The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[DaveMage]

There's actually 1 more race in 4e then there was in 3e.

Not if you add in the PC-stated races from the 3.5 MM - all are PC-playable with the 3 core rules, as written, out of that book.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, yeah, the New Coke thing does grate. Because it presumes that 4e is somehow a failed product. There's been posts in this thread alone talking about how 4e is an "inferior product". It's not inferior though. I may or may not like it and that's fine. But, it's certainly not inferior to anything.

Actually, its not too early to draw parallels, its just too early to draw conclusions.

New Coke went from success to failure within the space of 2 years. We're about 1 year into 4Ed's release, and its already doing worse with the existing customer base (again, according to polls) than NC did with Coke drinkers, and its trending down in that demographic. Sales are higher in comparison to 3Ed's initial release, yes, but that is most probably skewed due to the massive number of pre-orders and new blood being drawn to the hobby (in part drawn in by CRPGs).

New Coke failed for a number of very specific reasons that have very little relation to 4e. 4e has not failed (yet) and it is still far too early to draw parallels.

The parallels are clearly there. The respective companies- both market leaders- did extensive quality research into how to improve their products. The data they received showed them they were on the right track, so they proceeded to production, and threw the weight of their names and marketing departments into promoting the new goods replacing the old.

The problem with New Coke- and so far with 4Ed- is that for a variety of reasons, a large and vocal part of the established customer base didn't want a replacement...at least, not the one they were offered- one that was based on lots of solid empirical evidence was what they wanted.

New Coke would probably have done fine as a supplementary product within the Coke line- indeed, its still in production as Coke II, and is more popular outside of the USA than within it- but it failed as a replacement.

Similarly, lots of people have extolled aspects of 4Ed- myself included- but reject the game as a sub for 3.X. What happens in the next year, though, will tell the tale.

I agree. Let's not play coy-- "4e is New Coke" is absolutely being used in the pejorative sense here.

Not by me, it isn't. Again, I'm using it as a cautionary analogy.

The parallels are clear, but the later chapters of 4Ed have yet to be written.

The key difference between New Coke and 4Ed is that an RPG is a much more flexible product than a soft-drink and its recipe.

The next Core 3- or however they're marketing it- could be phenomenal products that cement 4Ed's status as a world-class product, resulting not only in a continued influx of new blood but a changing of more opinions in the existing customer base to the positive.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

That Old Coke tastes like a combo of dish soap and battery acid but some still choose to drink it?

Mmmmmm dish soap and battery acid [/Homer]

 

[Darrin Drader]

Hey, I don't need telling . I was just trying to empathise a little.

Actually I had this all typed out last night in response to a different post and the server took a dive. Due to the nature of messageboards, I generally copy the text before hitting submit if its something that long, just to ensure that I don't lose it.

There's actually 1 more race in 4e then there was in 3e.

Yes, but instead of gnomes and half-orcs, we get eladrin, tieflings, and dragonborn. I'd consider these fine candidates for the PHBII, or a racial writeups in the Monster Manual - and as long as we're going one more than 3.x, even consider including the tiefling - but why sacrifice existing popular core races in favor of ones that either never existed before, or were always peripheral? It just strikes me as a really bizarre design decision that's annoying if you were planning on converting an existing campaign to 4E. It strikes me as change purely for the sake of change.

 

[Darrin Drader]

There's clearly more to it than just rules - it's an ownership thing. Those of us who feel that 4E has gone the wrong way feel like 'our' game has been taken away from us. That makes these edition discussions quite highly charged and 4E players can't be blamed for feeling put upon. ('You LIKE 4E? But 4E is a travesty! Give it back! I hope it fails and Wizards fail and then we'll get it back!').

Oh yeah, I totally agree with this. Roleplaying games are definitely games where the audience feels a sense of ownership in it. It isn't like other media, such as books, TV, or media, where you simply observe it. People pour their own creativity into RPGs over a span of years and decades. I feel that this underscores the need to be conservative when making changes. While I might be able to accept the fact that I can't directly play a module from two editions ago without doing a lot of converting, there's a pretty good chance that I'm going to want the next edition to feel like a continuation of what I'm used to than a reinvention. I think you're always going to do better making minor but needed changes if you're keeping the same name. Reinventions constitute new products, hence the need for a new name.

I think even the most avid supporter would concede that the switch has not been anywhere near as smooth or universal as WotC would have hoped. They sold a lot of core books (though I was surprised by the Edition Switch Poll - I thought that the D&D 3x players would have almost universally bought the books) but the edition may not have the longevity they hoped for (it's too early to tell, though the ES poll is not great reading).

I'd agree with your assessment. A sizable chunk of the core audience is getting off the train, and I'm not convinced that it's being replaced by a new core.

 

[Scribble]

Yes, but instead of gnomes and half-orcs, we get eladrin, tieflings, and dragonborn. I'd consider these fine candidates for the PHBII, or a racial writeups in the Monster Manual - and as long as we're going one more than 3.x, even consider including the tiefling - but why sacrifice existing popular core races in favor of ones that either never existed before, or were always peripheral? It just strikes me as a really bizarre design decision that's annoying if you were planning on converting an existing campaign to 4E. It strikes me as change purely for the sake of change.

Well a lot of that is personal taste. (Which is fine you're obviously allowed that!) I was just commenting on the statement about not as many races.

As for why include them instead of others? I kind of get the feeling it had more to do with a design focus then change for change.

You know you want the classes to stem from certain "power sources." You also know you have room to do 3 power sources (keeping in mind that you need powers for each class/source plus items geared towards them etc...)

So you know that kind of locks you into certain classes.

Each of the races seems kind of tailored to be the "best" at a certain class.

So now you have a choice... 1/2 Orcs make better paladins then Barbarians? Or introduce a new race (dragonborn) and save 1/2 orc for barbarians?

same with Gnome. Do gnome Warlocks make sense? Maybe, but it seems kind of like a stretch. So again, do we stretch the gnome to be a warlock, or introcue Tieflings to fit the mold a little better?

Sure you can argue that there is enough "white space" that they could have included more power sources... but eh, I think that's subjective. What others call "wasted space" I find helps me use the material in game more easily, and doesn't feel as cumbersome when I look through it. As I've said before... easier on the eyes helps old man Scribble a lot.

p.s. Also I think they saw how popular the 1/2 dragon and 1/2 demon templates were, and wanted to offer something to fill that idea.

 

[Scribble]

I'd agree with your assessment. A sizable chunk of the core audience is getting off the train, and I'm not convinced that it's being replaced by a new core.

But the question I have to ask is, were they really still on WoTC's train (or planning to stay on much longer?)

 

[Harlekin]

Actually I had this all typed out last night in response to a different post and the server took a dive. Due to the nature of messageboards, I generally copy the text before hitting submit if its something that long, just to ensure that I don't lose it.



Yes, but instead of gnomes and half-orcs, we get eladrin, tieflings, and dragonborn. I'd consider these fine candidates for the PHBII, or a racial writeups in the Monster Manual - and as long as we're going one more than 3.x, even consider including the tiefling - but why sacrifice existing popular core races in favor of ones that either never existed before, or were always peripheral? It just strikes me as a really bizarre design decision that's annoying if you were planning on converting an existing campaign to 4E. It strikes me as change purely for the sake of change.

Posts like this serve as perfect illustration of the OPs point. Gamer's (especially on this site) are emotionally so wedded to the traditions (setting and rules) of D&D that they are incapable to rationally evaluate a product that breaks so many of these traditions. Hence their subconscious makes up arguments that rationalize their purely emotional reaction to the new.

Clearly the change of races is not "change for change's sake". A large number of reasons have been provided, discussed and rediscussed why the designers thought thatthe racial tableau needed changing. And certainly their reasons do not have to be agreed with.
However rationally explaining why Gnomes need to be in PHB, even though almost nobody plays one is much more difficult than saying "this is change for change's sake". And claiming the Dragonborn should not be in the PHB although clearly a large number of players likes playing something draconic is again more difficult than calling it "change for change's sake".

By the argument Darin raises here D&D could never evolve, we would be forever wedded to the concept and ideas of Gygax and co because finding ideas that may work better in a game are "change for change's sake".

 

[darkseraphim]

D&D is a game of cameraderie and atmosphere. The way the game "feels" to you is just as important, if not more than, the actual rules themselves.

My systems of choice are (in order) AD&D1E, Moldvay D&D, Holmes D&D and BECMI. Pieces of later editions serve to clarify rules, offer new monsters or magic items, or to be mined for great ideas.

The idea that someone's commercial "system" can replace mine is laughable, in that sense. I started parting ways with the party line when Gygax was kicked out in 1985. The fact is, I make better DMing decisions when I am comfortable with the rules, milieu, characters and master framework, so my rules are always the right ones. My play is noticeably more clunky and inferior with 2E and beyond, even if I'm well-versed with the rules.

Then you add this in to the nostalgia factor - friends, music, movies, culture - of the time when you fell in love with D&D. I don't care if that's 1974, 1980, 2000 or 2009, it is an inherent and irreplacable factor in the game's atmosphere.

The best edition of D&D is the one that gave you your first "wow" moment, the one you fell in love with. I used to be mocked for that sentiment but curiously, now that the 3E and 3.5ers are feeling the pinch of 4E and the splintering of the player base, I find that players across the spectrum are more mindful and empathetic when it comes to what is important to you and why.

TLDR - D&D is the players' happiness. The players' happiness is the DM's skil in presenting the world. The DM's skill is the comfort with the rules. The comfort is the first edition you loved. This is why getting groups that are willing to share the same experience is such a crucial thing.

 

[Krensky]

e, and right there, that's another reason why the New Coke analogy falls down. New Coke wasn't Coca Cola. It was an entirely new recipe.

No, it wasn't. New Coke/Coke II was/is (if I recall right its still sold in some overseas markets) Diet Coke make with sugar. If you never tried it or don't remember and want to know what it tasted like, go get a can of Diet Coke. Coke Zero is Coca-Cola Classic made without sugar. As far as D&D goes, it depends how you define D&D. For some people its a specific edition. For others its anything with the name on it. For most I suspect it's somewhere in between.

The New Coke analogy works for what I've seen it used (other then a few snarky lines) on this discussion for. Discussing the effects of flawed market research running into issues of brand and personal identity. Whether or not and ,if so, to what degree WotC's market research during the development of 4e was flawed is impossible to say without seeing it. It appears some parts of it was based upon the apparent (albeit mostly anecdotal) size and strength of the reaction people have to the result. That both products are running into problems with consumers identity of themselves and the product is accurate. That both are largely facing dislike over intangables is accurate. Like all analogies it only goes so far, however. D&D's two publishers hadn't spent a hundred years convincing the United State and the world of their cultural signifgance. D&D 4e was not a desperate attempt to grab market share back from a competitor. WotC will almost assuredly not bring 3.5 (or any other edition) back as D&D Classic, only to miraculously have the original product explode in popularity and overtake 4e and the competitor in market share. Charlie Gibson will not interupt General Hospital announce the return of D&D 3.5e.

Why? Because no matter how much we care about and have made RPGs and D&D part of our community and personal identity, it is no where near as important ot the average gamer's identity as Coca-Cola was to the average American.