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

[Umbran]

The real problem, IMHO, is that, in prior editions, the DM was supposed to adjudicate the rules in order to correct these problems. In 4e, over and over, I have heard that the DM who corrects these problems is doing something wrong.

Real question: Where are you hearing that? Actual WotC published things? Can you cite where? 'Cause I have heard random people espouse that position, but I honestly cannot recall where I've seen that from WotC, and would like my impression corrected if it is wrong.

Nothing WotC has put out indicates anything other than an expectation that the setting will shift to match what the mechanics do.

I think there's an error simply in the idea that there is a "the setting" for D&D. D&D is the original poster child for a game with more settings than there are game masters running the game.

D&D isn't WoD, isn't Shadowrun, isn't Star Wars, or any other game with a strongly defined, strongly assumed setting. The vast majority of the published settings for D&D have always been designed to fit with the published rules, not the other way around. This is decades of history we're talking about here - nobody should be surprised by this.

 

[Imaro]

D&D isn't WoD, isn't Shadowrun, isn't Star Wars, or any other game with a strongly defined, strongly assumed setting. The vast majority of the published settings for D&D have always been designed to fit with the published rules, not the other way around. This is decades of history we're talking about here - nobody should be surprised by this.

Eh, I'm gonna have to say I disagree here... at leats in the 2e era, and now that I'm thinking about it the 3e era as well. As I remember it most campaign settings tweaked, added to and subtracted from the rules so that D&D better fit the setting, so I'm a little confused on your view. As I recall rules were modified to fit setting, not the other way around.

 

[caelum]

It's the dressing up of this unremarkable state of affairs in the language of "practices", "suspicions" and "disenchantment" that I don't get. It would be different if WotC's ink and paper were grossly polluting, and these were the practices that produced disenchantment. That would be a bit like the Shell boycott in the 1980s for investing in South Africa, or more recent Nike boycotts. But as far as I can see nothing like that is going on. All we have is a company offering stuff for sale that some people don't want to buy. Fair enough. Don't buy it. Why isn't that the end of the story?

As one of the people you quoted in your earlier post, I feel compelled to rise to the defense of this thread.

First, you objected to the use of "angry" in response to WotC's choices. That's probably fair - I should have been more specific and used "annoyed" or something milder. True anger should be saved for, say, drunken captains who cause enormous oil spills and the companies that defend them.

That said, I think that we - as WotC's customers, potential customers, or former customers, have every "right" to have negative responses to their choices, whether that is phrased as disenchantment, annoyance, or anger.

From my (untrained) perspective, the whole point of a brand is to foster an emotional connection in the customer, a warm and fuzzy feeling when they think of D&D or the Gap or whatever. So the whole point is to bring emotion into the business relationship. When the brand then changes, or ceases to support one segment of the market, those positive emotions will naturally be replaced by negative ones. I am quite sure that every brand wants to minimize those negative reactions in order to retain as many customers as possible. I don't see anything wrong with disenchantment, and I don't see anything wrong with vocal complaints by those who feel the brand has left them behind. If, in good times, the brand exists to develop this mutual relationship, then the customer has a right to express his/her opinion later on as well.

Another important point is that the blind appeal to the bottom line as justification for any business decision only works if the company in question is evaluating the market correctly. And that's a very, very tough thing to do. I doubt that WotC brought in focus groups of hard-core gamers and asked them how they would react to pulling the old edition pdfs. I'd guess they were surprised at the fury that greeted them, in fact. And now they are hearing, in this thread, that people still feel strongly about it. Obviously it's their choice whether to do anything about it, and it may be that they decide it's simply not worth the trouble.

But if the (in this case, former) customers did not raise the issue at all, then WotC might not even realize it existed, and there'd be no chance of change. I don't see anything at all wrong with a group voicing its opinion to a company, and I don't understand why those who do get attacked for expressing such views in this thread.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And again, I'm pointing out the kinaesthetics, and wizards not needing crossbows. Oh, and fighters being able to protect people.

Sorry, but you can have those things without mechanics leading setting.

I do.

See, I don't care that there might be uber housecats in 3e/Pathfinder -- the GM is expected to resolve that problem (should it occur in-game) because the mechanics lead the setting. Only if the players cry Foul! because the GM prevents a cat from killing commoners (because it is opposed to common sense and common experience, i.e., the setting) is there a problem.

Moreover, I don't care if there are uber housecats in 3e/Pathfinder because, while I steal and convert their modules -- and 4e modules now -- I don't play those games.

And, yes, I am sure -- absolutely sure -- that RCFG has similar problems, but the GM is expected to resolve that problem (should it occur in-game) because the mechanics lead the setting.

See above. And no one IIRC came up with a decent alternative to CAGI on the unrealistic power stakes.

Sure they did. And then the thread closed.

But, you should also accept that people who don't play 4e probably have better things to do than scour through the books looking for examples of problems. As with any system, the most obvious, easy to point at, problems get mentioned over and over. Not because there aren't any others -- lots of others, in any system -- but because "folks is lazy".

Again, if the DM was expected to rule that CaGI only worked when it made sense, within the context of the setting, that CaGI worked, I would be on your side here. I don't think it is incumbent upon the designers to figure out every way that a rule can be warped, nor do I think it possible. Or even desireable.....After all, that way the madness of 3e lies!

No. Give me a game where the basics are covered, and where the GM is encouraged to follow the logic of the setting over the mechanics. It might not be a good game for beginners (unless taught by others), but it qualifies more as a role-playing game, and less as a story-writing game, in my eyes.

I don't need a game to write stories.

YMMV.

My reaction was similar.

And it will be interesting to see where Dark Sun goes. Because it isn't the ideas in 4e that don't do it for me (I can ban dragonborn as easily as I did halfdragons); it's the implementation. At its heart, there are some really, really good ideas in 4e. Change the design philosophy, and those ideas might even blossom into something I would agree is great.

That's why I have some hope for 5e.

And, probably, if 4e had been OGL, someone like Necromancer Games, Paizo, or Green Ronin would have created a version that pinged for me. And that allowed me to use the WotC materials in a way I liked. And that therefore gave WotC some of my RPG money (apart from what they've managed to glean from Underdark and a couple of modules).

The seed is there. But it is buried under too much "mechanics first" to grow. That could change. Heck, if I invested in reading the 4e houserules forum, there are probably enough ideas out there to change it already, if I cared to. (But, of course, that change would be disliked by others. And so it goes.....)

OTOH, RCFG is free except for my time, and the playtest group I am running includes folks who play 4e. Thus far, RCFG is unanimously more fun than 4e.

(Could be the GM though...... )



RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Glad to hear it. Care to have any of them come here and share their experiences?

I can ask, but I don't know of any of them that are here on ENWorld.

Let me try this: How can one's strategy be considered to be "cultivating a long-term customer pool", if the only effort put into cultivating is with "new" customers, while neglecting to entice current customers to stay?

Who says current customers aren't being enticed to stay? If 4E had held truer to 3E I would probably not have adopted it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Eh, I'm gonna have to say I disagree here... at leats in the 2e era, and now that I'm thinking about it the 3e era as well. As I remember it most campaign settings tweaked, added to and subtracted from the rules so that D&D better fit the setting, so I'm a little confused on your view. As I recall rules were modified to fit setting, not the other way around.

Yup.

And in the 1e era, DragonLance changed classes and races to fit its concepts. Greyhawk Adventures included rules for 0-lvl characters. Oriental Adventures had new classes and races, new proficiencies, an honor system, etc.

It's actually hard to point to a developed setting (the sketchy Greyhawk Gazetteer is all I can think of) where the setting seems to follow the previously published rules. Even 1e Forgotten Realms didn't.

That there seem to be some 4e settings (Gamma World, Darksun) that change the rules to match the setting is a hopeful sign, IMHO. It is my understanding that the Nentir Vale gaz is a break from this policy as well. Another hopeful sign!

5e, I'm waiting for you!


RC

 

[BryonD]

Next comment I see about CAGI as representative of 4e is going to be met by a diatribe housecats and the way they can slaughter commoners and first level wizards as representative of 3e/PF. CAGI is a (rare) example of the mechanics falling short of the fluff. And there's a reason it's the one always brought up.

I agree, but as I've said before, CAGI is a specific example with problems. And there are plenty of problem feats in 3E. The outlier bad cases are not the problem in either edition.

Accurate or precise? Because I'm more than happy to give up some precision even with a little accuracy. (I own GURPS vehicles).

See my repost of Andy's comment.

The question to me is: How well does the system support the roleplay. Modelling is just one of the steps towards supporting.

This reply seems to suggest that there is a *correct* amswer. I think my posts should make what I'm looking for more than clear.

If you are looking for something different than me and you are happy with 4E, then I don't see what your comments contribute to WotC gaining more purchases from disenchanted players.

And there we have our problem 4e is a new game.

EXACTLY.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Real question

I try to learn from my mistakes. Really, I do.

But, for some reason, I engaged with you in another thread. Despite saying that I would not do so again.

Please help me keep my resolution, because I am weak.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

BR is not a good substitution. Because BR does something fundamentally different - it prevents you hitting people with your sword. BR is for throwing people around, not for almost unconscious bullying.

I would not call drop someone down on a cliff, or into the Black Tentacles "unconscious bullying". But whatever. Point was that 3.5 /PF CAN support these mechanics, even if I recognize the shield thing comes earlier in 4th. But we are going in circles here, maybe.

Yes, I get it. Pathfinder Fighters are combat beasts. It's not effectiveness I'm talking about here - it's mechanical support for the way your character actually moves and thinks.

I don't get it.. please explain (here and below, I ABSOLUTELY don't intend to be harsh - I respect your point of view and enjoy the conversatio, I fear I could make a mistake on the tone since English is not my native language and the topic is.. hot )

Not the point. I mean that the PF fighter is incapable of fighting the way I fight with sword and board. The 4e fighter can - almost effortlessly. If a supposedly professional fighter is worse at a type of fighting than I am, something is going wrong.

Again, pleas explain what a Shield Slam has less than a tide of iron, barring the level you get it (this, I admit could matter.. but nothing else).

I meant that the 4e fighter would kill someone faster than he otherwise would if they try and escape. Not comparing the two fighters.

3.5 had a lot of AOO feats. A warrior could get an AOO for almost every thing an enemy were doing. MS:Ticket of Blade, Sweeping Strike, Mage Slayer, Supernatural Opportunist, Backstab...

And a core PF can too... somewhat. If you escape and he trips you, AOOs and other attacks will be more likely to land. You have step up to remain sticky (you remain sticky --> you are more likely to full attack). There is Standstill.

It's not all gone - I've regularly disarmed people using attacks meant to knock them prone (and instead they dive to pick up their weapon.)

I praise you refluff, but as a DM prefer separate trip and disarm. For my gamestyle, the opposite could lead to inconsistencies and troubles in the way I want to play NPCs, the way thei react. Moreover, if you need to refluff something, IMO something is gone.

Or you just give Efreets Wishes.

Cool. And I could need guidelines to adjudicates what these wishes could do. And guidelines for this are in the Wish spell, in the 3.5 or Pathfinder SRD. See what's the problem? I am the first that consider rules as guidelines, but please, gimme those guidelines if you want me buy the books.

Moreover, as I said above answering to Scribble, when I was a kid I didn't know Genies.. I'm not sure I could have the ideas about the Wishes, and all the fun that followed, without have them stated in the rules of the monster. Better an inspiring rule, even if prone to troubles, than a bland, balanced one. My tastes, of course.


AAAND: an housecat can gouge your eye. For an hero, it's a pain you must endure (and then you can unleash your fury on the Pet Shop). For a commoner (or a wizard level 1, an educated commoner) means you stay on the ground screaming. The DM roleplays the cat as a cat, so it flees after the attack, since an animal attacks mainly for self defence or for hunger.

This is not even comparable to CAGI, IMO.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Real question: Where are you hearing that? Actual WotC published things? Can you cite where? 'Cause I have heard random people espouse that position, but I honestly cannot recall where I've seen that from WotC, and would like my impression corrected if it is wrong.

A springboard tight RAW that requires constant updates, and revisions kind of speaks for itself. A game system that provides good starting guidelines and leaves the common sense adjudication of the small details to the human beings playing the game doesn't require such tireless tweaking and patching. Isn't that amount of fine tuning a bit overboard for a system that is supposed to be run by a human DM?

I think there's an error simply in the idea that there is a "the setting" for D&D. D&D is the original poster child for a game with more settings than there are game masters running the game.

D&D isn't WoD, isn't Shadowrun, isn't Star Wars, or any other game with a strongly defined, strongly assumed setting. The vast majority of the published settings for D&D have always been designed to fit with the published rules, not the other way around. This is decades of history we're talking about here - nobody should be surprised by this.

I would agree that there is no default D&D setting. The original game encouraged DM's to build their own campaigns. I would say that the vast majority of published rulesets have been designed to fit a multitude of possible settings. The original exception based design so to speak. Meaning that the rules supported a world that people could relate to as a default with certain exceptions such as the existance of monsters, magic, etc. and any others a DM might want to add such as reduced gravity. This would modify the expectations for that world to include impossibly high jumps, easier flying and so forth.