Kramodlog
Naked and living in a barrel
If you want to make this about semantics, this part is over.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.
Yes.Really?
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".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?
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.
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.Just what exactly were their customers demanding when they weren't buying The Book of Nine Swords? Hmm?
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.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"?
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.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!
Many tables were already playing 3e before it was published!? Where did you read that?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.
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.The SAME exact way they didn't KNOW how 4E's design was going to be received.
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.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.
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)?So no... they didn't "turn their back" on their fans... because that implies they deliberately acted against the known wishes of their audience.
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.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.
*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.
Last edited: