Sequels to Successes

[Dausuul]

I'm definitely not a 4e-hater. But I gotta agree with the gist of the OP.

Since it's announcement, the 4e team has flat out ridiculed many aspects of older editions (grappling, having nothing to do in combat, etc).

And I agree that's just short-sighted marketing.

While it was enough to perk up the ears of lapsed DMs such as myself -- who were turned off by the bookkeeping of 3e, I gotta admit I cringe every time I hear them talk down 3e.

I have never yet heard any 4E team member "talking down 3E." I have heard many, many 4E team members describe 3E as a good game with flaws. Not one, to my knowledge, has called 3E a "hopelessly flawed and broken system," nor any equivalent.

Yes, they ridicule, for example, the grapple rules. You know why? Because the grapple rules are ridiculous. There's a difference between criticizing 3E's warts and criticizing 3E as a whole. The 4E team does plenty of the former, which isn't surprising, since finding and clearing up those warts was their job. They don't do the latter.

 

[occam]

I'm no expert on the New Coke debacle, but that's not how I remember it at the time, nor when I studied the Harvard Buseinss School case study while getting my MBA. The focus groups did give it positive reviews, but it was not the huge sucess you're suggesting. Pretty much immediately after it came out there were large vocal protests (not rioting in the streets or anything, but for a soft drink, pretty vocal). I remember trying New Coke the first week it came out and thought it tasted awful, as did most of my family and friends.

I was going to make almost the very same post. I remember New Coke fizzling right from the start, and almost no one I knew liked it. "I want Coke! If I wanted to drink Pepsi, I'd drink Pepsi!" was a common refrain.

 

[smathis]

I have never yet heard any 4E team member "talking down 3E." I have heard many, many 4E team members describe 3E as a good game with flaws. Not one, to my knowledge, has called 3E a "hopelessly flawed and broken system," nor any equivalent.

Yes, they ridicule, for example, the grapple rules. You know why? Because the grapple rules are ridiculous. There's a difference between criticizing 3E's warts and criticizing 3E as a whole. The 4E team does plenty of the former, which isn't surprising, since finding and clearing up those warts was their job. They don't do the latter.

Fair enough. Perhaps my wording came across too strongly in that post.

I tend to see some of the developer's comments as aimed at 3e as a whole. For example, a large portion of Bill S' speech announcing 4e and the youtube video where the chronology of D&D was presented.

But that can be a difference of opinion.

Not that I didn't find the criticisms warranted (grapple) or humorous (which mini is mine?). But the overall tone of some of the commentary comparing 3e to 4e has given me the impression I expressed in the earlier post.

Some people are more sensitive to that sort of thing than others. If I was a "Pry-3e-From-My-Cold-Dead-Hands" kind of guy, I could see how the general tone of the 4e marketing (as regards 3e) might be offputting.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, they ridicule, for example, the grapple rules. You know why? Because the grapple rules are ridiculous. There's a difference between criticizing 3E's warts and criticizing 3E as a whole.

Right, but are grapple rules $300/year ridiculous? Even when combined with the other fiddly bits that 4e is improving, do the rules add up to that much of an improvement?

Telling someone who is has never particularly noticed a problem with grappling rules that the grappling rules suck like it should be self-evident is shooting yourself in the foot: 3e grappling rules obviously weren't so horrible that it stopped the edition from becoming successful, so how much value do new grappling rules really add? And if those rules have their own problems (as 4e undoubtedly will)? And if you're trading between playing your favorite half-orc druid character and new grapple rules? Or even if you're just trading $90 for new grapple rules? Really? Especially with the 3e supplements that exist to make grappling easier?

It's a matter of diminishing returns. If 3e is already "good enough," then saying "4e is better!" isn't going to get anyone on board. Sure, New Coke tasted "better" (according to the taste tests). Sure, Vista is a more powerful operating system. But so what? Sure, 4e might have better grappling rules (though, again, that's one of those places where 4e rules might not really be "better" so much as "bad in a different way"). Is it worth giving up what you already have to get?

I'm pretty sure that D&D could re-package the FATAL rulebooks, call it D&D 4e, get some WAR art, and sell like gangbusters (though not everyone would be on board). "Fixing The Other Edition's Problems" is not going to sell D&D to the people who don't have any problems with the other edition, and is more likely to turn them off: "Well, none of these were really problems for me, and I like gnomes, so I guess 4e isn't for me."

By decrying the grapple rules, you alienate those people who had no real problem with the grappling rules. For perhaps a more pointed example, by ejecting gnomes from the PH and claiming "They had no niche!" you alienate all those poeple who found or made or realized a niche for gnomes, but don't have a niche for, say, Eladrin, or Tieflings, in their game. The more this happens, the more things people see that they disagree with (because they LIKED 3e, and continue to enjoy it), the more you've failed to retain those 3e fans.

For my personal experience, I know 3e won me over with the possibilities it offered. I was a 2e player, a big PS fan who invested a lot in the edition, but in 3e, I could be a dwarven paladin, or an elven sorcerer with spontaneous magic, and as a DM I could have my party fight goblin rogues without adding up a laundry list of odd rules and XP additives, and I could have my priest of the God of Fire be equal to any other cleric out there without delving into wierd special powers, and I could be a wizard who learned to use a sword and could train in stealth, and OH THE POSSIBILITIES! Stuff that, to do in 2e, would have required a lot of DM legwork, but that I've always kind of wanted to do.

As a 3e player, a big fan who has invested a lot in the edition, there are decidedly less points of possibility looming in 4e. I could be a...dragonborn warlord? I've never really wanted to do that. And now I can't be a gnome fighter without some sort of special arrangement? And my priest of the God of Fire...I don't know how he's going to stack up against other clerics. As a DM, there's a few more interesting possibilities: more skill-based encounters, longer adventuring days, "boss" monsters, but those aren't totally new and exciting, more refinements of what I was doing already. Which I'm not entirely sure I need, y'know? And I'm not totally sold on the bigger, more mobile combats thing, but even if I was, that's still nothin' NEW.

Oddly, the most exciting thing I've seen about 4e are the gods. Those seem pretty new and exciting. The monster types also have me intrigued, because I like the granularity of there being a difference between Kobold Boogermasters and Kobold Snotflingers.

Like many people who are satisfied with windows XP or Coke Classic or last year's shoes or blue jeans or the first version of the Star Wars movies, the "improvement" of the next new hot thing is pointless to me at best, and insulting to me at worst. If it can give me something NEW, we might have a deal.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

New Coke was better in "sip tests" just like pepsi.
Full glass tests showed that COke-dRINKER LIKE THE aCIDIT HULK SMASH PUNY KLEYBORDE!!!!

 

[The Little Raven]

3e never sold close to AD&D 1e.

Proof?

There are statements by Charles Ryan, when he was Brand Manager, back in 2003-2004, stating that they sold more PHBs (number one seller in every edition of D&D) each year than they did during the 1980s (when D&D was at it's "peak"). Having been able to see TSR's numbers as well as Wizards' numbers, he had the facts.

 

[A'koss]

Proof?

There are statements by Charles Ryan, when he was Brand Manager, back in 2003-2004, stating that they sold more PHBs (number one seller in every edition of D&D) each year than they did during the 1980s (when D&D was at it's "peak"). Having been able to see TSR's numbers as well as Wizards' numbers, he had the facts.

Where did you hear this? In fact, I recall hearing the exact opposite from people working at WotC...

 

[The Little Raven]

Where did you hear this? In fact, I recall hearing the exact opposite from people working at WotC...

GameSpy article on D&D history from a few years back, with quotes from Charles Ryan.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Heh. Yeah, that. Well put!

"But trust us, it'll be awesome."

-The Gneech

Seconded. (Or thirded, rather). I, for one, ran out the day the 4e preview books were available and bought them. And I thought they were fantastic books, for the most part. But I very quickly became irritated with their childish, near-constant use of the words "cool" and "fun". :\

But the artwork was amazing.

 

[Lanefan]

All the previous editions have been playable; no doubt 4e will be as well.

The bigger question is, will 4e capture the imagination (as 1e did mine and 3e seems to have done with many others here) of enough players to make it go. If yes, then it's a success. If no, then it fails. And that's where marketing comes in.

So far, the 4e artwork is doing a fine job of capturing the imagination and spirit of what a fantasy RPG *can* be. Good marketing there. The hard rules released so far, not so much...

Lanefan