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

[BryonD]

The thing is, the exact same thing was true when I played with the same group in 3rd Edition. I haven't seen anything change

No doubt. But it doesn't change anything. Saying that 4E does an inferior job of supporting the kind of play experience that I enjoy from 3E does not in any way claim that 3E did not support the kind of game play that 4E players enjoy. 4E does a much better job of supporting the 4E play approach than 3E does.

The presumption that no one else was getting anything out of 3E that you were not getting out of 3E is flawed. Long before 4E was announced, I was well aware that people played 3E in a lot of different ways.

Honestly, I think 3E does a better job of supporting the 4E approach than vice-versa. But thats just my take on it.

And at the same time, in either edition, the mage could play up the differences in the powers, either descriptively or mechanically. The fighter can insert more action and interest into their attacks. Take the effects, and describe them cinematically and heroically - not "slide him 4 squares" but instead, "send him reeling backwards across the blood-stained ground!"

It comes down to the player. Can 4E result in a game that is just some numbers thrown around a table? Sure - just like any edition of D&D. I don't find it worthwhile to try and imply someone is wrong that they have experienced that. But I also don't think anyone can put the blame on the system alone.

Here is where I think you are not catching the point.

The player is the same no mater what system you use. This conversation, is not at all about the player. It is all about the mechanics between the covers of the book.

A game that is about making the character be as realistic as possible first is different than a game that is about mechanical equity first.

Being about mechanical equity in no way whatsoever limits the ability of a player to roleplay. I said that in ym very first post in this thread. The ability to roleplay a monk is unchanged whether you play 1E, GURPS, 4E, or FATAL. So by that reasoning, all of the games are exactly equal in merit.

It is also just as easy to roleplay superman in a 100 point GURPS Supers game as it is to roleplay superman in a 600 point GURPS Supers game. But those two games are simply not equal in merit when it comes to actually doing a good job of mechanically simulating the experience of being superman.

It really makes no difference if you see a change between 3E and 4E or not.

If you don't that just means you were not benefiting form the same elements of 3E that I was. Which is fine. I'm not saying your game was inferior, just that it was markedly different. I don't know you specific game, but I did experience others and it is easy for me to imagine.

But, at the end of the day, if no number of people telling you there is a difference will convince you, then you come off appearing to just have your fingers in your ears. If that is all there is to it, then fine, that is your call.

 

[Umbran]

Being about mechanical equity in no way whatsoever limits the ability of a player to roleplay. I said that in ym very first post in this thread. The ability to roleplay a monk is unchanged whether you play 1E, GURPS, 4E, or FATAL. So by that reasoning, all of the games are exactly equal in merit.

It is also just as easy to roleplay superman in a 100 point GURPS Supers game as it is to roleplay superman in a 600 point GURPS Supers game.

This is only true if you feel that "role" is equivalent to "personality". I think most folks feel the mechanics do, to a certain degree, need to support the role. You can't be Spider Man if your only power is Water Breathing, and you can't be the Artful Dodger if you can't pick pockets to save your life.

Which is not to say that the rest of what you say is without merit, but you weaken your case by overstating it.

 

[francisca]

And that's why Pathfinder is capable of succeeding in ways that pre-3E retro-clones aren't.

They're really two different animals, and comparing them straight up is kinda weird, IMO.

Pathfinder succeeds because it meets a pretty big niche: those who enjoyed 3e and want to continue playing a version of it, which is still in print. Fixing some shortcomings of 3e and the player network are a part of its success as well.

The retro-clones, in their original conception, didn't fix a thing or keep something in print. OSRIC 1.0 was put out to facilitate publication of for free or profit material usable with 1e AD&D with as little prep and table time modifications as possible, I think before the AD&D PDFs were even available in a legal fashion. The retroclones that followed sought to meet the demand of a "complete game" with oldschool sensibilities. Once the old AD&D, OD&D, and BECMI PDFs were pulled down, the retroclones were the closest thing to "in print" we're going to get for the old editions.

I think the original OSRIC was brilliant, and is the best use of the retroclone idea.

Personally, "in print" doesn't matter to me. I have multiple deadtree copies of all the RPG core books I'll ever need, and although I am glad I can peruse the OSRIC offerings from XRP, etc..., I don't really need them, being mostly a homebrewer.

 

[MrMyth]

It really makes no difference if you see a change between 3E and 4E or not.

If you don't that just means you were not benefiting form the same elements of 3E that I was. Which is fine. I'm not saying your game was inferior, just that it was markedly different. I don't know you specific game, but I did experience others and it is easy for me to imagine.

But, at the end of the day, if no number of people telling you there is a difference will convince you, then you come off appearing to just have your fingers in your ears. If that is all there is to it, then fine, that is your call.

Look, there obviously are differences between the editions. Some of which might be outright better, some of which might be outright worse, and most of which are an improvement for some and a downside for others.

The problem is, you keep talking about the 'philosophy of the edition', and the '4E approach' and refusing to actually give any examples about what you are talking about. I had an entire post responding to your points on this, which you didn't respond to - instead, you've chosen to respond to a seperate discussion entirely. One that was, yes, actually about how some players were playing the game around a specific table.

You've said that 4E has the problem (for you) of putting mechanical equity first. You've implied that my disagreement with you is rooted in my 3rd Edition games 'not taking advantage' of the unique elements of 3rd Edition. (A pretty big, and likely inaccurate, assumption.) You've said that the focus on mechanical equity doesn't mean you can't roleplay a Monk in 4E, but that there is nonetheless a difference.

What is it? What are the actual problems you have with the 4E monk? What are the elements that cost you the benefit of being 'as realistic as possible', that hinder the type of game you want to play?

I'm not saying there aren't differences between 3rd Edition and 4E. There obviously are. I'm not saying people can't prefer one or the other. What I'm saying is that it is useless, to WotC, for you to simply gesture at 4E and say that the philosophy and approach is wrong without showing why, and how, it actually bothers you.

We've seen concrete issues people have pointed to in this thread, such as Come and Get It. (Though the issue there is one of the narrative convention 4E uses, rather than having anything to do with balance.)

You've said that pursuit of mechanical balance inherently comes at the cost of realism, character, and story, and while this doesn't prevent you from roleplaying, it just prevents 4E from providing as much support for doing so.

I'm not saying this isn't possible - but I am asking for some concrete examples of how. Because I firmly believe that balance can come without sacrificing any of those things. And in this case, I find the 4E monk to be a perfect example of that. I may have issues with some elements of it (I'm still not fully sold on the Psionic connection), but I find it to have acquired balance while retaining all of its flavor.

If we can find the areas where 4E has managed to obtain balance without the sacrifice of character, and you can demonstrate areas where it has failed to do so, than we can actually discover areas WotC can change to improve the game.

But simply declaring that balance can't be pursued without losing character and story - sorry, that doesn't help them, and requires some evidence to actually convince me is the truth.

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and gents,

Language use has gotten a bit heated in here. I feel a need to remind you all that you don't need to beat down and negate everything on the internet that you don't agree with. Likewise, ridicule is pretty well shown to be a pretty lousy tool around here.

So, folks, really, cool down.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But, at the end of the day, if no number of people telling you there is a difference will convince you, then you come off appearing to just have your fingers in your ears. If that is all there is to it, then fine, that is your call.

Just because there is a difference in systems does not mean there is a difference in every instance. Trying to shut down another's opinion by claiming they are sticking their fingers in their ears isn't very productive.

 

[Herschel]

- The D&D that WotC is producing is not the D&D I want to play. If they want me back they need to get rid of the black box mentality - I like to know the details, the nitty gritty, I want to put myself into the role of my character. Instead, I'm playing a game where even though I've played 10+ sessions in the current campaign alone (with many more for the previous campaigns), I still have no idea what weapons the other characters are using. One player in the game didn't know they where using a dagger half the time, assuming that they were using a staff! They've now apparently changed to something different but you would have no clue in game. All that matters is what die you have to pick up to roll damage and even that seems to be of little relevance due to the mass of hps that foes have. [Is this just our group or do you notice this too by the way?]

- 4e is too combat focused. The weird thing is I like combat but not how 4e presents it.

- D&D is not great anymore dudes - it has been mathematically smashed into mediocrity. As such, I'll leave this here and wait for the sky to fall.

[/Rant off]

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

What?!?!? NONE of this is a system problem, it's a personal problem.

Not knowing what weapon you're using?: personal

Too combat focused?: personal

Not getting in to your character? : personal

Tired of people defending 4E (their edition) ad nauseum?: Umm, "defending" is a response to ad nauseum attacks by people putting down their edition of choice.

Math "smashed to mediocrity" as in all characters are playable and pretty well balanced so one person is the "star" and making the others essentially their lackies?: I say yay!

Play what you like, but conversely I get tired of the 3E "Victim Complex". WotC moved on for business reasons. Some people who didn't want to change got left behind. It happens. They weren't trying to "screw" anybody, they don't owe anybody anything for their previous products. They will do what they can to entice customers of previous editions (Red Box nostalgia, Essentials builds, game days, promotions, etc.) but they aren't going to entice everyone.

They didn't with 3E either.

Or with 2E.

Or with 1E/"Advanced".

 

[Umbran]

After multiple warnings in the thread, someone still thinks contiued edition warring is somehow a good idea?

Let me disabuse all of that notion now. Cut it out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the music business, the artists currently typically get very little from the basic distribution of their content (album sales). The artists aren't really losing much from pirated songs - and folks like Trent Reznor can then find other ways to connect to fans and sell them things they want other than just the original art (which, for all intent sand purposes, is really a loss leader as far as the artist is concerned).

Slight issue here:

How much income actually lost from pirated music depends on the artist- they DO get a higher per-unit income from merchandising- but lost sales due to pirated music can affect whether they get to go on a tour or not and break through to the level where merchandising is your new & meaningful income- nobody counts pirated downloads towards industry markers like "Gold" or "Platinum" selling releases. Piracy has definitely ended the runs of a couple of bands of my acquaintance.

And it definitely takes a chunk out of the pockets of those who provided the services you used to get that music to the public. If Album X doesn't sell well enough to recoup expenses, Recording Studio P may not survive to see the next music craze.

 

[Umbran]

And it definitely takes a chunk out of the pockets of those who provided the services you used to get that music to the public. If Album X doesn't sell well enough to recoup expenses, Recording Studio P may not survive to see the next music craze.

As I understand it, recording studios get paid up front, not after the fact.

Some relevant links on the recording industry:

Courney Love Does the Math - a little old, but I'm told the scheme hasn't substantially changed.

RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales | Techdirt

The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There) | Techdirt