What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Stormonu]

I'd been moving away from WotC since at least the PHB2, if not earlier. They've simply gone in a direction that I no longer care to follow. Luckily, other publishers have laid down track that goes in the direction I'd let to get to. But, if WotC wanted my business back, what I'd be looking for is:

- A system that is less about the mechanics and more about having fun while telling a good story. My recent brush with Savage Worlds (and WoD) has shown me I'm just not into heavy mechanics.

- Quick combat. 4E's combat system is fine if you like DDM tournaments; I don't; my combats are a small part of the story, not the whole enchilada.

- Bring back not only the D&D PDF's, but also release PDFs for all the other old systems - Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Alternity, Boot Hill, etc.

- Put balance in the back seat, or better yet, lock it up in the trunk. I'm sick of hearing about how balanced the 4E game is supposed to be. I just want something fun, and I've had plenty of fun with all the prior editions regardless how much moaning and groaning people have done about the old game's "imbalance". Just take the rule lawyers and Charop junkies and let them drag behind the car.*

That's all I can think of for me.

* In fact, I think the sorry state of D&D has been because of these two groups.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I'm a simple man. I'd gladly jump into the fold if they could take me back twenty years. Back when my eyes were bright and my ideas were new...yup, that would do it for sure.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Couldn't get a rise out of the sales. The book was a bit of a flop. Came up a bit short in the sex department, felt a little forced at some points.

Are you saying sales figures were limp?
****


One thing that WotC could do that might genuinely "win some people back" is come up with a new setting.

Pretty much each edition of D&D has added a new setting to the game's history. But as yet, 4Ed has added only reworked versions of old settings.

And the thing is, for all of the things I dislike about 4Ed, not a one of them would bug me in a setting designed from the ground up to support the new races, classes & mechanics.

(Assuming, of course, that it was WELL designed.)

Why? Because people's expectations would be different.

Consider a classic song. Say...The Rolling Stones' Sympathy for the Devil. If you try to copy it exactly, odds are high you're going to get criticized, or at best, damned with faint praise. If you try to radically alter the song, you're going to get criticized unless you really do a great job. See Jane's Addiction's version...not only is it not a good cover of the song, its not even good in the context of the band's other work.

And that's all because the Rolling Stones did it right the first time.

OTOH, if you start from scratch and create a new song, it will stand or fall on its own merits.

That's what 4Ed needs- a completely new setting where 4Ed's design decisions don't butt up against past expectations.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, one sure way to win back some of the disenchanted it to disenchant current customers. That usually works well.

WOTC has to make choices, and they know that people are going to leave with every one, no matter how it is made. But with every choice, the yare goingto gain mroe people.

Nothing is stopping me from playing older editions but my players and myself. WOTC has no say in what edition I play. They do have a strong say in what I BUY, butthat is their problem, they definitely should bring older PDFs back.

NEWS FLASH WOTC!!! ALL of yoor old pdfs are ALREADY out there on torrents. You are not stopping the illegal downloading people a bit.

 

[jefgorbach]

*. Prior editions focused on coherent stories with overall maps and even occasionally included details where that particular dungeon fits into the overall campaign world ... creating a detailed framework upon which to build. This is what originally brought me into RPGs and why I continue to support Pazio.

*. Books degrade over time bc of accidents, transportation, and routine usage. WOTC's decision to "ban" .PDFs was simply their declaration they didn't WANT my cash so I should either scan/retype them myself or seek alternative sources to legally backup my original books as allowed under the existing copyright laws since I wont be able to purchase replacement copies.

*. Reinstate the OGL - sure, many 3rd party suggestions were unbalanced, poorly edited, or otherwise flawed ... but many weren't and most (even if poorly executed) provided inspiration, innovation to the game.

*. Either incorporate prior editions/games into DDI or setup a separate area for the old-timers.

 

[Philosopher]

I'm generally unimpressed with WotC, but that's not why I don't play 4e. I don't play 4e because I'd prefer to play either Pathfinder or Castles & Crusades (and a few others, although these are the games I'm currently quite interested in). If they make a game that suits my tastes, I'll invest in it. Given the direction they're heading, that doesn't seem likely.

Having said that, it would be nice if they were to change their practices. People have already raised many points about this, so I won't repeat them. What I'll add is that I'd like it if WotC would stop revising the history of D&D. I know that they don't want to support Greyhawk right now, and that's fine because it's their choice, but they should at least acknowledge its existence and its significance in the history of D&D. For example, when referring to "the first campaign settings" in "The History of D&D" (p. 7 of the 4e PHB), they should refer to Greyhawk, not to mention Blackmoor and Mystara/Known World, and not just the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance. This is not the only time they've gotten the history of the game wrong.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

For starters

They'd have to be a better company than Paizo.

Ken

 

[Dandu]

Are you saying sales figures were limp?

All I'm saying is that very few people felt motivated to get their hands wrapped around the book.

One thing that WotC could do that might genuinely "win some people back" is come up with a new setting.

Or release Richard Burlew's setting that they have locked in a filing cabinet somewhere. I bet it would be awesome.

 

[innerdude]

Wow, lots of good, thoughtful posts, folks.

I'm glad to know that I'm not alone in feeling like Wizards could address some of these issues and generate some good will.

As for the comment about maybe they don't want us back as players-- LOL, it's entirely possible that they don't, and I suppose that's okay too.

I'd like to think from a business and community perspective, though, that Wizards would love to have more of the "old school" crowd back in the fold, to create new, exciting DM experiences for players, to build brand equity and loyalty, and generally just showcase how fun RPGs really are.

(I know that a lot of "old school" D&D players feel like D&D 4e has already done that, but I think there's a lot more still out there.)

I'd like to think, too, that there are enough "disenfranchised" D&D'ers out there like me who really still want to connect with the brand of D&D.

We do want D&D to be magical again, like we know it could be.

 

[Hussar]

All I'm saying is that very few people felt motivated to get their hands wrapped around the book.

Heard that a lot of people found it hard to swallow.