On the marketing of 4E

[thecasualoblivion]

Uhh, ditto. Big time.

But I think perhaps the perception is that the ability and the encouragement to transcend that core gameplay was better supported in prior editions.

You will get no argument from me that 4e has distilled the essence of that core gameplay and does it better than any edition before. It's a better tool for that purpose; it's a less useful tool for other purposes.

In my admittedly ignorant opinion.

I agree with this statement, with the controversial addition that I am of the opinion that prior editions ability and encouragement to transcend the core gameplay made the games less effective at that core gameplay to a modest but noticable degree.

 

[Ariosto]

One was supposed to make up house rules in the old days; not doing so would not quite be getting into the spirit of things. The original D&D supplements offered a buffet of options (compiled, along with magazine material, in the "core" AD&D books). The 1e Unearthed Arcana included not one but two alternatives to the unarmed combat procedures in the DMG.

Tunnels & Trolls has gone through notable changes in detail from edition to edition; I personally like to mix bits from several. Ken St Andre has remained in charge of design for all 34 years (except for the two fan-produced 6th editions). I really don't see any attempt to change T&T officially into something at odds with its original spirit, to redefine what it's "about" or what's "fun".

 

[Hussar]

True, but if someone approaches a marketing statement with neutrality and comes away insulted, the marketing has failed for that person.

Therein lies the crux. I don't believe that people came to the table from a position of neutrality. I think people came to the table openly hostile (particularly after the debacle of the Dragon/Dungeon thing) and made finding offense their primary goal.

Not everyone mind you. But a significant and more importantly, very loud number.

/snip

Whatever one's appraisal of the epic fantasies of Terry Brooks, David Eddings, Dennis L. McKiernan, etc., they did not take the title The Lord of the Rings.
/snip

Funny you would mention Terry Brooks in there considering his best selling novel is simply a pastiche of LotR. He may not have taken the title of Lord of the Rings, but, he certainly nicked the plot, characters and setting.

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.

Again, at the end of the day though, who's fault is it? You're NEVER going to win when the girlfriend asks you "does this make me look fat?" In the same way, I think WOTC could have groveled at the feet of every earlier edtion, debasing themselves frequently, and people would still have been saying, "You are hating on my playstyle".

Windjammer - tell you what. Go back and READ that blog post. Actually take the time to read it and then take the time to search the forums to find the commentary on it. And then come back and tell us how insulted you were.

There's nothing there. Really. There isn't. People were so eager to be pissed off at anything that it didn't matter what WOTC said. They could say the sky was blue and people would be pissed that they didn't say cerulean. "How dare you mock my color choices!"

 

[Vigilance]

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.

When I say they weren't fans, I don't mean they didn't like 3e. Maybe a better way to put it would be to say that they weren't fanboys.

Or maybe I could say they were in like with 3e but not in love.

Many people who have read the critical comments made about 3e by the 4e design team act wounded, like they were with this girl that they LOVED, and that love had blinded them to her faults.

Then they introduce her to a friend who tells them she dresses weird, has an ugly overbite and a bad laugh.

 

[Vigilance]

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!").

You can't blame the marketers. I'm sure they would have loved to vet and approve every word uttered.

Clearly in this case, the goal was to NOT have that happen. I for one liked that we were actually hearing from the designers, warts and all, rather than some marketer.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

True, but if someone approaches a marketing statement with neutrality and comes away insulted, the marketing has failed for that person.

and

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.

That would have been me.

I was looking forward to 4Ed (not that I had problems with 3.5, mind you- I just thought it would be a further refinement, not an overhaul). I preordered it the first day I could, just like I did when 3Ed and 3.5 were announced.

However, the more press releases I saw, the more ticked off I got. In order to be able to judge the game on its own merits, I consciously stopped reading the 4Ed previews, leaks and threads after the first month. (Which is part of the reason why I have no idea where to look for that stuff now.)

By the time 4Ed was actually released, I had almost forgotten all the stuff that had come out, so I was able to approach 4Ed with a relatively open mind.

Which led to...

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

Agreed, 100%.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Funny you would mention Terry Brooks in there considering his best selling novel is simply a pastiche of LotR. He may not have taken the title of Lord of the Rings, but, he certainly nicked the plot, characters and setting.

Bad Hussar! Naughty Hussar!

While there are similarities, and Shanarra does have a resemblance to LotR, let us not forget that JRRT's most famous work was a skillful reworking of a variety of tropes from the folklore, legends and mythology of Europe (with which he'd be intimately familiar). I'm not saying it was a copy, by any stretch of the imagination, just that like others who followed in his wake, he, too, was inspired by storytellers past.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

<SNIP>
"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
<SNIP>

Thank you for that, I have been trying to remember where the heck I had read that, and I have been misattributing it to Mr. Mearls for a while now.

That one line is where I started disliking 4e, as opposed to not liking what they were doing with the licenses and the marketing. It took 23 words to make me decide that the game was not for me, even before details of the GSL locked that decision in stone.

The Auld Grump, I like games where the PCs traipse through faerie rings and interact with the little folk. Heck, I do that with Spycraft, which is hardly less combat centered than 4e.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Therein lies the crux. I don't believe that people came to the table from a position of neutrality. I think people came to the table openly hostile (particularly after the debacle of the Dragon/Dungeon thing) and made finding offense their primary goal.

Not everyone mind you. But a significant and more importantly, very loud number.

The problem people ont his thread are having, is that you're accusing them of this.

I'm not doubting that people came in with hostility pre-present, but people on this thread have stated "I walked in neutral and got offended," and you and Fifth Element have both responded with "No, you're lying. You walked in openly hostile. Go ahead and prove me wrong."

That gets under peoples' skins.

A lot.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

For what it is worth, pointing out that the WotC folks who managed to be offensive were not marketing but rather the game designers does make a certain amount of sense. It does not make me feel less offended, but it does become more understandable. The new game was their baby, not some stray that they adopted.

And the preview books were just plain a bad idea in my estimation - charging just as much for an advertisement as had been charged for the each of the actual books for 3.0.

My own opinion started as neutral, and kept sliding downwards as the months went by. By comparison, my opinion of 3e started as neutral, and rose as the previews came out.

And the OGL was a thing of beauty to me. Had the GSL come out before the OGL I would not be offended, and would likely laud it as a good idea. Instead it replaced the OGL, which I still think was a wonderful idea.

The Auld Grump