The Myth of the Bo9S's Popularity

[Darkwolf71]

I am playing in 4 campaigns currently, 3 at the UGT and one other at a game store closer to home. Three of these currently have Bo9S characters in them. One of them has used a Bo9S BBEG.

There are there are eight players at the UGT, four of whom own the book, two others are married to book owners. In at least three campaigns being played at another FLGS I frequent, I have had to help DMs with players who were incorrectly applying the Bo9S rules. (That seems to be the biggest issue with the book. Not understanding it properly.)

So I don't know, seems pretty popular in Houston.

 

[Steely Dan]

WotC has no particular motivation to lie. If it didn't sell well, they'd just say, "we really think the mechanics work well in our in-house playtests," and that would be that.

Yeah, as I much as I would like it, I don't see Incarnum coming down the pike anytime soon for 4th Ed.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

There is also another measure of popularity that is a factor - community response to the book.

Now I'm wondering how many people in the "I don't like it" group don't like the flavor of the book vs don't like the mechanics of the book?

I'm guessing WotC's observations and research show that lots of people really like the mechanics of the book - more than like the flavor of it for example.

Sales figures are not the be all and end all of market research after all.

 

[Piratecat]

Then don't accuse WotC of lying based on them!

I don't see anything wrong with questioning WotC's data. Please don't make the discussion personal.

Thanks!

 

[Azgulor]

Removed by admin.

 

[Azgulor]

Sorry Piratecat. Didn't read all the way down to see you had stepped in. I apologize if I added gasoline to an already unnecessary fire.

 

[Piratecat]

Sorry Piratecat. Didn't read all the way down to see you had stepped in. I apologize if I added gasoline to an already unnecessary fire.

Thanks for apologizing; I removed your post. The right thing to have done here was to report the offending post by clicking the tiny triangular "!" button in the bottom left of the post. That way mods can deal with it. Please DON'T do what you did, respond with rancor. That just leads to more problems!

You can also edit a post, of course, if you realize after-the-fact it's inappropriate. That's also a good thing to do if you accidentally post after a mod warning.

Thanks. Drop me an email with any questions.

 

[Wolfspider]

The following did not happen:

4e Designer 1: Hey guys, you know that book that tanked?
4e Designer 2 and 3: Yeah.
1: Let's base our entire class system around that.
2 & 3: BRILLIANT!

Stranger things have happened in the wacky world of game development.

I will cite Cyberpunk 3.0 as an example. Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. is considered a classic among RPGs, and people were clamoring for a new edition. R. Talsorian, the developing company, decided to base the rules in the new edition upon the highly controversial Fuzion rules system, a system that I am confident in saying pretty much tanked (even though I liked it). The company also made some pretty radical changes to the setting.

Cyberpunk 3.0 has not been well received....

 

[Maggan]

One of the things that has puzzled me about the 4e PR (and there are many) is the reference to Bo9S being one of the "preview books" of 4e and that WotC felt it "worked" due to its popularity.

While I am of the mind that if WotC says that Bo9S is popular, then it probably is, since there is really no reason for them to say so if it isn't ... I would like to add that sales numbers alone do not prove popularity.

WotC might also be judging the popularity by surveys, reviews and fan reaction online and at cons or whatnot. Also, the might use playtesting as one indication of popularity, ie, if many playtesters liked Bo9S a lot, then that's a data point to consider.

So remember that WotC sits with all the info on the above, and probably has plenty of data on which to make the statement "Bo9S is popular", and sales is but one part (a large part probably) of that equation.

/M

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Bottom line, 4e has to sell books. And I don't think they're going to do that by filling it with a ruleset that won't sell.

No, but you could quite well have the architects of those mechanics, who happen to be heavily involved in 4E, arguing that they didn't sell as well as they could have because they were add-ons to a system, rather than a foundation. Whether Bo9S restored balance or distorted it would depend heavily on the style of campaign, the foes faced, and the other splatbooks allowed. I found that by allowing most of CWar and CAdv, and disallowing most of CArc and CDiv, the Brb/Ftr in my game was actually the most powerful PC at mid-high levels. Had I allowed the Spell Compendium, the casters probably would have taken over.

As to mechanics being an add-on rather than a foundation... The hellreaver PrC in FCII had per-encounter mechanics; without guidance on when an encounter begins and ends (which there will be in 4E), some DMs would find this oddity difficult to handle. And without a "token" system being a regular part of the game, some players might not be as skilled at tracking the holy fury points as they should be.