When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Greg K]

I've said before, and I'll say again, if 4E had been a Saga-ized D&D, it would have been a huge win, instead of leaving me (and several others, as evidenced by these recurring threads) feeling like we got kicked out for liking an unfashionable play style.

Despite my dislike for Saga's use of per encounter abilities, removal of skill ranks, and over consolidation of skills, a Saga-ized DND would have, imo, been much better game. I doubt that I would play it (unless 3pp addressed those issues). However, it would have much closer to a game that I would enjoy as the above are my only issues with Saga unlike 4e where they are just the start of my issues with the game.

 

[Carpe DM]

This strikes me as much like the Vista debate. Vista released. A lot of people complained. Microsoft insisted that Vista was a success because it was the most commonly used operating system.

 

[Aeolius]

Vista released. A lot of people complained. Microsoft insisted that Vista was a success because it was the most commonly used operating system.

V Word

Sorry, as a Mac user I am by default not the target audience for the DDI.

 

[Psion]

If one paid attention to 3rd Edition, one would realize that the plethora of dragon-men archetypes that kept surfacing over the course edition points to D&D fans digging them, which was the motivation for making them a core race. Suggesting that WoW, which has no dragonman race for players, is responsible and not the previous edition of D&D, which had several dragonman races for players, is just ignoring the history of the game.

Not that the statement you are quoting was an argument so much as an example, but: WoW features monstrous races.

Not dismissing that such desire exists in some D&D fans as well. But there was also a sizeable backlash against half-dragons in 3e, to the point that Dungeon swore off using them.

Did people like dragonlike races because they were dragonlike, or because they were abusable? I don't know about you, but the more reasonable races in Races of the Dragon never flew (no pun intended) with my players.

 

[Mallus]

This strikes me as much like the Vista debate. Vista released. A lot of people complained. Microsoft insisted that Vista was a success because it was the most commonly used operating system.

Except that the people buying 4e intended to buy 4e. It didn't come bundled with the purchase of something else.

 

[El Mahdi]

Actually, that is flat out absurd.
4E developers themselves have been up front with major design philosophy shifts. They made certain choices with their eyes wide open.
It may be 1% and it may be 50%, but a certain section of the fan base was intentionally moved away from.

If they gain for than they lose then that was the exactly right card to play.
So I'm not remotely claiming that it was wrong or bad for them to do it.

But do not tell me that they are not the ones who changed the game, and radically changed some key elements. Thats just dumb.

Sorry about this being from 4 pages ago, but from the time I went to bed last night until I logged on today there have been 4 more pages. Wow. I think ENWorld may need another icon for hotter than hot. This thread seems to be smoking.

Anyways, to the point. This just isn't accurate. WoTC did not intentionally move away from any group, they intentionally moved toward a new idea. As with any new idea or change, there will be people who don't agree and CHOOSE to stay away (myself included), but these people could have just as easily chosen to go in the new direction, as many have. However, WoTC did not intentionally choose a course to move away from me, or other like minded gamers. I and everyone else who have decided not to switch to D&D have CHOSEN not to switch. We could just as likely gone the other way, just as I'm sure there are plenty of 40 somethings with extensive 2E and 3E collections that did switch. I CHOSE not to this time.

Everyone has there own likes and dislikes, but it's not just a matter of black and white (usually), but shades of gray. There are actually very few things I "Hate" in this world. There are however a massive amount of things I like to one degree or another. I'm sure there are some people who hate 4E, just as there are a lot of people who like 4E, but there are a lot of people who don't dislike or "Hate" 4E, they just prefer something else. That my friend, IS A CHOICE. WoTC did not intentionally set out to move away from anyone. They followed their research and feedback, and intentionally moved towards a different path. That isn't just semantics, it's intent. They did not intentionally set out to alienate anyone. What they did is intentionally make a product that their customer feedback told them the customers wanted, even though they knew some wouldn't like it. You can't please all of the people, all of the time. But, they did not set out to intentionally not please a specific group of people. That is absurd.

• 4E designers moved towards a new design philosophy.
• 4E designers changed the game to something new, that they hoped people would like (based on research). They did not change the game, intentionally, to something that people wouldn't like. I'm sure they hoped everyone would like it, even though they know thats not realistic.
• I, and others, who haven't switched have chosen not to switch. We have not been betrayed, or shunned, or excluded. No matter how much people want to say this, it won't make it true.

I've been a very outspoken critic of WoTC products. When something is horrible in my opinion, I say it's horrible. When something is good in my opinion, I say it's good. When WoTC has ignored feedback from it's fan base, I've been very vocal about there not listening (i.e. Scales of War AP outline). When they have made dismissive statements, I haven't liked it and told them so, also quite vocally. But not once, not even for a milisecond, have I felt betrayed or shunned because of WoTC business decisions pertaining to the direction they wanted to take the game and their business.

Now, I'm not saying others don't feel betrayed or excluded. That's their right and their opinion. But WoTC did not intentionally set out to do this to people. They intentionally made a new game that many people like and seems to be a success so far. Applying malicious intent to their actions is absurd, and says a lot more about those who feel this than it does about WoTC.


P.S.: Nowhere does the statement "WotC didn't decide you weren't in their target audience, you did." say that WoTC didn't change the game and didn't radically change some key elements. It's obvious they did. That statement has absolutely nothing to do with these points.

 

[The_Gneech]

Reasoned arguments have been made that OD&D is better than 3E for roleplaying. I don't agree since I think roleplaying in D&D is more or less divorced from system, but I find the argument that the original RPG is no good for RPing to be....interesting.

By modern standards, a Model T Ford is a rotten car. It's the same logic.

I don't want to derail the thread with whether or not early versions of D&D are any good for roleplaying; if you want to fork the thread to discuss it I'm willing. I will just say here that a folder full of characters who couldn't be played because "that's not allowed" testify to a game that makes for a pretty cruddy roleplaying experience for me. Fighters aren't allowed to learn spells. Ever. Wizards aren't allowed to use swords. Ever. When the first Lankhmar setting book came out, there were howls because Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, as iconic proto-D&D archetypes as ever there were, were built in ways that PCs could not be.

In my book, that spells "no good for roleplaying."

-The Gneech

 

[Halivar]

This strikes me as much like the Vista debate. Vista released. A lot of people complained. Microsoft insisted that Vista was a success because it was the most commonly used operating system.

Notwithstanding that fact that I have not used, and will never use Vista... yes. It was a huge success, even despite the haters like me.

 

[Mallus]

In my book, that spells "no good for roleplaying."

Older editions of D&D weren't as good at detailed mechanical character-modeling. That's inarguable true. Whether that meant they were bad for role-playing is a whole other kettle of fish...

 

[Greg K]

Though when I'm in the mood to make mechanically interesting characters, I really prefer the level of control systems like HERO or M&M afford. For example, my character in our M&M game is the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling (with a perfectly suitable suite of powers)... something like that would be hard to create in a class-based system, whereas it was a snap in M&M.

I would have settled for a True20 approach, but only because I want a little more structure on character generation and friendiness to plug-in pre-built magic systemss when it comes to fantasy.