Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6396075" data-attributes="member: 2067">Yeah, WotC didn't really consider the people who were already happily using the 2e/3e eladrin as part of their intended audience there, as they did not consider what such an audience would want.Kind of interesting aside: Recently attended a game design class that talked a bit about the business side of it -- specifically about the Inverted Pyramid, and why it's worthwhile to keep your most dedicated and ardent players happy even if it takes a lot of effort to make content for them (what with their refined tastes), because those are the people that build the community of players for your game. They'll never be the majority of your players, but spending 50% of your resources on stuff that only 10% of your audience will see or care about is worthwhile in this scenario because that 10% creates more demand if they like what you're doing -- they expand the game. If they leave in a huff, you lose the lower, bigger sections of the community, too, because while they're not hardcore, they see the &quot;experts&quot; departing for other games, and since they want to play the best, they'll follow them. Experts, of course, could just be kind of spoiled children who need to be coddled to be appeased, but that doesn't matter, since they are the early adopters and evangelists. Arguably, 4e learned that lesson the hard way. The people with the most invested in eladrin lore (for instance) were the most dedicated fans of the game up until the launch of 4e. When those people think you're not selling to them (because you're kind of not), they leave...like for Pathfinder....and then Pathfinder grows to become bigger than D&amp;D by the end of 4e (though I bet WotC has flipped those numbers again recently!)....I mean, I dunno if it's gospel, and I'd take it with some salt grains, but I find it a pretty interesting angle to look at this from, anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6396075, member: 2067"] Yeah, WotC didn't really consider the people who were already happily using the 2e/3e eladrin as part of their intended audience there, as they did not consider what such an audience would want. Kind of interesting aside: Recently attended a game design class that talked a bit about the business side of it -- specifically about the Inverted Pyramid, and why it's worthwhile to keep your most dedicated and ardent players happy even if it takes a lot of effort to make content for them (what with their refined tastes), because those are the people that build the community of players for your game. They'll never be the majority of your players, but spending 50% of your resources on stuff that only 10% of your audience will see or care about is worthwhile in this scenario because that 10% creates more demand if they like what you're doing -- they expand the game. If they leave in a huff, you lose the lower, bigger sections of the community, too, because while they're not hardcore, they see the "experts" departing for other games, and since they want to play the best, they'll follow them. Experts, of course, could just be kind of spoiled children who need to be coddled to be appeased, but that doesn't matter, since they are the early adopters and evangelists. Arguably, 4e learned that lesson the hard way. The people with the most invested in eladrin lore (for instance) were the most dedicated fans of the game up until the launch of 4e. When those people think you're not selling to them (because you're kind of not), they leave...like for Pathfinder. ...and then Pathfinder grows to become bigger than D&D by the end of 4e (though I bet WotC has flipped those numbers again recently!).... I mean, I dunno if it's gospel, and I'd take it with some salt grains, but I find it a pretty interesting angle to look at this from, anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification