Upset about another edition!

[mudbunny]

From what I've heard, they decided on 5E during October 2010. It's probably part of why we've been getting so many freelancers backing major product lines, and almost certainly why they've been doing so much semi-random experimenting.

So what does that say about 3.5, given that they were working on it pretty much before the books for 3E hit the stores?

 

[Incenjucar]

So what does that say about 3.5, given that they were working on it pretty much before the books for 3E hit the stores?

I think it mainly says something about WotC's business practices.

 

[kitsune9]

I don't fault WotC for making a new edition only a few years after 4e. I won't fault them for coming out with 6e a few years later and so on and so forth. A game company has to publish to stay in business. I do hope though that with each new edition, there will be some backward compatibility more along the lines that 1e to 2e, each new edition more of an update.

I'm interested in what they are rolling out for 5e because I want to see their approach for the new edition to emulate the play styles of the previous editions.

 

[billd91]

So what does that say about 3.5, given that they were working on it pretty much before the books for 3E hit the stores?

At the software company I work at, we're working on the next+1 version before the next one goes out the door. Frankly, I'd say it's pretty reasonable. You get your content lined up for the main release deadline and then it starts going through the release process. For us, this is release testing, packing of code objects, and so on. For WotC, it means getting the content ready for printing, printing off the review copies, and everything else needed to prep for shipping the new books.
The fact that you're holding a version frozen for release don't mean that all activity stops on development. You're compiling ideas all the time, ideas that will be used in the next iteration of the product. I certainly don't get angry because WotC was working on content that will be 3.5 before 3.0 went out the door. I expect that's perfectly normal.

 

[Dannager]

When someone tells me that the way I run my game 'isn't fun' then they are going way past constructively criticizing.

Is it your opinion, then, that the creators of a game have no place deciding what is or isn't fun?

That strikes me as an untenable position.

The act of creating a game requires making decisions about what things are fun enough and what things are not fun enough. And yes, even a game like D&D. Every design decision made includes considerations of, "Is this fun? Or is this not fun enough?"

So where do you fall on this? Obviously, the idea that game designers can't decide what is or isn't fun is a lame idea. They have to. They can't do their job without making those decisions. So why do you fault them for it?

Is it because they actually came out and said it, instead of keeping it behind the opaque pane of game design? Is it because that, for once, they actually decided that something you liked wasn't fun enough?

Don't tell me that game designers have no place telling you what is or isn't fun. They absolutely do. You don't have to agree with them, but don't pretend that it's reasonable to say, "How dare you make game design decisions based on an analysis of what makes the game fun!" That's bull, and as far as I can tell it isn't being used as anything more than a paper-thin rationalization for being upset that you didn't get what you wanted out of 4e.

You can disagree with the game's designers about what is fun. That's fine. But don't tell me that game designers have no place deciding what is and isn't fun. That's their job. This is only made worse by the fact that you're faulting them for criticizing their own game.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Is it your opinion, then, that the creators of a game have no place deciding what is or isn't fun?

Absolutely correct. They have no right to try to tell me that their way is better, and going by the fact that they are now killing that brand new, better than anything! game, I would have to say that a lot of folks agree with me. Especially when it is in an attempt to sell a game that has little to do with all previous editions of the game.

They could have tried building up their new game, instead they tried to denigrate a popular game, and one that, in the form of Pathfinder, continues to be more popular than they game that they tried replacing it with.

Telling people that what they are enjoying is not fun is, in point of fact, bloody stupid.

Monopoly sucks, so play Monopoly 2e, just like Candyland!

4e failed.

4e deserved to fail, as much or more because of the method that they chose for marketing as for the rules themselves.

It may have failed so hard that it will take the possibility of 5e succeeding with it.

The fact that 4e failed shows that it was WotC's position and choice of marketing that was untenable.

Not the fans of the previous edition.

Not the OSR.

Not the fans of 4e.

WotC, the company, is the one that took an untenable and indefensible position.

My hopes for 5e are low, but at least they are not digging themselves a ditch to stand in this time.

But whether 5e succeeds or fails, it is WotC that put themselves in a position that they started looking at a new edition two years in and started working on it three and a half years in.

Do not say that it is my position that is untenable - 4e is already waving the white flag. WotC is already asking for forgiveness.

* EDIT * WotC is willing to acknowledge their mistakes, I am willing to at least look at 5e. Trying to defend them when they are admitting to error does not help them.

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannager]

Absolutely correct. They have no right to try to tell me that their way is better,

Okay, so let's break this down.

So, as far as rights go, they absolutely do have the right to tell you that something is more fun than something else. Well within their legal right. So obviously that's not the issue.

When you say, "They have no right," what you actually mean is, "I don't like being told that something is the case when I do not personally agree that it is the case." I think it'll help understanding if we stick to the concrete, rather than the radicalized.

So now that we've got that hammered out, let's talk about a game designer's job. What do you think a game designer's job is, TheAuldGrump? Is it to make games? I daresay it is. I mean, it'd be tough to disagree with that one, right?

So game designers are supposed to make games. Well, how do they do that? Obviously they must have a method. They don't put monkeys in front of typewriters and hope to eventually get a working rules set. Clearly they have to start somewhere.

So game designers make games by starting with an idea. In the case of making a new edition of D&D, they probably start with an old edition of D&D and see where it can be improved. So how do you improve a game? Is it possible to have a game that is more fun than another game? I would argue that it is, in fact, quite possible. In fact, I would argue that, as a society, we accept that certain things are more fun than other certain things. Things might, on an individual level, be tilted one way or the other - one person might find a game very fun that another person thinks is no fun at all - but on the whole we accept that fun can be measured on a sliding scale.

We call "fun" by a lot of different names. Playability. Wow factor. Draw. Compelling gameplay. All of these things are different terms for "fun" (or something close to it). And, as a game designer, you want to create a game that your target audience will describe with these terms. So you have to create a game that is fun.

But whose fun?

You can't make a game that is everyone's fun. That can't happen. Some people want weird things, or things that are fundamentally and diametrically opposed to things other people want. So you have to pick. You have to decide what is and what is not the sort of fun you're looking for. And you have to get that from somewhere. Game designers often (and legitimately) start with what they think is fun. They often gather feedback from other people whose opinions they trust.

But in the end, the result is the same: when you play any game (ANY GAME) you are being told by the game designers that this is what fun is. They will not set out to create a game that is not fun enough. And, if they're producing an iteration of an existing game, they will no doubt try to make it more fun than whatever came before.

So we're forced to accept the fact that game designers, on a daily basis, make decisions on what is and is not fun. They throw things out. They add new things. And at every junction they ask themselves if the end result will be fun.

I'm going to switch tracks for just a moment, but we'll come back.

WotC is "waving the white flag," you say. I'm not going to bother disagreeing with you here, because whether or not that's what's going on is unimportant. But you say that they're waving the white flag because they have no right to tell anyone what is or isn't fun.

Except we now know that game designers have to do that. That's what making a game is. And, if you actually believe in your game, you're going to want to tell people that your game is fun - heck, you may even want to tell people that your game is more fun than what came before!

WotC is asking for forgiveness because they have to. They did something honest. They told the gaming community that they thought their game was fun. That it was more fun than what came before. And you know what the gaming community did?

They said, as loudly as they could, "You have no right to tell us that your game is more fun than your old game!"

This is, of course, puzzling to a game designer. Game design is about making things that are fun. And making things that are more fun. But the second one of them actually admitted that game design was about making things that are fun, the gaming community wanted to lynch them.

Do you understand how this makes things look a little insane?

What it ends up boiling down to is that game designers told people what they do for a living, and people went bananas.

WotC isn't waving a white flag out of guilt. They're not guilty of anything. They haven't injured you, committed any crimes, or done anything morally heinous. They're waving it because their customers - or, at least, the people they want as their customers - demanded it. And they demanded it because they don't like being verbally told that something is more fun than something else. They're fine with the implicit statement of an iterative release - that the new thing is better than the old thing. That's what iterations are all about. But when someone comes out and says it? The world ends, the hordes rush the gates, polished pitchforks in hand, and demand that the game designers wave their white flags and admit guilt.

That's what you're pushing, here. That's your stance. WotC is guilty because you disagreed with them about what is and isn't fun enough.

And the worst part?

You wouldn't be complaining if their definitions of "fun enough" and "not fun enough" were the same as yours.

So WotC is going to publish 5e, and you've proposed a deal. Part of your demands. If this is starting to sound like a hostage scenario, good. That was intentional.

They apologize, and you give their product a glance. They apologize - for doing their job and making judgment calls on what is and isn't fun enough. They apologize for doing their job, and you might find it in your heart to give them another chance.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Okay, so let's break this down.

...

I just gave you experience for your wisdom in another thread, so I'll just say this.

Thank you for saying this. Thank you very, very much.

Let me also add a few words. Pretty much everything WotC ever said negative about 3E was just repeating complaints raised hundreds and thousands of times by D&D fans on forums and elsewhere. It is not like the belittled it for the fun of belittling something, or wanted to throw stones at it to try to help 4E's sales. They did so because a very large and very vocal part of their fanbase has been saying those exact things for years. Is it really so wrong for WotC to actually make the attempt to listen to their fans' complaints and address them? Because that is all they ever did in the marketing for 4E.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But in the end, the result is the same: when you play any game (ANY GAME) you are being told by the game designers that this is what fun is.

Basically agreed on all of this, and what you're trying to get at.

Except we now know that game designers have to do that. That's what making a game is. And, if you actually believe in your game, you're going to want to tell people that your game is fun - heck, you may even want to tell people that your game is more fun than what came before!

WotC is asking for forgiveness because they have to. They did something honest. They told the gaming community that they thought their game was fun. That it was more fun than what came before.

This is where I feel like there's a little spin going on (but not a lot). That is, a lot of people felt that WotC wasn't saying "this game is more fun," but rather "your game wasn't fun."

People didn't like them saying the plane of void (I think?) was terrible. A lot of people didn't like them saying an encounter with guards at a gate isn't fun. A lot of people didn't like being told that their game was broken, and that the mechanics hampered fun, and that this time "the math works."

Now, I understand trying to improve things. I understand that those improvements will be subjective. I've designed by RPG, and I've revised it, and I've felt both objections and warm embrace from my players as I've done so. So, I get that I'm putting out there "this is more fun, and here's why." I never really said "this just isn't fun" when someone was having fun with it, though. And that's the impression that a lot of people got with WotC's marketing campaign.

I think saying "we're making this game to be the most fun it can be" is fine. I think saying things that give the impression that you don't care about objections (dragon pooping on the troll cartoon... we can go into that if you want), or telling people that their version of fun wasn't actually fun (plane of void, gate guards, talking to the little people, etc.), or even hearing WotC say "that guy's version of fun isn't actually fun" can be pretty off-putting.

Anyways, my take on it. As always, play what you like

 

[Halivar]

TheAuldGrump, nobody can tell you what is fun. But at least take into context that WotC had a very large contingent of vocal gamers (like me) swearing off further purchases because D&D 3.5 was getting stale (to us). They would be understandably nonplussed, having delivered what they thought they were asked for, then being responded to with torches and pitchforks.

EDIT: None of this is meant to absolve them of incompetent (or non-existent) market research to get the actual tenor of the D&D community. I only intend to blunt the idea that WotC approached 4E with malicious intent.