Resistance is futile

[DaveMage]

Here's a prophecy for you: 4e is doomed.

Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but within 5 or 6 years, when they decide they've milked all they can from the current version and it's time for another reboot to sell the same stuff all over again.

At least 3.x has the OGL to give it some life after the fact.

This.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Nerd fight! Fighting nerds! We don't use guns, we use words! Nerds, nerds, nerds, nerds, nerds!

Why are both sides so polarized? Because this is Dungeons and Dragons. Of COURSE we're going to be polarized over it! This damn game is the first thing that comes into most people's heads when they think of tabletop.

To put it another way...ever seen two Star Trek fans start arguing? HOoooh boy, it's not pretty.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

...ever seen two Star Trek fans start arguing? HOoooh boy, it's not pretty.

Next Generation sucks!
*hides under tin helmet* hehe

 

[Heselbine]

Maybe you'd come off less derogatory if you weren't assigning negative zealotry solely to the 3e fanbase.

But that's because I'm right and they're wrong.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I am wondering whether the religious analogy holds water to some extent. In the same way that some people's lives are completely invested in their religion, and you can't argue rationally with them, I wonder whether some reluctance to change to 4e is simply down to investment in 3e.

Well, since you are wondering, the answer is no, the religious analogy doesn't hold water. A more apt analogy would be the kinds of entertainment people enjoy. Music, TV and so on. People do not like having things they enjoy discontinued, insulted, and replaced with inferior versions, especially when those inferior versions are using the name of the thing they replaced.

Guns n' Roses is my favorite analogy: Axl can fire the entire band, decide that GnR needs to sound more like NIN than like GnR, go through several lineup changes, and still apply the GnR name to whatever band he comes up with next.

New Coke also works as an analogy here.

Brand identity is a powerful thing. To try to capitalize on that brand identity to sell your new product, when it appears you have no respect for the qualities that made that brand successful (as seen by the 4E's team relentless bashing of 3E and earlier editions), is cynical and insulting. I'd like to have seen the 4E team release their idea of a fantasy RPG as a brand new game and see if its mechanics were good enough to dethrone D&D. And I'd like to see Axl release his new album without the GnR name. But in either case, the brand name is just too lucrative and trying to succeed on your own merits too risky. If you have the rights to the brand name, you're going to use it.

 

[Heselbine]

Well, since you are wondering, the answer is no, the religious analogy doesn't hold water. A more apt analogy would be the kinds of entertainment people enjoy. Music, TV and so on. People do not like having things they enjoy discontinued, insulted, and replaced with inferior versions, especially when those inferior versions are using the name of the thing they replaced.

Guns n' Roses is my favorite analogy: Axl can fire the entire band, decide that GnR needs to sound more like NIN than like GnR, go through several lineup changes, and still apply the GnR name to whatever band he comes up with next.

New Coke also works as an analogy here.

Brand identity is a powerful thing. To try to capitalize on that brand identity to sell your new product, when it appears you have no respect for the qualities that made that brand successful (as seen by the 4E's team relentless bashing of 3E and earlier editions), is cynical and insulting. I'd like to have seen the 4E team release their idea of a fantasy RPG as a brand new game and see if its mechanics were good enough to dethrone D&D. And I'd like to see Axl release his new album without the GnR name. But in either case, the brand name is just too lucrative and trying to succeed on your own merits too risky. If you have the rights to the brand name, you're going to use it.

I think I'll put you down as a believer.

Of course, the other reason why 4e zealots are different from 3e zealots is that 4e zealots pretty much all used to be 3e zealots, but they were able to adapt when things changed.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think I'll put you down as a believer.

Of course, the other reason why 4e zealots are different from 3e zealots is that 4e zealots pretty much all used to be 3e zealots, but they were able to adapt when things changed.

Or are we just betraying our old ideals?

Mustrum "Mask of the Betrayer" Ridcully

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Of course, the other reason why 4e zealots are different from 3e zealots is that 4e zealots pretty much all used to be 3e zealots, but they were able to adapt when things changed.

This is something that strikes me as very true.

During the 3e news cycle (pre-release) I was incredibly excited by what I was hearing, and when 3e came out I triumphed it as a much better system. Still do, compared to 2e.

However, my experiences with playing it and running it over several years led me to believe that the way 4e works is better for me. Furthermore, it leads me to believe that 4e is a better game, and that it will become the standard D&D game.

I agree that brand identity is a very powerful thing, and I think that WotC are doing a good job with the brand at the moment.

I, unfortunately, agree with Heselbine that Paizo have made the wrong decision in creating something that is neither 4e nor 3.x, and will suffer poor sales because of it. I believe this based on the idea that fan clamour often doesn't produce as much return as the fans think it will - see the film Serenity for example (huge fan clamour for it to be made, yet it lost money as not enough people went to see it).

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I think I'll put you down as a believer.

Of course, the other reason why 4e zealots are different from 3e zealots is that 4e zealots pretty much all used to be 3e zealots, but they were able to adapt when things changed.

Here's what changed: one game company released a new fantasy RPG. I already knew that I disliked much of this design team's earlier work and game mechanics that were tested out in another system. So why is NOT switching to this new game indicative of failure to adapt? Why is switching to a newly released RPG the default assumption?

If a non-WotC company released a new game, would you assume that the default position for gamers would be to try it? Probably not. Dozens of RPGs have been released since 3E came out, and I don't recall that many threads like "Are you switching to C&C"? I don't think you viewed gamers staying with 3E at that time as "failing to adapt." But 4E has the D&D name on it, so should we be good little brand loyalists and go along with it?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Here's what changed: one game company released a new fantasy RPG. I already knew that I disliked much of this design team's earlier work and game mechanics that were tested out in another system. So why is NOT switching to this new game indicative of failure to adapt? Why is switching to a newly released RPG the default assumption?

If a non-WotC company released a new game, would you assume that the default position for gamers would be to try it? Probably not. Dozens of RPGs have been released since 3E came out, and I don't recall that many threads like "Are you switching to C&C"? I don't think you viewed gamers staying with 3E at that time as "failing to adapt." But 4E has the D&D name on it, so should we be good little brand loyalists and go along with it?

I also don't see people saying "C&C is like a video-game" or "C&C is not a real role-playing game".

Something is different. I guess it must have to do with the fact that "Edition Wars" are more "interesting" then general "Game System Wars".
It must have something to with the mix of the feeling "I don't want to be left behind" and "Oh, new shiny!" and a multitude of variations and in-betweens.

Mustrum "Oh, new shiny" Ridcully

PS: Speaking only for myself, but if a non-WotC company with some of the current or former designers of WotC (most notably Mike Mearls or Monte Cook), you can bet I would have defaulted to look. It is still a kind of "brand" or name-recognition thing, though. I picked up Warhammer FRPG, 2nd Edition and found it satisfying. I tried Das Schwarze Auge (4th edition?) again and I still don't like it.