Scott Thorne, a retailer, comments on recent events

[shadzar]

I seem to remember something funny with the timing....was it that at WinterCon they denied that 4E was coming out yet, and said that the next edition wouldn't be announced at Gen Con? Then they turned around and announced it at Gen Con a few months later?

4dventure webpage was on WotC site in August 2007 with the countdown sometime in that month if that helps any.

Have to find my screenshot if i still have it to check the creation date for the 00:00:01 on the countdown, because I tried to catch it before it changed, but the page didn't change right away and still left people hanging in limbo.

 

[Shemeska]

While "Essentials" in of itself was not the literal plan we were given, the plan of having callback products to bring back in older gamers was in the original plan, and the timing coincided perfectly with when Essentials - a series of callback products to bring back older gamers - was released.

But weren't they produced to bring in a big new crowd of D&D noobies to expand the 4e player base, providing a concise set of evergreen products to keep the new people flowing in? Or wait, was it not that at all but to attract back the players that never converted to 4e in the first place? Or maybe it was indeed the first one... this keeps switching back and forth. A lot. Mixed signals both from WotC's marketing and online apologists alike.

It came across to me as an abrupt mid-course change in plans that was never part of a grand business scheme, but instead was necessitated by both changes in staff and a response to market share for 4e. IMO.

 

[shadzar]

But weren't they produced to bring in a big new crowd of D&D noobies to expand the 4e player base, providing a concise set of evergreen products to keep the new people flowing in? Or wait, was it not that at all but to attract back the players that never converted to 4e in the first place? Or maybe it was indeed the first one... this keeps switching back and forth. A lot. Mixed signals both from WotC's marketing and online apologists alike.

It came across to me as an abrupt mid-course change in plans that was never part of a grand business scheme, but instead was necessitated by both changes in staff and a response to market share for 4e. IMO.

Wait...what? I thought Essentials was just to fix the rules, not get new players, or draw old ones that left back in?

So much deception.

 

[Piratecat]

Wait...what? I thought Essentials was just to fix the rules, not get new players, or draw old ones that left back in?

Surely WotC has never said that, have they? That's a good description of 3.5, but from the beginning Essentials has been tailor made to woo back lost customers and attract new players. I'd be surprised if anyone claimed otherwise.

Cirno's correct that Essentials and 3.5 are very different beasts. They clearly learned from the complaints surrounding 3.5; I really like that Essentials classes can be played alongside regular 4e classes. It doesn't have much of an impact on my game either way.

 

[shadzar]

Surely WotC has never said that, have they? That's a good description of 3.5, but from the beginning Essentials has been tailor made to woo back lost customers and attract new players. I'd be surprised if anyone claimed otherwise.

Cirno's correct that Essentials and 3.5 are very different beasts. They clearly learned from the complaints surrounding 3.5; I really like that Essentials classes can be played alongside regular 4e classes. It doesn't have much of an impact on my game either way.

It was a play on logic, since Essentials can do both the other things, those persons would consider 4th editions rules were fixed, it it brought them back into the fold.

Could you not see new players joining 4th with Essentials, as well as it bringing back the older edition players who see Essentials and think "they fixed those rules!'

 

[BryonD]

Cirno's correct that Essentials and 3.5 are very different beasts.

The comparisons between Essentials and 3.5 remind me of the comparisons between WOW and 4E.

There are enough points in common that the case can easily be made.

But there are enough points of distinction that the case doesn't stand up to serious inspection.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd say the strength of any comparison depends upon the point you're trying to make.

...and that the more you scrutinize the comparison, the less it coheres- such is the nature of the beast.

 

[BryonD]

Agreed. If you are focusing on one of the points of commonality then it is fine.

But it seems 99% of the debates are about one blind man describing the elephant.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

But weren't they produced to bring in a big new crowd of D&D noobies to expand the 4e player base, providing a concise set of evergreen products to keep the new people flowing in? Or wait, was it not that at all but to attract back the players that never converted to 4e in the first place? Or maybe it was indeed the first one... this keeps switching back and forth. A lot. Mixed signals both from WotC's marketing and online apologists alike.

It came across to me as an abrupt mid-course change in plans that was never part of a grand business scheme, but instead was necessitated by both changes in staff and a response to market share for 4e. IMO.

No.

There's never been mixed signals. The product is designed to bring in both a new crowd and to bring in the older players because every product is designed to bring in new people. That's not mixed signals, that's appealing to multiple crowds.

And can we not use "online apologists?" It really doesn't further the conversation.

Wait...what? I thought Essentials was just to fix the rules, not get new players, or draw old ones that left back in?

So much deception.

Essentials was never to "fix the rules." Again, the only people that have claimed this are those that don't play 4e and, even more likely, didn't listen to the actual changes in Essentials (of which there are zero). Simply put, Essentials can't be there to fix the rules, as no rules are changed.

Here's the big problem WotC faced - regardless of what they put out, it was going to be claimed as 4.5. Period. The day 4e came out, people were claiming that 4.5 would be just around the corner, and by god did we see a lot of threads wondering when it would come. Essentials didn't change any rules at all and is in no way similar to 3.5, but it's "different" enough to, on a very superficial level, make a connection.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...but it's "different" enough to, on a very superficial level, make a connection.

And for those people whose narrative is to continually claim that Wizards of the Coast is a horrible company and 4th edition is a horrible game... that's all the sliver of a connection they unfortunately need.