On the marketing of 4E

[Imban]

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)

You know, I only remember two pieces of 2e-bashing in the marketing.

"What the heck is a 'baatezu', anyway?", out of context, and "Back to the Dungeon", in context. I mean, out of context, the first line sounds like it's insulting baatezu in the same way 4e designers talked about aasimar, but in context, they still retained the "baatezu" name in some places and only changed the name back to "devil".

The other one doesn't sound very insulting, except it was a catchphrase for how 2e's "story" modules sucked, which is legitimately insulting if you liked those. (Of course, it's possibly that very few people did, because a lot of them came down with a lethal case of the metaplot due to the competition with White Wolf that pretty much killed any chance of their being good.)

 

[M.L. Martin]

You know, I only remember two pieces of 2e-bashing in the marketing.

"What the heck is a 'baatezu', anyway?", out of context, and "Back to the Dungeon", in context. I mean, out of context, the first line sounds like it's insulting baatezu in the same way 4e designers talked about aasimar, but in context, they still retained the "baatezu" name in some places and only changed the name back to "devil".

Actually, I think those come from the Greyhawk marketing campaign. I was actually thinking of some of the stuff like the 3E T-shirts they gave out at GenCon '99, where things like "Rules nobody uses" and "Exceptional Strength" were marketed as "Not in 3E", along with a bunch of stuff that was in 3E.

I'm using a very broad brush for '2E-bashing' and '3E-bashing' here just to point out that there was some of that at each changeover; I do think it was more pervasive in 4E, in only as a corrolary to the greater changes, including much greater changes to setting elements.

 

[Glyfair]

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

2E got it from both sides. There were the "grognards" who disliked many of the changes, especially things that were eliminated. That's pretty standard.

However, you also got a lot heat from those who felt there weren't enough changes. For example, they kept racial level limits.

Indeed, I think you saw more of the second than the first. After all, AD&D was kept in print well after 2nd edition was released. Also, the adventures converted pretty easily.

And, more importantly, was the time right for 4th Edition? Timing and choosing the right time for an edition change is part of marketing.

In my opinion, 4E had three things going against it before anyone saw anything about it.

There was the dancing around an edition release. Statements from WotC clearly indicated that 4E was still a ways off. They may not have technically stated that, but the statements were clearly intended to give that impression. The obvious clues that 4E would be announced at that GenCon hurt the trust some had in WotC.

More importantly, I think 3.5 hurt the release of 4E. In my opinion, the time was right for a new edition that was a wide break from 3E (like 3E was to 2nd edition). However, the debacle of the release of 3.5 was still in everyone's minds. 3.5 was a new edition that wasn't really a new edition. It was too close to 3E to really give D&D a new direction, but it was different enough that using 3E materials in 3.5 was a significant headache. It was so close to 3E that everyone was still getting used to 3E.

Finally, 3.5 had something pretty unique about it that other editions didn't. Those of you who have collected all the editions heavily, take a look at your collections of official D&D material. Almost every major release of 3.5 was a hardback book.

OD&D was pamphlets. AD&D had some hardbacks, but was mostly modules. 2nd edtion also had some hardbacks, but a lot more trade paperbacks mixed with box sets. 3E was also largely trade paperbacks. 3.5 had a huge number of hardbacks.

Hardbacks take up a lot of space. It was especially noticeable given the number of hardbacks that were released. They even dwarf the box sets of the 2nd edition era in amount of space.

A lot of people looked at the amount of space their 3.5 books took up, realized how much they had spent, and decided they weren't interested in changing to a new edition. They were already against the new edition, and some probably even hoped it was something they wouldn't miss.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I'm not saying people are lying. I am however, saying that the reader filters people have are perhaps coloring their memories. Again, I've asked twice for actual quotes from blogs or books that were insulting. We've gotten two quotes, both of which, when placed within their proper context, aren't all that insulting at all.

I'm sorry if providing both sides of a discussion, and then taking one side is insulting to you, but, again, from any sort of objective standpoint, they really aren't.

It's become this oft repeated point that WOTC was constantly bashing 3e. Yet, when I ask for proof of this, all I get are cricket sounds. Sure, one single presentation at Gen Con? That's your entire proof?

Heck, it's like the terms of use at Gleemax. People were up in arms that WOTC was trying to steal their work. Yet, when it was pointed out that pretty much every corporate online forum, like say, Science Fiction Book Club, that features lots of ties to published works, have almost word for word exactly the same terms of use, it didn't matter. WOTC was still a bunch of evil bastards trying to steal hard working fans work.

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.

Check Dungeon adventures. Nothing there reminds of fairies and rings. It's all about PEW PEW PEW kill & loot.

Everything that isn't combat is pushed to DMs, like, "we only want combat, if you want silly RP games figure out yourself." Fantastic system, horrible fluff, IMHO.

BTW, I never used page 42 and I'll never will.

As always: not a 4E basher, check sig, my problem remains with 4E fluff and ideas.

Look at print Dungeon adventures. Find me five adventures that are not almost solely focused on killing/looting. I've got most of the last two years of print Dungeon, plus a smattering of earlier magazines. Yet, surprisingly, almost every single adventure is kill and loot.

But, for some reason, it's WRONG when WOTC does it. Find me a fairy rings, RP heavy module from, say, Goodman Games. Or anyone else for that matter.

It absolutely blows my mind that anyone would argue that official, or at least published, D&D is not combat heavy kill and loot. Compare the number of splat books that are pretty much nothing but power ups (or at least power sideways) for characters to the number of crunch-less supplements. If the ratio is not at least 10:1, I'll eat my hat.

But, when James Wyatt points out this very obvious fact, he's trashing people's play styles? He's just supposed to close his eyes to the truth? Come on. Saying that D&D is about combat and killing monsters is not trashing anyone's playstyles, it's bloody basic fact.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

This is evidence for Hussar's point. You based your decision on just these 23 words, while apparently ignoring the other words around them, which when taken as a whole provide a pretty balanced viewpoint and include some words that explicitly agree with your likes.

It would be rude of me to just shrug and say 'so?' But really, that is what I feel, in a nutshell. It took Wyatt twenty three words to tell me that something that I like a good deal more than frikkin' combat was not what the game was about.

So I took him at his word, and stuck with games that did not have designers that told me what I want to play is not what the game is about.

I did not ignore the words around them, but those words did not in any way, shape, or form make 4e sound like a game that I wanted to play, and certainly not one that I wanted to pay $20 for what amounted to an advertisement. He convinced me that the game was all about combat, which was what he was trying to do. He felt that it was a good thing, I felt otherwise. While those twenty three words were what touched the spark the rest of that book just fanned the flames.

He did a very good job of convincing me not to spend money on his game, and later to spend money on the competition. (Okay, that's a lie - the Pathfinder adventure paths, in particular Curse of the Crimson Throne, convinced me that Paizo was producing a game that was much closer to what I wanted to play, even if it didn't involve traipsing through faerie rings to interact with the little people. Yet. )

Taken in context they were insulting, and I was insulted. No coloring of memories needed - I am still as angry about it now as I was then.

The Auld Grump

 

[Vigilance]

Really? i would think the worst thing that you could get in a new edition is a set of rules nobody understands or wants.

Personally, as one left behind by 4e, I would have preferred a little more respect for some of the history of the game.

Look, 4e isn't for me either. As I stated before, I'm running OSRIC right now.

But I also don't think 4e is doing anything different from previous editions. In fact, I have a hard time even wrapping my head around the statement "respect for the history of the game".

OD&D had three classes.

AD&D increased that number several fold and radically altered how combat worked, as well as tripling the number of alignments, changing how multi-classing worked, etc etc.

BD&D had a completely different class structure, with race as class.

2e added a skill system, specialist wizards, specialist priests, a weird pseudo-PrC (kits) and went even weirder in its final days (skills and powers, tome of magic).

3e changed how the classes worked on almost every level, added a completely NEW skill system (totally different from the totally different system 2e had), fundamentally changed how divine magic worked (remember- 3e completely restructured the cleric and druid spell list into 9 level lists).

And so 4e is a huge break from the past. Like every edition of D&D.

So really, I don't see 4e as doing anything all that new. It's a radical change. Just like every edition of D&D.

 

[Imban]

Look, 4e isn't for me either. As I stated before, I'm running OSRIC right now.

But I also don't think 4e is doing anything different from previous editions. In fact, I have a hard time even wrapping my head around the statement "respect for the history of the game".

OD&D had three classes.

AD&D increased that number several fold and radically altered how combat worked, as well as tripling the number of alignments, changing how multi-classing worked, etc etc.

This always gets my goat, because it's not like all of those classes weren't in the very first splatbooks for D&D ever. Yes, the VERY FIRST RELEASE was very different, but by the time you got to AD&D you had every class represented. Also multiclassing worked the same as of Greyhawk, etc. etc.

Alignments are kind of weird, because even from the OD&D corebooks it's impossible to argue LG, LE, NG, NE, CG, and CE didn't exist, it's just that the players were assumed to be playing good guys. See, for instance, how the spell list specifically calls out "evil" priests.

So changes between (OD&D + the print supplements) to AD&D were rather minor. Changes between AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e, on the other hand...

2e added a skill system, specialist wizards, specialist priests, a weird pseudo-PrC (kits) and went even weirder in its final days (skills and powers, tome of magic).

...were all basically minor additions or subtractions, rather than a complete reworking of the game from basic principles. Oh, and the Illusionist had existed since OD&D, too, when it was in the Strategic Review.

3e changed how the classes worked on almost every level, added a completely NEW skill system (totally different from the totally different system 2e had), fundamentally changed how divine magic worked (remember- 3e completely restructured the cleric and druid spell list into 9 level lists).

And so 4e is a huge break from the past. Like every edition of D&D.

So really, I don't see 4e as doing anything all that new. It's a radical change. Just like every edition of D&D.

Nope. Only 2e -> 3e and 3e -> 4e have been radical changes. With the notable exception of the Immortals rules for Basic D&D, I will look at you like a lunatic if you tell me you're playing a pre-3e version by the book and it's radically different from any other pre-3e version by the book.

 

[Vigilance]

Nope. Only 2e -> 3e and 3e -> 4e have been radical changes. With the notable exception of the Immortals rules for Basic D&D, I will look at you like a lunatic if you tell me you're playing a pre-3e version by the book and it's radically different from any other pre-3e version by the book.

I guess.

Yes, you had the supplements for OD&D, but many people didn't use them.

AD&D made those additions core, plus a bunch of other stuff, and left a significant portion of its audience behind, trading it for a new audience.

I also don't see the changes between 1e and 2e minor at all. Completely changing how the Illusionist and Bard worked, getting rid of classes and races wholesale (something 4e is frequently criticized for) etc.

Also, I have literally heard every complaint made about 4e before in previous edition changes. Too video gamey? check. Not backwards compatible? check. Not consistent with the game's history and traditions? double check.

So for 4e to be this completely unprecedented thing, you have to believe that people have said this about every new edition and been wrong every time.

Except now.

But let's just assume I am willing to cede all your points about OD&D-2e.

Even if that's true, it's really hard to argue 4e dumped the "traditions" or "history" of D&D, when 3e had already done that.

 

[Imban]

Even if that's true, it's really hard to argue 4e dumped the "traditions" or "history" of D&D, when 3e had already done that.

Personally the only bit about it I found "unprecedented" was that 4e dumped the "story" traditions wholesale too, whereas it was to a minimum between other editions.

I mean, if you want me to tell you that 3e is a completely different game from 2e, I'll gladly do that. Because it is.

 

[Erik Mona]

I think it's funny, though Bytopia is obviously the Elemental Plane of Rush Fans. To each is own, but the profusion of stuff in the Great Wheel --at the intersection the Para-elemental Planes of Salt, Smoke, and Tasty Peppers lies the Para-Elemental Demi-Plane of Paprika-- always struck me as a cosmology designed by a group of undergraduate engineering students sharing their first joint, which is to say, LIKE ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE ORIGINAL AD&D RULES.

There, fixed that for you.

--Erik