The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Darrin Drader]

This is as much an over simplification of the situation as my comparison to war games. You really think Mearls, Collins, Perkins or Slavicsek, or anyone else on the design team set the rule in the design document "make sure people can convert their old stuff to 4e"? Give me a break. You know many of these people personally and you worked with many of them.

Yes, they're great people and great designers, which makes me wonder what forces within the company led to the final results. Since I can't claim inside knowledge of anything beyond my departure from the company in 2004 (and anything before that, I won't talk about), I honestly don't know how we arrived at the present situation. Between a marketing strategy that alienated a lot of the players, a game that frankly leaves many of us scratching our heads, and a GSL that is anything other than a safe harbor for third party publishers, it's hard not to come to certain conclusions. I can accept that those conclusions might be wrong, but that still brings us to a situation that a lot of us - fans, freelancers, and publishers alike - just can't get behind. I wish things were different.

 

[jensun]

I find 4E quite recognizable as D&D, and so does my entire gaming group.

Feel free to insult me now

As does mine.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

That only holds if retaining the existing core was a consideration. Since before the launch of 4e, I have assumed that it was not.



Advertising? Sure. A little bit. Within my non-existent budget, I showed people what I had to offer (Low magic, high adventure).

At no point did I suggest that folks who did not want what I was offering simply needed to be properly re-educated into wanting something they did not want.

But my business model was predicated on serving a perceived need, not on convincing people that they needed my product. Just that it existed.



Sometimes marketing is about identifying the consumers wants/needs and then making the product. "It sells itself!" they say of such things.

There's some give and take between the two approaches.

I mean, you have to admit that you have a bit of wiggle room, as a marketer, between the task of selling me on the next edition of D&D and, for example, a handy-dandy device that can scramble an egg while it is still inside the shell. One of those tasks is just slightly more uphill. If I had my choice of which product to market, I am more inclined to go with the product that actually addresses a market demand.

So no, the marketing world doesn't entirely revolve around the task of convincing people that they want to buy something they don't want.

You pick the hill, you pick the slope.

I have yet to meet the marketer who can convince me that I want something that I don't actually want, although Mr. ShamWow is making a serious run for the money.

I tend to agree with you. It is very rare for one to create a pet rock. Most products (including 4e) are made from a real (and sometimes perceived) demand in the marketplace.

I believe we made a product a lot of people wanted. Is it for everyone? No, but my sales show me a lot of people did want it. The same thing happened with 2e to 3e. The circumstances were different but there were people who said no way and other who jumped on it.

I assume this question was addressed at the beginning of 4e development and you've produced the product that you want to sell, targeted at the market you want to sell it to.

Yes.

If that's not the case... What do you think went wrong?

No Comment

 

[Scribble]

If this is so easy, wouldn't this be a reason for the marketing or the next DMG to contain this description? Or is this painting my turtle black and putting pointed ears on its head and then trying to sell it to you as a cat?

Maybe it's like telling the person who wants a cat that they live in a swamp, and a turtle might work better.

Plus if you add radioactive goo you can make it into a pizza eating ninja.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think the point was that even if you ask the customers, you end up with products that don't satisfy everyone, and you get edition wars. That's not something "going wrong". That's the nature of the beast - you cannot please everyone all the time.

Hey, right, that's where my head is at. I've just assumed 4e moved on without me. And I have said many times, if these are the right changes to grow the hobby, that's frakkin' great. I'm totally down with that.

The confusing part for me is what Scott found so interesting (and applicable) in the OP.

If the OP had said, "My job is to help people feel good about jumping off the train!" then Scott's posts in this thread (especially his last couple of posts) would make more sense to me.

Whether you believe you are selling cats or turtles is only partly relevant. The fact that there does seem to be a significant portion of the market that thinks you are selling turtles should concern you. While I understand WotC and you not wanting to discuss it publicly, I sure hope you are discussing it amongst yourselves.

Since they have produced a turtle, the marketer's job is to convince you that what you really want is a turtle.

It's mearls' job to read the dozens of threads explaining what it is you want in a cat.

Then to go back and... maybe glue some fur onto the turtle, I don't know. The analogy is getting away from me a little bit.

 

[Imaro]

Dang, I hoped I could trick you into explaining it to me without admitting my own incompetence!


Don't Scotts post not imply he is concerned about it? Why are people think we are selling turtles? Isn't our product not also a cat? Maybe we should show to them how it can be a cat! Of course, the example of cat and turtle only goes so far... Maybe WotC actually sells you a shapechanger whose natural form is a turtle or something.

The example complaint of "skill DCs grow with your level" - "that makes the game world inconsistent" is something that I keep thinking about -
it was obvious to me that I could easily turn this into "skill DCs grow with the level of the challenge" and just like that I would be empowered to create an internally consistent world.

If this is so easy, wouldn't this be a reason for the marketing or the next DMG to contain this description? Or is this painting my turtle black and putting pointed ears on its head and then trying to sell it to you as a cat?

I think this solution is only viable to a certain point. The problem is that, even if I am willing to invest in a new rpg... what is the point where buy in becomes too much? I mean if I have to buy the first 3 corebooks (about $112) plus the second DMG...so another $34...but what if you in fact need rules from the 3rd DMG aqnd rules from the 2nd PHB just to get the core for your playstyle? Basically I think with the multitude of 3.5 sourcebooks and a generally lower buy in costs of most games (Do yo know Anima: Beyond Fantasy has rules for Magic, Martial Arts Techniques, Psychic Powers, Summoning, Skills, etc. all in one $60 full color book?) when do yo jump off the train and admit you would be better served by not going with 4e... even though up until now you have had a certain amount of brand loyalty to D&D?

 

[Lacyon]

As someone pointed out several months ago, if you get ten people together who want to buy a cat, the shop owner shouldn't sell them a turtle.

I made this half-monkey half-pony monster to please you

Whether you believe you are selling cats or turtles is only partly relevant.

but I get the feeling that you don't like it.

It is the sentiment in your analogy that is at the heart of the edition wars and it is the belief that we are selling turtles that perpetuates them.

What's with all the screaming?

i love turtles.

and i would love them even more if you made them OD&D turtles.

sell me products for my favorite game.

You like monkeys, you like ponies
Maybe you don't like monsters so much
Maybe I used too many monkeys

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?

 

[Scribble]

Hey, right, that's where my head is at. I've just assumed 4e moved on without me. And I have said many times, if these are the right changes to grow the hobby, that's frakkin' great. I'm totally down with that.

The confusing part for me is what Scott found so interesting (and applicable) in the OP.

If the OP had said, "My job is to help people feel good about jumping off the train!" then Scott's posts in this thread (especially his last couple of posts) would make more sense to me.



Since they have produced a turtle, the marketer's job is to convince you that what you really want is a turtle.

It's mearls' job to read the dozens of threads explaining what it is you want in a cat.

Then to go back and... maybe glue some fur onto the turtle, I don't know. The analogy is getting away from me a little bit.

I think a better analogy would be that the cutomers simply want a pet.

It's mearls job to determine what kind of pet would make the best pet for the majority of his customers.

Maybe the best fit would be a turtle, but people still want fur... so they get them a platypuss.

 

[cwhs01]

Then I guess you'rr getting off the train and that's is your choice. If I were a joe avergae gamer staying on the train, I for one would not want to jump on the internet and make you feel bad for that choice but others seem to enjoy that. I don't get it

To be fair, these kind of attacks come from both sides of the fence (or train).

Some followup questions (preferably from the people who've made attacks) i'd like answered as well:

What is in it for the people making these kinds of attacks?
What outcome do they hope for?
What justifies the often very personal attacks?
Is personal oppinion and annecdotal evidence really a good substitute for reason?
are ad hominem attacks better than a calm debate of pros and cons?
Could "then play something else" be framed more tactfully so as not to antagonize people?
Is it possible to not like certain aspects of an edition and discuss possible solutions? Calmly and rationally?


Oh btw. I'm not a saint, and i know it.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I made this half-monkey half-pony monster to please you

but I get the feeling that you don't like it.

What's with all the screaming?

You like monkeys, you like ponies
Maybe you don't like monsters so much
Maybe I used too many monkeys

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?

Thread winner!