On the marketing of 4E

[an_idol_mind]

Again, how did WotC pull off this magificent feat during the change from 1st to 2nd? From 2nd to 3rd?

To be fair, the transition between 1st and 2nd edition drew a lot of hate. Not as much for the transition from 2nd to 3rd, but I think that's more because 2nd edition had been floundering for years before the announcement.

 

[Toben the Many]

To be fair, the transition between 1st and 2nd edition drew a lot of hate. Not as much for the transition from 2nd to 3rd, but I think that's more because 2nd edition had been floundering for years before the announcement.

Okay, well that brings up another point of discussion. Why the hate for 2nd Edition when it first came out? Was it timing? And, more importantly, was the time right for 4th Edition? Timing and choosing the right time for an edition change is part of marketing.

 

[Dausuul]

Okay, well that brings up another point of discussion. Why the hate for 2nd Edition when it first came out? Was it timing? And, more importantly, was the time right for 4th Edition? Timing and choosing the right time for an edition change is part of marketing.

You're missing the point. All new editions inspire hate. 2E, 3.5E, 4E... heck, I'll bet AD&D honked off a whole lot of OD&D fans. 3E was the exception because 2E was so obviously moribund.

 

[DaveMage]

Okay, well that brings up another point of discussion. Why the hate for 2nd Edition when it first came out?

No half-orcs, no demons, no devils, no assassins. (Giving in to the criticism from certain groups.)

Take away a part of a game that was important to some players and those players will be angry. Hmmm......that sounds familiar.

 

[Shemeska]

No half-orcs, no demons, no devils, no assassins. (Giving in to the criticism from certain groups.)

Admittedly the hate there was rather misplaced, since that edition provided more material for demons and devils than had existed prior (and by page count quite possibly more than all other editions before or since combined). It just took them what, a year and a half or two years to have them in a book (MC: Outer Planes Appendix) rather than being in the first 2e monster books?

 

[Fifth Element]

Maybe, but 4E killed good creatures on Monster Manual and lived to be true to that words: you can't find such kind of adventures on official 4E products.

That's true, though I doubt in fairy-traipsing adventures you really need to know how many hit points that little fairy person has. 4E is definitely geared towards the slay-the-evil-monster type of play, the designers were never shy about that.

And focusing on that style of play does not mean the designers consider other styles silly. Just that they didn't focus on them.

 

[DaveMage]

Admittedly the hate there was rather misplaced, since that edition provided more material for demons and devils than had existed prior (and by page count quite possibly more than all other editions before or since combined). It just took them what, a year and a half or two years to have them in a book (MC: Outer Planes Appendix) rather than being in the first 2e monster books?

Oh, absolutely - in time it was fine.

But at the beginning - they were out - and that was very disappointing.

 

[Toben the Many]

You're missing the point. All new editions inspire hate. 2E, 3.5E, 4E... heck, I'll bet AD&D honked off a whole lot of OD&D fans. 3E was the exception because 2E was so obviously moribund.

With respect, I don't buy that argument.

First of all, we can look at other games and their iterative editions. New editions of RPGs are sometimes looked upon favorably, but sometimes not. There is no overwhelming tendency to hate all new editions upon release. One might say, "Ah, yes. But Shadowrun fans are not like D&D fans." To which I would say, but the same people who play Shadowrun are the same people who play D&D!

And you also seem to contradict yourself as well. You claim that 3rd Edition is the exception to the rule - meaning that the rule of New-Editions-Are-Hated can be, in fact, broken. To add to that, as I recall it, AD&D was another welcome edition into the fold. I remember getting AD&D and becoming excited. "Wait. Elf isn't a class? Whoa. I can be an Elven Fighter, Elven Wizard, etc? Whoa! No way!"

I think it's too apologist to simply say, "All new D&D editions are hated. Nothing anyone can do about it." If that were true, why bother with any kind of marketing campaign at all, since all of them will be doomed to failure?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

With respect, I don't buy that argument.

First of all, we can look at other games and their iterative editions. New editions of RPGs are sometimes looked upon favorably, but sometimes not. There is no overwhelming tendency to hate all new editions upon release. One might say, "Ah, yes. But Shadowrun fans are not like D&D fans." To which I would say, but the same people who play Shadowrun are the same people who play D&D!

And you also seem to contradict yourself as well. You claim that 3rd Edition is the exception to the rule - meaning that the rule of New-Editions-Are-Hated can be, in fact, broken. To add to that, as I recall it, AD&D was another welcome edition into the fold. I remember getting AD&D and becoming excited. "Wait. Elf isn't a class? Whoa. I can be an Elven Fighter, Elven Wizard, etc? Whoa! No way!"

I think it's too apologist to simply say, "All new D&D editions are hated. Nothing anyone can do about it." If that were true, why bother with any kind of marketing campaign at all, since all of them will be doomed to failure?

There also isn't necessarily a correlation between the size and intensity of the debate. A small group of intensly angry people can seem a lot bigger than they actually are.

 

[M.L. Martin]

There also isn't necessarily a correlation between the size and intensity of the debate. A small group of intensly angry people can seem a lot bigger than they actually are.

True. And there is always new edition hate--it happened with 3E (oh, I remember the flamewars of 1999--and there was some 2E-'bashing' in the marketing then), it happened with 2E (some people on rgfd back in the mid-90s still held a grudge), and it will happen with 5E. The question generally becomes, how large and/or intense is the dissatisfaction?

The 2E-3E conversion didn't seem to evoke as much, IMO, for a variety of reasons:
1. The game hadn't undergone a major overhaul since AD&D was created in 1977, and most everyone was ready for some of the underlying problems to be fixed.
2. The changes to playstyle didn't feel as dramatic as the 3E-4E changeover. I'm not saying that they weren't, but it was generally framed as opening up options and making the rules more coherent, not the near-total rebuild of the system that 4E comes across as. Likewise, there was a greater sense of setting continuity--the two settings that made the transition in the first year (the Realms and Ravenloft) actually had minimal world-shaking events going on to accomodate the new rules. Indeed, Ravenloft's only dramatic change for the start of the 3E era was a restoration.

IMO, most of the ways 3E changed the style of the game were 'emergent' features that were discovered in play over the course of the next few years (I think this was part of the reason for Revised 3rd--and we can blame ourselves for the '3.5' label, lest we forget). 4E, by contrast, makes them clearer up front.