Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4157416" data-attributes="member: 2067">Most people don't really complain about the new thing, they just don't buy as much of it. You'll only hear complaints on bastions of obsession like message boards. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />If you're automatically enthused for the new improved version, than you're the trufan: you'll be interested in the next thing because you liked the last thing. It's not "no matter what," but your tolerance for fiddling with what worked is high because you're attached to the name, rather than the exact experience. Most people in the world don't fall into that camp (though, arguably, most people who buy D&D do). Just because people like ketchup doesn't mean they'll like green ketchup. If people are fans of Coke, they won't necessarily give New Coke a whirl. I think both of those are pretty good examples of trying to make a "sequel" that failed pretty catastrophically.In fact, I think New Coke is *especially* relevant. Again, I don't think D&D could ever fall into that trap, because I think most of the people who like D&D like it because of the brand name and will follow it as long as it does broadly the same thing. Only on the message boards. In the store, with the book in his hand, the guy who liked 3e is just going to say "Weird. Grappling doesn't stop you from swinging a sword around? I might have to house rule that..."Or he might say: "WTF? No druid? Screw that noise."I'm pretty sure most purchases don't have anything to do with what some goofballs on the internet say, or else the sales of Nyambe would've been higher. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I think you may overinflate the importance of the Interwebs on D&D. ....actually, I think WotC has handled it REALLY well by only really getting involved to correct misconceptions. Debates on the internet aren't going to harsh or buzz most people for 4e. Forcing any kind of "tone" on a community would be an expressly LOUSY way to artificially try to control something that really doesn't have much of an effect to begin with.WotC isn't marketing through forums, as far as I can tell. Some of WotC's employees, being big D&D fans, like to participate in discussions that the online community is having about D&D.Really, this is about the decision made in every consumer's mind when they're browsing through the 4e PH at the FLGS. If they like 3e already (a pretty good assumption) and they're not a trufan (perhaps a debatable assumption) they're going to ask themselves what they're shelling out $90 for. Most people don't want to pay to be told that they're doing it wrong, and a message focused on "4e is BETTER!" tells people they're doing it wrong. Most people like new things, and a message focused on "In 4e, your paladin can be evil!" might be a new thing they could talk about. What some goober says on the internet doesn't matter, but what some goober says in the FLGS might, and what WotC says in their marketing for 4e DEFINATELY does.</blockquote>

Verification