Mercurius
Legend
Danny, if you're saying that WotC bungled the release and marketing of 4E, I agree. If you're saying that 4E was too far removed from "traditional" D&D, I somewhat agree. If you are saying that 4E should not have been different from traditional or 3.5 D&D, I disagree.
The main mistake that WotC made, imo, was in releasing a half-baked product, not in making 4E significantly different from 3.5; "half-baked" in that it not only still had a lot of kinks to be worked out (not to mention errata), but it seemingly wasn't playtested widely with little to no communication with fans about what 4E was going to be. It was almost as if they were either not interested in what the diehard fanbase thought and/or they were so sure that we'd like it that they wanted it to be a kind of secret present. Bad move. Sort of like not asking a family member what they want for Christmas and then getting them something you think they might want. It is a risk, even a calculated one, but with a high chance of error. And the rest is history...
But the marketing and PR is a very different issue from the quality of the game itself, which can be teased apart into (at least) two major aspects of "presentation/vibe" and "game system." A further mistake that WotC made, I think, was trying too hard to change the presentation/vibe to cater to what they thought "kids these days" were into. But in the end it was little different than a bunch of 45-year olds trying to be hip around a bunch of 20-year olds. At best it is awkwardly cute; at worst it is just embarrassing.
But the game system itself, imho of course, was a step forward from 3.5. It was (and is) actually a better game (again, imho) - a further development in the evolution of D&D. The problem is that it had huge flaws that were only partly addressed by Essentials, some of which remain.
Now it may be that 5E, such as it will be, will actually be first published digitally. If WotC plays their cards right they can release it via DDI and then get feedback and evolve the game with a kind of feedback mechanism and only publish it in paper form after a year or so of back-and-forth with the core customer base. Sort of like Pathfinder's Alpha and Beta books, but instead via DDI. Maybe "5E Alpha" can be DDI only and released over a period of time as modular options for 4E; that would also assure that it remained at least somewhat backwards compatible. "5E Beta" might come a year later as a roughish draft PDF of a proposed new Player's Handbook for DDI susbscribers, which would be published after another year of playtesting, proofreading, and customer feedback.
If WotC wants to kill two birds with one stone--get customer feedback thereby pleasing customers and make some money--then they can offer a higher tier subscription service, an "inner circle" that gives the individual an avenue of communication and feedback so they can be part of the process of playtesting and commenting on the new rules. Just imagine the advertising for this service: "Be part of the next edition of the greatest game in the world!"
The main mistake that WotC made, imo, was in releasing a half-baked product, not in making 4E significantly different from 3.5; "half-baked" in that it not only still had a lot of kinks to be worked out (not to mention errata), but it seemingly wasn't playtested widely with little to no communication with fans about what 4E was going to be. It was almost as if they were either not interested in what the diehard fanbase thought and/or they were so sure that we'd like it that they wanted it to be a kind of secret present. Bad move. Sort of like not asking a family member what they want for Christmas and then getting them something you think they might want. It is a risk, even a calculated one, but with a high chance of error. And the rest is history...
But the marketing and PR is a very different issue from the quality of the game itself, which can be teased apart into (at least) two major aspects of "presentation/vibe" and "game system." A further mistake that WotC made, I think, was trying too hard to change the presentation/vibe to cater to what they thought "kids these days" were into. But in the end it was little different than a bunch of 45-year olds trying to be hip around a bunch of 20-year olds. At best it is awkwardly cute; at worst it is just embarrassing.
But the game system itself, imho of course, was a step forward from 3.5. It was (and is) actually a better game (again, imho) - a further development in the evolution of D&D. The problem is that it had huge flaws that were only partly addressed by Essentials, some of which remain.
Now it may be that 5E, such as it will be, will actually be first published digitally. If WotC plays their cards right they can release it via DDI and then get feedback and evolve the game with a kind of feedback mechanism and only publish it in paper form after a year or so of back-and-forth with the core customer base. Sort of like Pathfinder's Alpha and Beta books, but instead via DDI. Maybe "5E Alpha" can be DDI only and released over a period of time as modular options for 4E; that would also assure that it remained at least somewhat backwards compatible. "5E Beta" might come a year later as a roughish draft PDF of a proposed new Player's Handbook for DDI susbscribers, which would be published after another year of playtesting, proofreading, and customer feedback.
If WotC wants to kill two birds with one stone--get customer feedback thereby pleasing customers and make some money--then they can offer a higher tier subscription service, an "inner circle" that gives the individual an avenue of communication and feedback so they can be part of the process of playtesting and commenting on the new rules. Just imagine the advertising for this service: "Be part of the next edition of the greatest game in the world!"
Last edited:
