions, again and again and again.

I'm growing weary of the Internet as a place for discussions.

As a place for finding resources for my WFRP and D&D4e games, the Internet rocks!

/M

I have to say, its morbidly facinating. Most bizzare place I found it was on the WoW forums where almost the exact same arguement can be found on threads demanding "Vanilla" servers.