D&D 5E Reasons Why My Interest in 5e is Waning

[Kramodlog]

Many people did embrace the change. Many people didn't. "Many" is not synonymous with "more than 50%"... so many people can like *and* dislike something. Thus, my statement isn't contradictory at all.

If you want to make this about semantics, this part is over.

Really?

Yes.

In the two years they were designing 4E before it was put on the shelves and each and every 3.5 product they were releasing during that time sold less and less copies (like for example Magic of Incarnum)... they weren't listening to their customers?

Heh. First, it is interesting how words chosen are used to frame narratives. "3.5's books were selling less and less" while "4e didn't reach objectives".

But this argumentative strategy really just obfuscates the real issues. The rise of World of Warcraft and the drain it had on the RPG industry (according to Ryan Dancey), a VP of Hasbro who wanted MOAR(!) and 4e's content and the displeasure it created.

Just what exactly were their customers demanding when they weren't buying The Book of Nine Swords? Hmm?

The Tome of Battle was an experimental product. A delve into what 4e could be. I have no idea on the ToB's sells figures. WotC never shared them. If you have info, please share, cause right now you seem to invent stuff. What I do know is that it was much talked about. It was praised, but there was one critic kept returning, it lacked playtesting and needed more developement.

What was 4E supposed to look like while they were working on it? Tell me what the grand reveal of how 4E was supposed to have been designed such that they weren't going to "turn their back on their customers"?

3.75? It worked very well for Paizo, don't you think? What about a big and long public playtest, like 5e had? Seems to have turned out well.

The fact of the matter is... you NEVER know with any accuracy how a new product will be received. Guess what? 3E could have been crapped on too!

4e's problem wasn't that it was critiqued. It was that its content was terrible. If you want to be a revisionnist of sort and say that it was trolls who hurt 4e, this conversation is going no where fast.

WotC didn't know. They thought that what they were making was going to be good and that they hoped all the 2E D&D players would embrace all the changes they were making to the game to highlight ways many tables were already playing... but they didn't KNOW.

Many tables were already playing 3e before it was published!? Where did you read that?

The SAME exact way they didn't KNOW how 4E's design was going to be received.

They probed a lot of gamers before launching 3e, according to Dancey. Lots of metrics. They wanted to know what to do. What worked, what didn't. Not sure this was done with 4e. As I pointed out they focused a lot on what designers thought was good and what made their jobs easier. When Morrus* was invited to play the first playtest of 5e, he got a chance to question Mearls on the 4e playtest info they sent WotC. Mearls was evasive about what they did with the feedback.

And I think they sincerely thought that the game's evolution and most especially its "ease-of-use" would be seen as a good and cool thing.

Words used to frame narratives again. You use evolution, I use divorce. A divorce from mechanics, fluff and traditions. Considering that some podcasts had 4e's designers saying that they put a bullet in the head of a X, I'm more incline to use the word divorce. Maybe they thought a divorce was a great way to do things. I just think they were arrogant and thought brand loyalty was super strong. In others words they took fans for granted and felt they could do anything they wanted. It is a bit of an exageration, but you get the gist of it.

So no... they didn't "turn their back" on their fans... because that implies they deliberately acted against the known wishes of their audience.

Or they were just arrogant and took us for granted. The backlash sure seems to indicate that. Why was there a such strong backlash, according to you? Why the schism in fans (Mearls' words)?

Which was impossible, because all they really knew of their audience at that time was that they WEREN'T buying all that much of 3.5 anymore. 4E wasn't designed to turn off their customers... their 3.5 output at the time was already doing a wonderful job of it.

Somehow, 3.75... I mean Pathfinder's success would indicate otherwise. That 3.5 didn't meet a VP's criterias is a different animal.

*I think it was him, but it might be someone else. I remember reading the article on ENworld right after 4e was cancelled and the playtest of 5e started. It was released in January of 2012, I believe.

 

[Kramodlog]

Had the internet been as prevalent at 3e release, 3e's reception may have been very different.

Trolls sunk 4e, not its content? Really? We're still debating this?

 

[Kramodlog]

I've heard the statement elsewhere that WotC chose not to follow feedback from playtesters during the development period for 4E, but it's always been paraphrased rather than an exact quote. I'm very curious about this statement(s), and I'd like to know the original context. Can anyone point me to where this was said?

The closest I think we get is when Morrus* was invited to 5e's first secret playtest for journalists and people of the industry. In december of 2011 if I am not mistaken. He got a chance to ask Mearls a few questions and he asked about the playtest feedback he sent concerning 4e. Mearls was a evasive (from memory), but it sounded like he was saying it wasn't considered much when making 4e.


*It might not be Morrus, but I remember reading the article on ENworld.

Edit: It wasn't Morrus at all. This is the article: http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...t-WotC-showed-me-D-D-5th-Edition#.VQ79GfmG-T8

The closest line is WotC admiting they learn from the past about playtests.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Words used to frame narratives again. You use evolution, I use divorce. A divorce from mechanics, fluff and traditions. Considering that some podcasts had 4e's designers saying that they put a bullet in the head of a X, I'm more incline to use the word divorce. Maybe they thought a divorce was a great way to do things. I just think they were arrogant and thought brand loyalty was super strong. In others words they took fans for granted and felt they could do anything they wanted. It is a bit of an exageration, but you get the gist of it.

So basically, you *want* to feel like WotC was thumbing you in the eye while they were developing 4E, and it doesn't matter what anyone's individual intentions were. You need to feel like you were deliberately kicked in the shins by WotC because... you do. For some reason. Regardless of how stupid it sounds to say that WotC began their design and development with the *intention* of making sure a good number of their customers wouldn't play it. If that's the narrative you need to frame so you can feel better about WotC daring to make a game you didn't like... knock yourself out.

 

[BryonD]

So basically, you *want* to feel like WotC was thumbing you in the eye while they were developing 4E, and it doesn't matter what anyone's individual intentions were. You need to feel like you were deliberately kicked in the shins by WotC because... you do. For some reason. Regardless of how stupid it sounds to say that WotC began their design and development with the *intention* of making sure a good number of their customers wouldn't play it. If that's the narrative you need to frame so you can feel better about WotC daring to make a game you didn't like... knock yourself out.

Actually, "bullet in the head" was a phrase WotC used. I had forgotten than one.

It seems to me that you can't address the points being raised so you ask me pointless questions and then move on without every addressing the original concern, or just change the subject to slandering people who didn't like the way things actually went. This is informative.

 

[jsepeta]

Because there's no OGL, and few staff, the lack of a character creation tool will likely exist for a considerable time. 4th Edition shows how great WotC can be when they have their together -- all 3 core books available at the same time, and within a year, modules available for every character tier. With 5e, one can tell that WotC has cut too many staff and has too limited of a budget to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Nice to see they're bringing back official D&D Minis. But WizKids sells 4 random minis for ~$16. Back in the day, WotC sold 7-8 random minis for $12. So yeah, it kind of sucks now.

*

How, exactly, did 4e's content "suck"? Great adventures, well-thought-out encounters, very good-looking playmaps. The 5e books look like they're trying to be Pathfinder -- which is sad if you're the industry leader who created the fantasy roleplaying game.

 

[BryonD]

*

How, exactly, did 4e's content "suck"? Great adventures, well-thought-out encounters, very good-looking playmaps. The 5e books look like they're trying to be Pathfinder -- which is sad if you're the industry leader who created the fantasy roleplaying game.

Obviously this is the TL;DR version:

It didn't at all suck at being a great game for some people.
It sucked at being a great game for enough of the old fanbase and it sucked at creating anywhere near enough new persistent fans.
Whether or not it sucked depends on what question you are asking (and in some case who you are asking).
The bottom line is there were a lot of great reasons to love it and a lot of great reasons to .... not love it.
If you are in the business of using this to feed your family, the distribution of those reasons was not sufficiently favorable.

 

[Greg K]

Nice to see they're bringing back official D&D Minis. But WizKids sells 4 random minis for ~$16. Back in the day, WotC sold 7-8 random minis for $12. So yeah, it kind of sucks now.

As far as I am concerned, the whole collectible random minis thing sucks. Back in the day, Grenadier sold the official line of AD&D miniatures in non-randomized boxed sets with a theme (e.g., Wizards, Fighters, Specialists, Hirelings Wizard's Room, Denizens, Dwarves, Females, Dragon's Lair, Orc's Lair, etc.).

 

[Sunseeker]

As far as I am concerned, the whole collectible random minis thing sucks. Back in the day, Grenadier sold the official line of AD&D miniatures in non-randomized boxed sets with a theme (e.g., Wizards, Fighters, Specialists, Hirelings Wizard's Room, Denizens, Dwarves, Females, Dragon's Lair, Orc's Lair, etc.).

I tend to agree, but I resolve the issue by just buying second-hand through markets or ebay. Sometimes random is fun, as a long time MTG player I enjoy my share of random, but sometimes I'm just not in the mood.

 

[jsepeta]

tough to say

Difficult to compare 1978-1980 with now because back then, we didn't know we needed a DMG. Now that we have 30 years of 3 core rulebooks, we expect the DMG, the PHB, and the MM as requirements for playing the game.