When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Brown Jenkin]

That's like believing in the Manchurian Designer, who was brainwashed by Angela Landsbury and surreptitiously inserted into a position of power at WotC so they could assassinate D&D.

Just you wait, just you wait.

Now Kill D&D

 

[Henry]

The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I don't like D&D, any of it, from 1975-2005".

Per that conjecture, all of the sub-categories you mention are equally barred from the new game design/business group under the "kill all sacred cows" philosophy.

I pretty much categorically disagree with that conjecture. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't have been playing it day in and day out, at conventions, at their homes, in the office, etc. Mike Mearls wouldn't have started up an OD&D game just for the fun of it, among some of the office staff. Whatever direction they took the game in for the 4th edition, I cannot say that they don't like D&D, because there's no evidence for it, other than the game not being to your personal liking, or my personal liking.

Heck, find out how many people over at Dragonsfoot would say, "I like ALL D&D from 1974 to 2005." Doubt you'll find very many, though some might. (Catch me over there on the right day and you'll have at least one.)

On the other hand, what's so different between someone who doesn't like it after 2005, and someone who doesn't like it after 1999? or 1988? Game philosophy changed pretty radically between 1997 and 2000, too. The 2E change is one thing, it wasn't as drastic in terms of mechanics as the change from 2 to 3, or from 3 to 4. However someone who liked it up until 4 has a lot in common with someone who liked it up until 3 -- pretty vast change in systems and design. The only difference now is the OGL impetus to keep going with what we already have, which is a great thing. It was a great thing for not just 3E, but for the versions which came before, too, as the so-called "retro clones" have discovered new life among people playing them, too.

 

[Minicol]

This conjecture is certainly not based on the history of these people's careers in the industry, and especially not their actual time developing D&D. I'm sorry, but this claim that they all spent years (decades in some cases) developing games they don't like is really silly, since you're essentially saying that they hate their own work.

Well, I know plenty of people doing work they don't like, not everybody is gifted with a job they like.


But aside from that, I get your point, so what IYO made them change their order of battle regarding play style ?

After all, plenty of other gamers and deisgners did not feel the need to change, so why would they, especially since the then D&D was, as you point out, their child ?

 

[The Little Raven]

Well, I know plenty of people doing work they don't like, not everybody is gifted with a job they like.

Do anything of them work for an industry that barely registers on economic radars, where a lack of enjoyment of the actual product you produce will not allow you to be successful? The RPG industry isn't like other industries in that regard.

But aside from that, I get your point, so what IYO made them change their order of battle regarding play style ?

The fact that people and their tastes change over time. I loved 3e when it came out, but that love faded over time because of issues that cropped up during my time playing it. It's a good game, but it's not a game I want to play any longer.

People are not unchanging monoliths.

After all, plenty of other gamers and deisgners did not feel the need to change, so why would they, especially since the then D&D was, as you point out, their child ?

Uhhh, because not everyone agrees, and different people have different opinions? As evidenced by things like Pathfinder, and Monte Cook's BOXM, a lot more people than you suggest did feel the need to change... it's just a matter of what direction the changes will take the game that differs.

 

[AndrewRogue]

What's your criticism of 3e here in regards to incorporating all facets of RPGdom? This seems to be an inclusive policy so I'm not exactly getting where you're coming from. Is there something wrong with this?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I was waiting until I got to the end of this topic to post, but this one jumped out at me.

The problem is that, while you'd think trying to incorporate all facets of RPGdom is a positive thing, the fact is that it doesn't work. For example, as it stood, I found levels ~5-~15 to be the only playable ones, and that was with extensive house ruling. So... I got to use about half the game, and even less when you consider that I had to overhaul magic and make extensive custom material to cover things I wanted to work.

So, essentially, by trying to include everything and the kitchen sink... 3.X made it incredibly difficult to play anything in particular. Sure, the potential was there, but it was more a shiny core that you had to build around and excise other things from. In other words, it was the danger of generalization. Sure, it could do a lot, but it didn't do anything GREAT, which leaves players who want a specific game type kinda hanging.

 

[CaffeineBoy]

But that hasn't really turned out to be the case, has it? 4E fractured D&D fandom, sure, but many people who bought many 3E books have started in again with 4E books. Right? Also, I'm relatively certain that if 4E had been an evolution of 3E -- fixing its problems, introducing some new systems -- I'd still be buying.

I feel for you, Jeff. I began my gaming career with 1e AD&D (I'm 44) and I hated the way 2e developed. I felt very much abandoned by TSR and gave them none of my cash. I was temporarily reenergized by 3.x but, dang, the weight of prep work and the creep of expansions began to rip at my sanity. I stopped buying years ago. And frankly, if the new edition had simply been an evolution of 3.x, I'd be sitting this round out as well. As much as it appealed to me initially, now with a wife, kids, work and precious little free time, I have no interest in following down that road (be it with WotC, Pathfinder, Necro or whoever).

I recognize that it's very subjective, but I honestly feel that it's not that I decided to stop buying WotC products, but rather that WotC decided to stop making products that I want to buy.

And that's absolutely true, as Ben Kenobi would say, from a certain point of view. Conversely, they decided to *start* making products that I'm extremely excited about buying. I have multiple copies of the core books (for myself, my son, my group), a gajillion plastic minis bought off ebay (and I'm aquiver with delight over the new direction the minis are going -- WotC is actually going to see some of my cash, rather than the ebayers), magnetic status markers from Alea Tools, a brand new magnet-friendly battlemat from Dark Platypus, two notebooks full of stuff I've printed out of the Dragon, and I've got cash set aside for two hardcover books coming out next month that can't get here soon enough!

This is all to say, life is cyclical. Gaming is too. WotC's choices have sent you packing for a while... I've been there and it sucks. But it ain't so for everybody. I haven't been this excited about D&D since 3.0 was a baby, and maybe not since AD&D was. I feel like a teenager again, stealing time to flip through my Monster Manual or devouring the latest Dragon. And that means, from my point of view, WotC did the right thing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I know plenty of people doing work they don't like, not everybody is gifted with a job they like.

The RPG business is not the kind of business you want to go into if you don't like your work. Because it is hard to earn a lot of money. And then you need also talent to even get to the places where you can earn money full-time.

 

[Silver Moon]

I remember when 3x came out the people playing before (long time veterans) felt they were ignored as a "new" audience was targeted. They went on about....(fill in complaint here).

I remember that vividly. I also remember the exact same thing happening when 2nd Edition came out. And you know what, we'll see it again in around eight years when 5th Edition makes its appearance.

 

[Gothmog]

This statement is very presumptuous considering how differently people play D&D, not to mention various editions. Personally, I find 4E more "D&D" than any other edition, with 2E a close second and 3.x dead last.

Wow! And here I thought I was the only one of a kind

Nope, you guys aren't the only ones- that's my opinion as well.

 

[justanobody]

Which is quite funny as 1st-2nd edition was not D&D, but a whole new game as noted by the name change to Advanced D&D, while the actual game D&D was still being released at the same time initially.

So 2nd edition AD&D being more like D&D than Basic seems a bit absurd to me to say the least.