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

[I'm A Banana]

But if they don't, they're not being unfair or unreasonable or manipulative or anything else that one sees asserted or implied about them.

I don't see a lot of that in this thread, either.

There seems to be a lot of jumping at shadows. Umbran is seeing calls for boycotts, you're seeing "WotC is teh evil." Francisca is seeing wacky theories.

Most of what I see in this thread isn't any of that.

Most of what I see in this thread is pretty reasonable people who want to give WotC money for things they enjoy playing and reading, but some of WotC's practices (namely, not selling books from older editions) lead to them not wanting to spend money on WotC products. One practice in particular -- not selling PDF's of older edition materials -- seems, as an outsider, to be something they did for really poor reasons (assuming their stated intent was honest), and something they could easily change.

It's like, I'm not seeing very many signs of these mythical green unicorns, but I keep talking to people who swear they're sick of 'em.

Okay. But this isn't a gathering of mythical green unicorns. This is, at most, a herd of antelope that want to be sold things that it seems would be fairly reasonable to sell them.

So, what would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

Not freak out about copyright infringement and embrace the money from people who don't want to play current D&D, but like older D&D.

Maybe that's still not worth it as a business decision, but the thread does presume a hypothetical that WotC wants to win back the disenchanted. If that's not true, they can gleefully ignore the thread.

 

[Falstaff]

Funny, all I need is a sheet of paper and a pencil. Doesn't get much easier than that.

Absolutely.

 

[IronWolf]

For me, personally, the FLGS is most important for boardgames, and they are doing well in my area selling them. All of them do a pretty decent business in tabletop RPGs as well, but it is a tiny, tiny portion of their income, compared to CCGs, miniature games (like Flames of War and WarHammer), and hobbyist-oriented boardgames (stuff like Power Grid, Agricola, Puerto Rico, etc..). YMMV, of course.

Ah, quite likely true. I was speaking from my more narrow view of RPG players. I could certainly see there being other types of gamers that might find more value in the FLGS even as the Internet age advances.

 

[francisca]

Ah, quite likely true. I was speaking from my more narrow view of RPG players. I could certainly see there being other types of gamers that might find more value in the FLGS even as the Internet age advances.

You bet. I think the outcome is likely to be tabletop RPGs will continue to be marginalized in brick and mortar stores, completely disappearing from the shelves in some stores, which makes WotC's attitude about PDFs all the more frustrating. I'd personally much rather by a book from the FLGS or directly from the publisher at gencon or another con, myself, but then again, I haven't been in the market for a new RPG for, I dunno, 6 years.

Francisca is seeing wacky theories.

I've not doubt some of the theories hold water, and the full reason the PDFs were pulled is most likely some of column A, some of column B, etc... What I'm grumping about is the persecution complex some are exhibiting, when really, the root of the matter is a business decision. I understand people are passionate about their games, but the decision to pull the PDFs, put forth the essentials line, etc.. were cold and impersonal decisions made for business reasons. In short, "it isn't about you". ("you" being anyone who is all panty twisted and taking it as a personal affront.)

 

[renau1g]

I normally wouldn't respond but heh...

I can tell you exactly what his powers do - not that I would know the names of any of them. Pull a guy here, slide a guy there, add a bonus to next attacker of opponent, deal some amount of damage and look to the DM to see whether we're anywhere near getting some stupid goblin bloodied after hitting it enough times. This is my point with the black box mentality. All that matters is the effect NOT the action(s) that caused the effect and whether they make any damn sense. The situation I mentioned was completely laughable though because the guy honestly thought he was using a staff until the DM told him at the start of a game that he didn't actually have one but he did have a dagger. And in the end that's my point, it really doesn't matter; it is the power that is important. And to answer your implied questions:
- the guy got sick of describing what he was doing after trying to come up with a new way of describing the same specific action for the upteenth time. I think all of us have given up on describing our powers and that is one of the things that makes me a sad panda with 4e.
- no I am not dumb. I can understand the power they are using perfectly. What weapon is causing the damage or effect is irrelevent in gameplay.

He thought he had a staff when instead he had a dagger. A whole heap of misplay here. However, because his powers were chosen and that's all we really saw or cared about, it made didley squat's worth of difference.

So how did you and your players describe the 17th level fighter's iterative attacks in prior editions? I find that at least there are different powers for a fighter now. In past editions it was "I hit it with my sword" or "I hit it with my axe". Not sure what you're getting at with the attack vs. effect. In any edition I suppose the attack doesn't matter, but the effect. If the fighter power attacks, regular attacks, charges, etc in prior editions, it doesn't matter, only his 1d8+whatever. Just like this edition. It didn't matter that the mage cast magic missile or scorching ray or ray of frost just the damage it did.

 

[DaveMage]

It didn't matter that the mage cast magic missile or scorching ray or ray of frost just the damage it did.

You lost your argument right here...

 

[Raven Crowking]

This thread has been pretty educational for me, and has caused me to revise my thinking in several areas. And, with very few exceptions, it has remained remarkably civil. Thank you all!

WotC, if you are listening, make a 4e version of Dwellers of the Forbidden City, with a full-sized poster map of the City, and lots of interior maps, preferably ones that don't show marks where minis should be placed.

Actually, just produce the maps; I will write my own adventure around them.

Thank you very, very much.


RC

 

[Holy Bovine]

What could WOTC do ...

Let's see, I got kicked to the curb because, beside playing D&D since '74, I didn't fit the target demographic anymore and they want the snot nose kid and his buddies from down the block at their game table now and not me.

To add insult to injury, they killed the FR with that damnable spellplague and the mega timeline jump, which to me, it is like shooting my dog.

Message received and understood. I'll keep off the lawn.

Shooting your dog? Seriously? I don't think you have a good grasp of reality right now.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Well, you should feel bad saying this because one day you may be left behind, forgotten and no longer cared about by the company that makes your favorite game.

Why should he? I was "left behind, forgotten and no longer cared about" when TSR released 2E. I kept playing 1E and could care less what TSR was doing.

You lost your argument right here...

Why? Those type of spells are still in 4E. If the chosen power doesn't matter to HtW now, why would it have in previous editions? The truth is is does matter in 4E, just like all previous editions.

 

[mudbunny]

For what it's worth, I have passed on to WotC a link to this thread, with a note that except for a very few posts, it is well-worth reading.