Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4160869" data-attributes="member: 2067">Right. With a message that focuses less on "We fixed problems!" and more on "You can do this new hotness!", you can get those second people on board. With a message that focuses on "We fixed problems!", a lot of the people who don't really have problems (meaning, those who like 3e "good enough.") can be put off.I think that making the case that 4e is actually a reinvention of anything is pretty difficult. Likewise, the idea that Pathfinder is "just a rehash" isn't an easy case to make, either. Thirdly, the idea that a "complete reinvention" is what people want in a sequel is probably misguided -- I'd be kind of irked if The Dark Knight featured campy wisecracks played for Adam West effect. Meanwhile, Vista changes a lot of the basic Windows system, but introduces a lot of effects that people aren't fans of. And New Coke was completely different from Coke Classic.I think that really ignores some of what Pathfinder is, some of what 4e is, and a lot of the complexity that makes sequels successful, so it's not a very accurate or useful statement.And, yes, there have been successful sequels, and that is what 4e would hope to be. But Empire didn't tell you A New Hope sucked. It didn't change Luke into a three-armed creature from the fourth moon of Splodistan because "We thought the third arm gave him some more interesting combat scenes." It didn't remove Chewbacca citing how few lines he had anyway ("He's just redundant with Han!"). It didn't make the thing take place on Earth, Year 3040, because they thought it would be better for the audience to relate to it. They didn't reinvent what Star Wars was. They took the same characters you loved, and the same big space combat and special effects that wowed you, and took them on NEW adventures with NEW planets and NEW starships.Successful sequels to successful products rarely tell you how much they've "improved," and when they do, it can go horribly awry.I mean, Pathfinder is the one, after all, still brewing up Coke Classic: same classes, same races, same rules, now with HFC instead of sugar and a new can. WotC is brewing up New Coke.Where this tale will turn different, I think, is in the amount of people who are tied to the name Dungeons and Dragons is vastly more significant in this little hobby than the amount of people tied to the specific name "Coca Cola" are in the world at large. But 4e's greatest spoiler is *still* 3e (just in a new can with HFC). Heck, if Paizo was able to somehow wheedle their trademark magic and somehow call the game "Dragons and Dungeons," or "D and D Classic" or something, I think the competition would be that much more bloody (not that they'd really bother doing that, of course). The overhauls aren't going to interest people who don't think anything really needed an overhaul. In fact, those people are likely to vilify the overhaul as unnecessary. The better the first product is, the harder it will be to convince people that things need to be overhauled. Hence, with 3e's success, it's hard to convince a significant (or at least significantly vocal) portion of people that all that 4e is overhauling is necessary or even desirable to overhaul. What it *will* attract are those who had problems with the thing before. The issue with that is that most people didn't have those problems (if they did, it wouldn't have been very successful). Sure, but what you're missing is that the people who are perfectly happy with 3e being "good enough" don't have your problem. In fact, given 3e's success, those with problems may very well be in a distinct minority (assuming those people who had problems but "didn't know it until 4e told them about it" isn't a very big slice of the pie). So they don't need a fix.They need something new.That change will be the most constructive conversation for 4e recruiting fans of 3e.</blockquote>

Verification