Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5439405" data-attributes="member: 55271">The SRD and OGL aren't even necessary for that to happen (although it does help to keep those communities more vibrant). When faced with an upgrade, there's always going to be some portion of your customer base who says, "Nah. I'm good with what I've got."With that being said, it seems that some upgrades are more effective than others. For example, why was Windows XP so effective at rapidly converting existing Windows users while Windows Vista crashed and burned? As far as D&D is concerned, it seems clear that the two most successful edition shifts were the shift from OD&D -> AD&D and the shifted from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition.Both of those transitions were effective (IMO) because (a) they addressed perceived shortcomings in the existing rules; (b) they worked to form a bridge of continuity between the old edition and the new edition; and (c) they were effective at reaching out to new customers.Now, the actual methods by which they accomplished those three goals were radically different. AD&D (a) aimed to codify a more "official" version of the game while also expanding the detail of the rules during an era when "more realism" and "more detail" were highly prized and was released hand-in-hand with a Basic Set that (b) remained highly compatible with the 1974 ruleset and (c) offered a mainstream, accessible product for attracting new customers.D&D3, on the other hand, (a) radically revised a game that was perceived as clunky and out-of-date, which allowed them to (c) reach out to a large body of disillusioned ex-customers. They simultaneously (b) released conversion guides and used a massive, public beta testing period to get large numbers of existing players onboard with the changes before the game was even released.The conversion to D&D4 failed for several reasons.First, there was an attempt made to address perceived shortcomings in the rules as they existed. But there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest that WotC severely overestimated the amount of discontent. It appears that a significant number of players simply did not experience the problems which CharOp specialists and armchair philosophers screaming on internet messageboards considered unforgivable failures. And the solutions used to solve the problems were radical to the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (albeit with an effort to then replace the baby).Second, no effort was made to form a bridge between the old edition and the new edition. (Crazy French guy screaming "the game remains the same" like some sort of cultic mantra notwithstanding.) In fact, WotC went out of their way to insist that there was no bridge between the editions.Third, WotC was attempting to reach out to new customers. But I maintain that they made the fundamental mistake of trying to pull customers away from video games by competing with video games where video games are strongest. That's just not going to cut it. If RPGs are going to be successful in the future, it will be because they emphasize their unique strengths. Tactical combat and prepackaged My Perfect Encounters(TM) isn't going to cut it.Honestly, I think the transition from 3E to 4E was hampered by corporate agendas that were fundamentally incompatible. It's clear that by the time 4E went into development, WotC's business culture had firmly turned against the OGL. I suspect that WotC very specifically wanted to radically overhaul the system specifically to make a clean and complete break with what they perceived as a glutted OGL market.Personally, I think WotC made a mistake. I think it quite likely that we could have seen a 4E that was:(a) More radical in its changes than Pathfinder; but(b) Not nearly as radical as 4EThat would have been a much larger success and left behind a far smaller percentage of players who are now ex-customers of WotC.There are minor problems in 3.5 in 1st to 10th level play. And there are significant problems in play from 11th to 20th. It's possible to fix these problems with nuking the core gameplay that has been successful since 1974.WotC chose the nuke option.This is actually a good analogy, but not for the reason you think.The fundamental problem with New Coke is that the taste tests were fundamentally flawed. The taste tests were "sip tests". And in sip tests the smoother, sweeter taste of New Coke won. But nobody buys their soda by the teaspoon; they buy it by the can.This gets us back to 4E being a radical overhaul of D&D's gameplay in order to respond to complaints driven by CharOp specialists and armchair theorists. For a lot of people on the ground, the game didn't have those problems and 4E was a solution in search of a problem.</blockquote>

Verification