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

[pawsplay]

A PDF only product is not "in print"

Oh hell yeah it is

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What we do want is access to older products and it doesn't matter if WOTC sells directly or licenses someone else to carry the products so they don't have to waste resources on products they don't wish to support.

By doing neither they are in fact making themselves look bad. Sitting on material that they don't seem to want anyone to have easy access to makes them look like angry kids who have taken their football and gone home.

How many other game companies continue to sell their out-of-print editions once new editions have been released?

That WotC becomes bought out by someone other than Hasbro, someone with a love of the game, more so than the bottom line. Then products that fit the need of the audience not in the need of shareholders becomes the superior issue. Since bottom line books make more money than adventures, books are produced not adventure - etc., etc.

Not gonna happen, but if WotC was owned by any non-corporate entity, it would serve its customer base better. That's the only solution I see.

I think it a bit naive to believe that any company that isn't two guys in their garage evening and weekends after their day job isn't thinking of the bottom line first. If you intend to make your living selling game materials it has to be your first concern. I also think it is wrong of you to assume that 4E does not meet the needs of the current "gaming audience" just because it does not meet your needs. The same system could have come out of the folks at WotC whether Hasbro had bought them out or not.

 

[pawsplay]

How many other game companies continue to sell their out-of-print editions once new editions have been released?

You mean besides ICE, Hero Games, Steve Jackson Games, Green Ronin, Palladium....?

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Er.. sorry to start a sort of rant as a first post...

I second a lot of things people said (BTW, great thread)..
I'd say that BryonD stated very well what are my concerns about the "new" mindset behind game design at WotC.

One thing more: WotC needs to take more care in advertising his products. One example is the "Races and Classes" preview book. A lot of thing wrote there are awful. In many parts, designers express what is "fun" and "unfun", and why they designed the game in the way they did.

And this should maybe not be a problem.. barring the fact that they have shown, IMO, a very narrow view about WHAT is fun.

As an example, in the book is stated that there is no need of Craft or Profession rules, because those can be backgroun only ("what was the last time you rolled a profession check".. something like this). This can be true for most games, but in that moment me and my players were involved in a campaing based on trades, crafts, and half-homebrewed rules about magic reagents.

I ask: what we needed more: a book that streamlined those things, or a book stating that our was "badwrongfun"?

WOTC lost me, my players, and all gamers we know for this mindset

 

[Doug McCrae]

I was told I was a nerd

Well, y'know, you do have almost 8000 posts on ENWorld.

 

[Imaro]

How many other game companies continue to sell their out-of-print editions once new editions have been released?

You besides ICE, Hero Games, Steve Jackson Games, Green Ronin, Palladium....?

Hey and let's not forget White Wolf, who released their oWoD books on PDF because they were smart enought to realize the fans of oWoD and the fans of nWoD were not necessarily the same since the game went through a major change in both mechanics and fluff... hmm, sounds like some other company I know... only, you know, without the release of previous editions on PDF.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You besides ICE, Hero Games, Steve Jackson Games, Green Ronin, Palladium....?

Yes, I see Rolemaster I & II availabe and M&M I & II, but neither of those editions made any major changes. I don't see any support from Hero before Champions 6th Edition. SJG is only supporting 3rd & 4th Edition, but I'm geussing that's because they haven't completely re-released the majority of 3rd Edition yet. And Palladium? Their bread and butter is Rifts, which really hasn't had an edition change.

I'll give the one example I think would be valid that you missed. Red Brick Games supports all editions of Earthdawn. Yet I still contend it is rare in the game publishing community and has not been the practice for D&D since the beginning.

 

[Kobold Boots]

The answer to the question at the subject of the thread is three-fold.

1. Buy Paizo and continue to support the 3.X game. There's obviously a wide player base. Software companies support multiple OS products all the time and continue to put out patches. Go through a normal product life cycle instead of just orphaning people.

2. Recognize that it's not game mechanics or character first. It's both first. Reading this thread its obvious that a very large number of role-players don't want to "play" the 4e way. I'd like to argue that it's not about how 4e is structured as much as it's about how poorly the message was received about the "game" of D&D.

Truth is that the characters are entirely separate from the mechanics, at least IMHO and the DM is the go-between. I personally love that the character classes in 4e don't necessarily cancel out other character classes. I also love that my players can't simply retcon their old tricks into new bags and cause the same gameplay issues they used to.

At the same time, if someone comes to me and says "I can't build this this way" my answer is usually, "ok lets look at what you were trying to do before and work it out the new way." Most of the time we end up creating something different but really cool regardless and everyone has fun getting to know the new character.

Last bit on mechanics. Arguably, like a quarterback in football, the DM touches everything so if he or she is a douchebag then the whole game fails. Not a lot has been said about players who are gaming douchebags that ruin the fun of the game because it used to be very easily possible to create a character that obsolesced someone else at the table. This is table cancer.. and I'm willing to bet that the WoTC people have seen it and heard about it ad nauseum so the game shifted quickly to offset this and the designers are drinking the Kool Aid.

That doesn't mean that players should stop being whatever cool image is in their head or that DMs should stop houseruling stuff. Just saying.

3. Last, WoTC should realize that designers are rock stars for the company, but when they open their mouths they can inspire or roll a one with a significant number of their customers. These articles and statements can force people into developing whole product lines that are entirely unnecessary. Have the marketing suits closely work with the rock stars if they're not already doing it.

Minor thoughts.

 

[MrMyth]

And supporting that simulation must be a key priority for a game that will appeal to me.

Andy's comments compare the monk to the fighter and wizard as if they are chess pieces. He concludes that the monk is less appealing than the wizard in way that is not far different than concluding that the knight is less appealing than the rook.

"Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming."

It really bugs me whenever I see this attitude. I really hate the idea that trying to address the mechanical capabilities or limitations of a class is somehow inherently treating it as though the story is uninmportant. And yet - despite the fact that in his very quote, Andy mentions the importance of story - many still seem to insist that he is putting flavor and character second.

No, he's not at all. He's trying to ensure that anyone who enjoys playing for story reasons is not then let down by mechanics that cater to another class or prevent the monk from doing all the amazing feats that one imagines such a figure can be capable of. He's not saying that you don't make any attempt to capture what one imagines a character can do - he's saying that you do that while working to assure those abilities work in the context of the game as well as the story.

At no point does Andy state that 4E puts "being the character" or "imagining the character" second. You said that - you put those words in his mouth, and you put those limitations on the game.

Because they certainly don't exist in the game itself.

Now, if you want more encouragement of character elements and storytelling and devices to assist roleplay, whether in the form of skills or more elaborate backgrounds for magic items and monster, or whatever - ok, I can accept that. I can understand wanting to see more of those things.

But talking about how the philosophy of 4E prevents one from having truly "outstanding RPG experiences" or can't provide a rewarding experience built around the imaginations of quality players - sorry, but that's pure nonsense.

 

[Imaro]

"Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming."

It really bugs me whenever I see this attitude. I really hate the idea that trying to address the mechanical capabilities or limitations of a class is somehow inherently treating it as though the story is uninmportant. And yet - despite the fact that in his very quote, Andy mentions the importance of story - many still seem to insist that he is putting flavor and character second.

No, he's not at all. He's trying to ensure that anyone who enjoys playing for story reasons is not then let down by mechanics that cater to another class or prevent the monk from doing all the amazing feats that one imagines such a figure can be capable of. He's not saying that you don't make any attempt to capture what one imagines a character can do - he's saying that you do that while working to assure those abilities work in the context of the game as well as the story.

At no point does Andy state that 4E puts "being the character" or "imagining the character" second. You said that - you put those words in his mouth, and you put those limitations on the game.

Because they certainly don't exist in the game itself.

Now, if you want more encouragement of character elements and storytelling and devices to assist roleplay, whether in the form of skills or more elaborate backgrounds for magic items and monster, or whatever - ok, I can accept that. I can understand wanting to see more of those things.

But talking about how the philosophy of 4E prevents one from having truly "outstanding RPG experiences" or can't provide a rewarding experience built around the imaginations of quality players - sorry, but that's pure nonsense.

4e is unabashedly gamist first... yet you believe the mechanics don't come before the "story"?

IMO, anytime you have mechanics that cause me or my players to have to struggle to come up with "what just happened" in a narrative fashion that doesn't strain versimilitude... the mechanics have definitely come first and the story, well that's basically been left up to you to figure out a way to construct around the mechanics.