On the marketing of 4E

[AllisterH]

Is it humanly possible to frankly discuss the pros and cons of various design decisions without insulting a significant number of fans?

Again, I find it weird that WOTC gets this grief.

Paizo created new grapple rules because the old rules were too hard. How is this not considered insulting to people who actually didn't have problems with the grapple rules before?

Pretty much every designer that comes up with a modification of the base rule is saying "The original rule sucked...here's a better method".

 

[an_idol_mind]

From my perspective, I was open to the idea of 4th edition and interested in it. The marketing largely annoyed me because so much of it seemed to be focused on, "3rd edition is a bad system," which I disagreed with. From that angle, it made me wonder whether 4th edition would be my thing, since it seemed built by people who had very different perspectives on what a good RPG was than I did.

A few previews flat out said that the way I was playing D&D was not fun. Those were fortunately few and far between, but that's terrible marketing, in my opinion.

Ultimately, though, the marketing didn't make a lick of difference. The game mechanics of 4th edition differ from what I enjoy in an RPG, so I don't play it. Had the marketing been great and the mechanics the same, I still wouldn't play it. Had the marketing been even worse and the system amazing, I would have picked it up. Overall, I think the people who were following the game in the first place probably gave it what they consider to be a fair try, regardless of what they thought about the marketing.

 

[Gothmog]

My problem with 4e's marketing wasn't so much the amount of previous editons-bashing, but the overusing of the word "cool" (heck, I'm not a native English speaker and even I know there are many other ways to say something is good).

If I had made a drinking game out of it, I'd still be drunk

Yeah, you have a point there. That was the major thing I found obnoxious about the 4e marketing: using the same terminology over and over (mostly "cool" and "fun"), until it just became a parody of itself. There are definitely better ways to excite people towards a new product than by using the same catchphrases over and over. In that regard, some of the 4e marketing was clearly subpar.

 

[Vigilance]

While the circumstances you cite certainly happened, so too did the aforementioned "Selling by criticism" by WotC developers. Too often in the Edition Wars, both sides choose to turn a blind eye to the mistakes made by their respective sides.

Even though 4e isn't my cup of tea, I can objectively state that it's a well-developed fantasy RPG.

Objectively speaking, the list of WotC marketing blunders for 4e is pretty damn remarkable.

I this is because we were actually hearing from the designers, without a marketing filter.

It's hard to blame game designers for not being slick and polished marketers.

As for criticizing, I think you're dealing with guys who worked with 3e more than anyone else, and who weren't fans. It wasn't their hobby to write for that system, it was their JOB.

 

[Imban]

Again, I find it weird that WOTC gets this grief.

Paizo created new grapple rules because the old rules were too hard. How is this not considered insulting to people who actually didn't have problems with the grapple rules before?

Did Paizo ever actually advertise its grapple rules? I have to ask this because I never actually saw any of the ad copy for Pathfinder because I didn't care.

If not, then who cares? With certain exceptions (countless White Wolf products, The Window, the 4e PHB on Evil characters, etc.), games usually present the rules of the game to you and do not editorialize on whether or not you're playing the game wrong. If I open a book and am presented with a block of rules for how to grapple someone, I'm going to just review them on their merits.

If you say, a month in advance of my seeing the actual rules, that the rules for grappling in (this game) are terrible and you provide reasons why, I'll either agree with you or not, but your presentation of the rules will be in the context of a debate rather than "here's some rules we wrote". If you don't provide any reasons OR rules, I'll just assume you're a jerk.

Like, I don't feel insulted just because Green Ronin presented new grappling rules in Mutants & Masterminds. I'm dismayed because they're worse than 3.5e's in every way. I don't feel insulted just because Paizo presented new grappling rules in Pathfinder. I'm waiting on the bestiary, but slightly saddened because an early (i.e. pre-Bestiary) math analysis seems to show that grappling people is now rather unlikely to succeed at any level. I'm not really even insulted about Wizards of the Coast's new grappling rules, but the fact that they started a debate with their ad copy - 3.5e's grappling rules SUCK and STOP THE GAME whenever they come up - and then presented a set of grappling rules that don't allow you to actually restrain someone annoys me, because I end up thinking "Well, at least 3.5e's worked, you jerks!"

EDIT: For example, if I somehow wiped all memory of the pre-4e flame wars and 4e from my mind, then picked up and read the 4e PHB, I'd still think that 4e's grapple rules were lame because they omit what I feel is the actual point of grappling, but I wouldn't have the idea in my head that they were designed because 3.5e's sucked most foully, just that they apparently tried to streamline things and failed.

Pretty much every designer that comes up with a modification of the base rule is saying "The original rule sucked...here's a better method".

For some version of "sucked", sure. But if you just present the rules and what you believe to be their advantages, you tend to get more of a neutral analysis of the rules. Difference between "4e is three times faster because we painted it red!" and "4e is three times faster than 3e, which was often so slow our playtesters fell asleep at the gaming table!" and all.

 

[Glyfair]

As for criticizing, I think you're dealing with guys who worked with 3e more than anyone else, and who weren't fans.

I think they all were fans, at some level or another. That doesn't mean they believed the system was perfect. Their job is to improve the areas they either feel need improvement, or that they find others feel need improvement.

In fact, I will argue the feeling that D&D needs improvement goes back to the beginning. Just about every D&D campaign I ever played in wasn't played "by the letter of the rules" completely. Some had lists of house rules, some just ignored and fudged rules without a hard and fast list of changes. None of them played D&D or AD&D with by every rule in the book, or without additions. They all felt D&D needed "improvement." It doesn't mean they weren't fans of D&D.

I think it's perfectly clear that 4E carries a lot over from 3rd edition. If the designers weren't fans of 3E, I think you'd have seen even less carried over.

 

[roguerouge]

I work in account management, and one of the things they emphasize is what I said above. It doesn't matter what the intended message is, when someone is upset they're likely to read negativity into whatever they read.

The message could be: "Hey how are you today? I hope you're doing well!"

If you're upset, you're more then likely to read into it with something like: "Don't tell me how I should be doing! I'm friggin mad! What gives you the right to tell me I should be happy?!?!"

The better example is when you tell your girlfriend that she looks great in that dress. If she hears "You think I'm fat and this dress hides it" you're absolutely out of luck, no matter what you intended with your complement. You fail at girlfriend relations.

If 4e says "This edition makes your game look great" and the customer hears "You hate my game style" the company's out of luck. You fail at customer relations.

Any act of communication includes three parts: the intention, the message, and the reception. Ignore an element at your peril.

 

[Betote]

I this is because we were actually hearing from the designers, without a marketing filter.

It's hard to blame game designers for not being slick and polished marketers.

But you can blame the marketers for letting the game designers open their mouths. I mean, it's great to have the creator of something tell you about that something, but they should have a PR guy read their texts beforehand in case they had to edit a poorly thought of commentary ("Gnomes are Commies!" "Sorcerers are emo suicide kids!" "Shifters are furries!" "Too much work and no fun make Mearls a dull boy!").

 

[roguerouge]

Again, I find it weird that WOTC gets this grief.

Paizo created new grapple rules because the old rules were too hard. How is this not considered insulting to people who actually didn't have problems with the grapple rules before?

Pretty much every designer that comes up with a modification of the base rule is saying "The original rule sucked...here's a better method".

Because they always said that their primary reason for writing PfRPG was to keep 3E in print so that they could keep telling the stories that they and their customers wanted. Every step of the way on their web site and in the design process, they encouraged people to house rule whatever they wanted and that you could play their PfRPG modules with the old rule sets with little problem. Contrast that with the lack of the 3-4E conversion guide and the implicit message that sent.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Again, I find it weird that WOTC gets this grief.

Paizo created new grapple rules because the old rules were too hard. How is this not considered insulting to people who actually didn't have problems with the grapple rules before?

I didn't have any problems with the 3.x grapple rules. I'm about to start using the pathfinder grapple rules. I don't feel like I'm being insulted.

Pretty much every designer that comes up with a modification of the base rule is saying "The original rule sucked...here's a better method".

I think you're really inflating the divide here - something perhaps symptomatic and indicative of the edition-wars-mentality. What's wrong with saying "The original rule was OK... but here's a different angle on that rule that is more streamlined/elegant/robust/clearer/flavourful/indicative." It's kind of like all the people criticizing 3E because they found the rules too cumbersome at higher levels (even though the majority of these player's game experiences are with low to mid-level play and which played/plays fine). It's like the people criticizing 4E because it does not encourage role-playing. Never let a decent point get in the way of overstated hyperbole.

Sorry AllisterH to single you out here but this type of thing just gets my dander up.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise