Upset about another edition!

[Dannager]

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!"

If Monte Cook or Mike Mearls publishes an article tomorrow that contains something along the lines of, "4e isn't as much fun as 5e will be!" I will probably say, "Cool."

 

[Dannager]

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.

A lot of us felt like 4e improved on everything that made D&D successful and threw out a lot of things that got in the way.

Which brings me back to my original point: People got upset with WotC not because WotC told them what was fun, but because they disagreed with what WotC told them was fun.

 

[billd91]

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.

On the topic of strawmen - there are a lot of fans of 3e on this site who have witnessed scathing criticism of 3e since day one. We're not afraid of seeing it criticized and we'll argue when we don't feel the criticism is valid. 3e is probably the most highly criticized edition of D&D on this site.

But we may come to have a low opinion of the critic, we may not want to play with them because they have such different views of the game. Isn't it possible that we may even come to the point where we do not not want to buy things from them?

 

[Scribble]

That's why they are backpedaling big time now.

Not sure anyone can say that for sure at the moment. So far I've seen them say they want to include all styles, not that they want to include all styles except for one, or something.

My guess is really they're just tired of the "edition wars" and the problems that come about.

Right or wrong, why force yourself to have to deal with ex customers complaining on every release?

Why force yourself to only pull customers from a certain style of gamer?

So instead make a game that can "hopefully" handle a a whole gamut of different styles, and draw from all of those different customers.

Why not make a game where even if we're telling each other for some reason the other person's play style sucks, we're at least playing the same game (and therefore buying stuff from them.)


I don't have any numbers, and I don't know anyone who does, so we have no idea if this is happening because 4e failed, or simply because despite doing well, there is still a negative component they have to work around.

 

[billd91]

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?

I have no excuses. I have reasons. And, no, while the marketing did annoy me, it didn't stop me from buying and playing 4e. The foremost reason I am not a fan of 4e because it doesn't feel like D&D. It's an OK tabletop skirmish game so I'm content to play it as a board game like with Castle Ravenloft. But I get my D&D itch scratched with something else.

 

[Dannager]

I have no excuses. I have reasons. And, no, while the marketing did annoy me, it didn't stop me from buying and playing 4e. The foremost reason I am not a fan of 4e because it doesn't feel like D&D. It's an OK tabletop skirmish game so I'm content to play it as a board game like with Castle Ravenloft. But I get my D&D itch scratched with something else.

Cool.

 

[Dannager]

I don't have any numbers, and I don't know anyone who does, so we have no idea if this is happening because 4e failed,

Interestingly, we seem to be seeing a lot of the same kind of flawed thinking.

"We think 4e is better than 3.5!" somehow becomes, "3.5 isn't any fun!"

"We think we can bring all D&D players together with a new edition!" somehow becomes, "4e failed miserably!"

It's like there's absolutely no room for nuance or understanding allowed. Any opinion that takes longer than ten seconds to hash out just isn't worth bothering, apparently.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

I don't know, why are you playing a game that is less fun?

I was actually referring to the numbers in the market, not to individual campaigns or GMs - that claims that 3.X was not fun was spurious in the face of 4e being beaten in the market. And that even a claim that 4e was 'more fun' had some problems, given that same evidence.

The game that you enjoy and play is the game that you enjoy and play, no problems there. A lot of folks do like 4e.

WotC did not need to try to tear down 3.X in order for those folks to enjoy their new game. They would have enjoyed playing 4e even if WotC had said '3.X was a great game, but we have learned some things, and we can make a great game better!

I really wish that WotC had taken the high road in their marketing - trying to denigrate 3.X hurt their marketing a great deal more than it helped.

I suspect that they managed to confuse a vocal minority with a majority - the folks that still enjoyed 3.X were not complaining. They were just playing the game. So they were not listened to, instead a vocal minority made enough noise to change the design of the game.

WotC went and fixed a bunch of problems that most folks didn't have - but the ones that did have those problems made a bunch of noise.

But, again, this is something that they have admitted to - they are no longer trying to say that Thrash metal is the only way to play guitar. And I am very glad that they have owned their mistakes, it means that they can now correct them.

The Auld Grump

 

[SKyOdin]

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.

Ah, but I am the one who is happy to criticize 4E! 4E has plenty of its own problems: classes are too rigidly stuck in the same powers progression, the "every character should be free to attack every turn" philosophy has led to classes like the cleric having completely unnecessarily fiddly and annoying powers, and I openly admit combat can be a little long. I have no problem whatsover with people pointing out these problems; heck, WotC should be pointing out these problems. If they don't point them out, then I start getting worried that they haven't learned from past mistakes.

I am honestly worried about the possibility of WotC being too timid to come out and openly talk about the design issues of previous editions. If the designers at WotC were to talk freely with what they considered the prime design issues of previous editions, we would have a much better understanding of what direction they will take 5E.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

There is a world of difference between the markets for cars and game systems. I don't think this analogy is exactly applicable. The difference in expected customer familiarity with the product is enough on its own to make it inapplicable. I also don't agree with your characterization of WotC's marketing for 4E.

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?

I'll repeat it once again. To my recollection WotC never said 3E was unfun, or that certain playstyles were unfun. They did, however, talk heavily about how they intended to improve various areas of the game in order to make it easier to actually have fun. Unless you think there are people out there who actually think hours of grunt work spent number crunching to pull together basic game encounters is an impeccable source of fun...

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.

Insulting 4e by saying it "feels like a video game" is not and never will be a valid complaint about it, for all kinds of reasons. I hate that idea with a burning passion, and the last time I got into that argument I probably came within an inch of getting banned, and ultimately deleted my ENWorld bookmark and stopped visiting this site out of raw disgust until the 5E announcement. I have no sympathy for people who feel that way in the slightest.

Ugh, that trauma aside...

Nothing WotC has ever said has come close to the level of inanity expressed by "it feels videogamey!" or "it doesn't feel like D&D!" If nothing else, WotC has always expressed the flaws of 3E in a rational manner. Those two statements are wholly irrational.

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.

It is hard to keep customers who are so in love with the idea that there game is impeccable that even the idea that it can be improved on will insult them. And that is what I honestly think of some of the complaints about the 4E marketing. It is what I thought of the completely unreasonable interpretations of 4E's marketing back then, and it is how I feel now.

There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize 4E or to prefer 3E and Pathfinder over it. Feeling insulted by WotC's marketing and vague, irrational stuff like "feel" are not among them.