thecasualoblivion
First Post
A lot of anecdotal reports said that people were getting shouted down for that sort of thing.
On the marketing of 4E
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
A lot of anecdotal reports said that people were getting shouted down for that sort of thing.
This is what happened to me, too -- I really *WANTED* to love 4E, because I felt it *was* time for a new, revised edition. However, ever since the silly videos with French guys mocking 3E and the first comments ("Cool! I'm going for sword-and-board myself!"), I felt my intelligence being constantly insulted by their marketing. Not only that, but I felt irritated at the constant use of 'More Fun' and 'More Cool' in forum posts (the few they posted), blogs and previews, combined with repeated trashing of 3E. I even remember one of the designers claiming they couldn't remember how a certain mechanic worked in 3E anymore, because the mechanic is so much better and intuitive in 4E; when they were reminded by another designer, they laughed how silly it is in 3E (and this took place just as the 'Rules Compendium' was coming out, and this designer worked on the book). Shortly put, I felt like they told that my own judgement and sense of what constitutes as fun for me was "wrong", and the edition I had enjoyed (and many of those books had been written by these same guys) had not been "fun" at all.
So, I, too, think they blundered pretty badly at marketing; all that affected my own perception of the actual mechanics. When the previews started coming in, I already had a very negative image of 4E. It didn't help, of course, that 4E turned out to be a game that just didn't fit my own group's taste; it had some nice ideas, but I felt disappointed at realizing that no matter how I tried to spin it, I didn't want to run it. Would a more positive image have affected this? No, not really; but I know guys who canceled their pre-orders when they felt they had had "enough" (if I had had a more positive image, I *might* have bought 'KotS' so we could have tried the preview rules, but I doubt I would have bought the core rules anyway).
I think WoTC could learn a lot from Paizo, i.e. how to establish a positive and good rapport with the fans and how to market a new edition/game in a more positive way. Not only did the Paizo staff constantly communicate with the fans during the playtest process of the Pathfinder RPG, it's a general policy on their forums (unlike during the 4E design and the closed playtesting process; 4E designers posted on an irregular basis in their blogs, but didn't post on the forums at all -- in fact, I think they still post more often over here than on their own forums). For me, as a customer, this means a *LOT*; I feel like I'm getting truly first-class customer service when the Lead Designer, Editor-in-Chied or CEO replies to my question on saturday night.
Gothmog
First Post
Ferratus, you've got to stop being so damned reasonable. This is the internets after all.
And you're right about the 2e vs. 3e comparisons. I specifically remember seeing columns in Dragon stating THAC0 was terrible and unintuitive, how all classes should use the same XP progression, that multiclassing was broken, that magic item distribution was too reliant on GM generosity, that it was inconsistent that there weren't step-by-step guidelines for caster PCs to make any magic item they wanted, that it was silly monsters and PCs didn't use the same rules, etc.
For what its worth, 4e is quite a bit different from the previous edition, but I think its fair to also say it has improved on the groundwork 3.x laid. Over the last few years 3.5 was being produced, WotC was trying new mechanics in books, taking note of lots of conversations on internet forums, seminar discussions at cons, and requests of players and fans about issues 3.x had. Some of the more prominent ones I remember seeing discussed were:
* magic item Christmas tree
* multiclass spellcasters being weak (usually in the context that their spell DCs were subpar, or their casting level was negatively impacted)
* rapid outscaling of attack bonuses vs. defenses, or skill bonuses vs. DCs
* "rocket tag" combats that were too swingy
* the dedicated healer character being marginalized as a support character
* out of control buffing (see Codzilla)
* non-intuitive/clunky XP system design for encounters
* power disparity between casters and non-casters
* grappling rules (shudder)
* turn undead
* wonky math at level 10+ in 3.x
* "traps" in the system (weak feats, PrCs, etc)
* rogues being largely useless vs. undead and constructs
* lack of meaningful options in combat for non-caster classes
* DM workload
* lack of good computer tools for playing/running the game
* overly complex monster stat blocks, which paradoxically also had little mechanical differentiation between monsters
...just to name a few. I'm sure I've left out others that have slipped my mind right now. Many, many players complained about these very issues, and even Pathfinder has tried to correct some of these that were very disruptive (although the core of the 3.x system precludes fixing some of these).
The thing is, all of those issues were addressed by 4e, and were objectively improved based on player feedback. Thats a fact. None of those topics listed above are an issue anymore in 4e.
Now, you might not agree that some of those things needed to be changed, which is fine. And obviously the changes in fluff are completely subjective as far as improvement goes. But it cannot be denied that the issues listed above that many people had problems with were addressed and "fixed" in 4e. In that regard, 4e is an evolution and improvement of the 3.x system.
I truly think the designers thought that most folks had problems with these issues, and saw their solutions to them as improvements, and were very excited about what they had come up with. From some conversations of the folks at WotC, I don't think any of them meant any disrespect towards any of their fans, and I think many of them were shocked and dismayed that people reacted in such a volatile manner. Yes, they used some sarcasm in their ad campaign (FWIW, I thought the video making fun of 3.5 grappling the troll was funny, although the faux French guy was annoying), and while some of their comments were said with the intent of being funny (with varying degrees of success), people viewed the upcoming 4e in different ways. Some folks just didn't like some of the changes being made, but kept a cool head and simply disagreed with the new design direction. Other people were opposed to any changes at all, took it as a personal attack, wanted to be upset no matter what, and grasped at any opportunity to vent their frustrations/nerdrage. Things went out of control from there, and now we have the edition wars.
4e does have its own set of issues and peculiarities, which I'm sure a 5th edition will attempt to deal with. By no means is 4e perfect, but it DID solve a lot of issues and built-in flaws that the 3.x system had at its core.
Last edited:
Craft skills are lame, talking to villagers is lame, lawful good paladins are lame, aasimar are lame, gnomes are lame, the Great Wheel is lame.
Consequently, they sure did take a lot of time out of their day to correct me on what I'm supposed to think is more cool and more fun.
A lot of people, both 4e fans and not, felt talked down to from their marketing. For all they "We're gamers just like yourself!" stuff that was going on, the marketing took a very high and mighty "We know what's best" approch.
Lastly, those two things of "Here, pay for our designer notes" that they released sold me off of a game faster then anything else could have.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
Depends on your perspective. Aside from the fact that I'd say talking to villagers is something I don't need rules for and Paladins being Lawful Good only doesn't really fit in a non-christian pagan universe(as well as being annoying in the hands of jerk players), I agree with all of those. My response to them when they were posted was "damn straight!"
Your response to quotes like that is based on your own prejudices.
Uh, yeah.
I didn't say WotC are jerks who kick sand into peoples' eyes. I said that their marketing insulted me.
You just sorta said "Well, maybe that's insulting to you, but I agreed. Your response is based purely on you having been insulted."
...Which was sort of what I was getting at.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
They weren't speaking to insult you though. They were speaking to people who thought that Craft skills were lame, who thought that you didn't need rules for talking to villagers, people who'd like Paladins to be able to follow any divine ethos, who thought aasimar are boring as dirt(especially compared to Tieflings), people who thought Gnomes were silly things that nobody played whose space in the PHB was better used by a race people would actually use, and who thought the Great Wheel was silly.
They were trying to appeal to people who weren't you.
Imaro
Legend
I thought they were trying to appeal to the (then) current market of D&D consumers? How is it not insulting, in the same way many 4e fans find it insulting when 3e fans list off what they feel is unnecessary/silly/unimportant/etc. about 4e and it's fans get in an uproar... I mean you could argue... "they're not trying to appeal to fans of 4e... but just people who like what they like" however does that change the fat they are putting certain things about 4e down and/or how you feel about that?
The Little Raven
First Post
It's statements like this that pisses off 4e fans, because you're implying that if you like 4e, you didn't like previous editions of D&D, when the majority of 4e fans are players of previous editions. It's dismissive and condescending.
ProfessorCirno said:
That's how some 2e fans I knew felt about 3e's marketing.
Similar Threads
