Upset about another edition!

[Dannager]

There is nothing new to be gleaned in that line of questioning in the three years since it was last discussed, except more locked threads.

And yet it's still brought up.

I wish I could make things up and pretend other people said it. That would be really useful. It would be even better if I said it often enough that a lot of people actually believed it really happened.

 

[billd91]

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.

Fans of all sorts of things are freely critical of the products they buy. The vast majority of producers don't join them in doing so. Why? Not because they're afraid of validating their customers' complaints, but because they run the risk of alienating customers who actually like what they've been selling. Did Ford say the Tempo wasn't fun to drive when it was time to replace the model? No. Why piss off the people who liked to drive their Ford Tempo? Instead they hawk the advantages and improvements of the new model line. That may imply it's better than the Tempo, but not that the Tempo was somehow deficient.

When you say that some gaming event or style of play is unfun, you're telling the players who find it fun that they are either wrong or you don't believe them. Either way, it tells them you are not serving them any more because it's no longer within your definition of fun. Why on earth would they buy your follow-up product?

As far as belittling goes, how about those of us who were very critical of 4e? A lot of 4e fans got very defensive (still do) when we say, honestly, that 4e feels like a video game. Or it doesn't feel like D&D. Some say they feel like they, and their tastes, are being belittled. If WotC saying something was unfun wasn't belittling of those of who do find it fun, then us saying 4e isn't D&D isn't belittling of 4e fans. Let's see how that flies around here.

But even if it isn't belittling, there are two standards at work here. One applies the fan who isn't involved in marketing the game and one applies to the company making the game. The fan has a lot more effective freedom to say what he wants because he's not alienating his own customers - he has none in this context. WotC wasn't (and isn't) in the position of the fan. Foolish talk loses customers.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really don't understand why people keep saying that WotC ever actually said that 3E was a bad game. They never said that, even once. They've criticized various elements of it (that badly needed criticizing) and offered various things to improve upon it (many of which are genuine improvements), but they never said people were wrong to have fun with or they were playing a bad game or any of that nonsense. That entire thing is a gigantic self-perpetuating strawman argument built by people who simply couldn't stand to listen to fair criticism of a game they enjoyed. Admitting that 3E was not perfect is a far cry from some of the things people accuse them of saying.

 

[Dannager]

Foolish talk loses customers.

Is that the excuse you, as a customer, want to use?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think it's that important. I think that the people who are willing to be understanding and actually hear what's being said won't care much about the presentation, and I think that the people who aren't getting what they want can use the presentation as an excuse for being far more upset with the whole situation than is really warranted.

Well, that's a pretty extreme view in my mind, and I'm glad that I suspect you aren't in charge of presentation. We'll have to agree to disagree. As always, play what you like

When you say that some gaming event or style of play is unfun, you're telling the players who find it fun that they are either wrong or you don't believe them. Either way, it tells them you are not serving them any more because it's no longer within your definition of fun. Why on earth would they buy your follow-up product?

This is exactly why I think presentation is key. You need to present a product that looks fun, and if you're explicitly stating "these things aren't fun" when I find them fun, why should I be interested in the new product? This is why I disagree with Dannager's characterization of people's view on presentation. Not buying a product because the company has said something you enjoy isn't actually enjoyable, but hey, trust us and buy this product? Not buying that product isn't extreme or close-minded. It's listening to what they're saying, agreeing with them by taking them at their word, and passing, because they don't know what "fun" means to you. As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

So why am I playing and enjoying a 4E campaign, and not a 3.X/Pathfinder campaign? You do realize you are doing exactly what you are lambasting WotC for doing. I for one can't stand the thought of having to play 3.X again. I realize that some people don't agree with me, but going on about how 4E has supposedly failed isn't going to change my gaming opinions in any way.

Here's the kicker. Would you feel different about TheAuldGrump's comment about 4e not being fun (or less than 3e) if it were coming from Monte Cook or Mike Mearls as part of the game's marketing? Would you dismiss the comment or would you say "That was a stupid thing to say if you want me to be your customer!"

I'm guessing that, since you can't bear the thought of playing 3.x again, it's not going to endear you to their efforts on the next edition. It might not endear you to them either.

 

[billd91]

Is that the excuse you, as a customer, want to use?

Do you deny that it [foolish talk] does [loses customers]?

EDIT: since my response just included Dannager's quote, I thought I'd be a bit more explicit on the antecedents.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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


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

Exactly - saying something is more fun is fine. Saying that something isn't fun is just asking to be kicked.

I would have disagreed with WotC if they had said that 4e was 'more' fun, than 3.5, but it would not have offended me.

Instead they tried to tell me that the game that I had been running for the better part of a decade, and enjoyed a great deal, was 'not fun'.

Telling me that D&D is not a game about 'traipsing through the fairy rings' - the week after my players' characters had done exactly that was a classic of bad timing.... Telling me that 'D&D is a game about combat!' Coming perilously close to saying that D&D is a game that is only a game about combat, was putting limitations on what WotC was going to consider 'fun' in the new edition.

Telling me that talking to the guards at the gate 'isn't fun' - with no qualifier, was just plain wrong.

But, as I keep trying to say - WotC has admitted to those mistakes, it is now some of the more vocal f4natics that are trying to deny that these were mistakes.

I am not even going to pretend that everyone hewed to the idea that D&D is all about combat, or that PC should not stop to gossip with the guards at the gate. A lot of GMs are more than willing to adjust their games.

It was the denial that those things were fun, not the rules, that offended me.

I am willing to forgive WotC, at least enough to look at 5e. But there are folks that are still trying to fight an edition war that has already been lost. 4e had a failure of marketing. And I think that that failure in marketing had a great deal more to do with the failure of 4e than the rules themselves. I do not like those rules, but plenty of other people do.

WotC has learned a lesson. They are being a great deal more conciliatory this time.

Move on.

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannager]

Do you deny that it does?

I don't deny that people will use it as an excuse. Which is why I asked: Is that the excuse you, as a customer, want to use?

 

[Consonant Dude]

So now that we've got that hammered out, let's talk about a game designer's job.

*SKIP VERY DETAILED AND WELL-WRITTEN POST ABOUT WHY DESIGNERS NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT IS FUN OR NOT*

I don't dispute your reasonable position. Game designers must decide what is fun or not.

So, let's say I make a new game. It's about pink robots fighting. It's got 18 stats. And for initiative I use a spinning thing. Whoever it points toward has a turn. Doesn't matter if you get 3 turns in a row. And as you level up, you get to add funky pink color on your bot.

I call this game ROBOTS FOR THE WIN and put it on the market. Maybe it's fun, maybe it isn't. Some people buy it, some don't. Whatever.

The thing is, people bought Robots FTW. It's what the brand stands for. As a designer, I had a blank slate.


When you take on the task of redesigning a brand, you have an added responsibility. The more storied the brand is, the more appreciated, and the more you have to take this legacy into account.

That's where the disconnect comes, you see. If you're really into engineering economic compact cars, don't take on the task of redesigning the Hummer as one. Cause there might be merits to your design but you're preaching to the wrong choir.

If you're designing a new fantasy game called "Adventurers and Ants" and you wanna speak at length about how DnD sucks, sure... go for it! Make it vastly different from DnD! I think there's room for games different from DnD. I might even buy it!

What rubs people the wrong way is to see designers tasked to redesign a specific brand and come out like they're putting down a lot of what made this brand successful and take it in a drastically different direction. By all means, experiment to your heart's content. But such experiments deserve their own brand.

WotC failed at two things:

-Valuing and cherishing the DnD legacy (It's better to tell us about improvements than explaining at length how your previous product sucked)
-Redesigning the brand without deconstructing it.

That's why they are backpedaling big time now.