Quote from: Hairfoot;384867. . . [E]ndorsing the retarded notion that games develop like technology - each generation objectively better than the last - which has become the most cliched and boorish bit of fanboy dogma ever to grace the hobby.

True.

Quote from: Hairfoot;384867I'm a cynic, of course, but I can't help but notice that everyone who has a financial stake in Hasbro experiences the revelation that whatever the current edition is is the best edition ever.  If 5E is just Furry Monopoly with the D&D logo on the box, the same people will be blogging that, y'know, tactical combats and heroic adventures were never much fun, and what they really wanted from D&D all along was the chance to travel around a board buying up utilities and train stations with a bipedal fox in a samurai outfit.

Well, it could bring in LARPers.

Quote from: SeanchaiMoreover, what does WotC get from listening to the frothing at the mouth non-customer? They're not going to become customers. Or, supposing they might be, is it worth the time, energy, and money to convert them? Won't they pretty much always be nit-picking, dissatisfied loudmouths because that's their personality?

Yes and no.

There are some people who will complain no matter what you do. There are some people whose demands are nearly impossible or pointless to appease. The people who want the game to be more detailed than Rolemaster? They exist, but they are in such a small number compared to the people that want the complexity level set somewhere else on the spectrum of complexity that they are not a demographic worth chasing for a major publisher. And then there are the 20 Percenters - the people who will be happy with absolutely anything done by anyone who is in power no matter what. Those people ill give glowing reviews to anything, and will dogpile anyone who says anything negative about anything that is currently being made.

WotC's own forum and EnWorld are pretty heavily dominated by Twenty Percenters. Dissent of any kind is brushed off with the Oberoni Fallacy, and people like Abyssal Maw rage troll anyone who says anything negative about anything WotC writes. That's nice for the egos of the writing staff, but it's not particularly useful feedback. It takes something really egregiously wrong (like Skill Challenges), or something that is very simply out of whack (like Hurricane of Blows) for those areas to generate criticism on the subject, and even then threads on the subject are filled with disingenuous static about how it works fine if the DM intervenes to change how it works.

For a more useful form of criticism, they have to find people who don't like their system but are close to the fence and analytical about why they don't like their system. Only by finding those complaints and then evaluating them for how many people would be attracted/alienated by addressing them.

Basically you're almost exactly wrong. WotC doesn't give a crap about 4vengers. Because those people will buy their books no matter what they say and defend their products no matter what they are. Those are like the 20% who continued to approve of Bush's performance after Katrina and the financial collapse. The Man doesn't need to pander to those people or listen to what they have to say. The Man needs to appeal to swing voters. And you aren't going to find a lot of those guys on their dedicated fan sites.

The people who were psyched about some of the 4e design principles but turned off enough to not buy by others, those are the people that WotC wants to hear from. Not the people who already bought, and not the people who never seriously considered buying.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;384933The people who want the game to be more detailed than Rolemaster? They exist, but they are in such a small number compared to the people that want the complexity level set somewhere else on the spectrum of complexity that they are not a demographic worth chasing for a major publisher.

I'd argue that the game already is more complex than RoleMaster ever was.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;384933Yes and no.

There are some people who will complain no matter what you do. There are some people whose demands are nearly impossible or pointless to appease. The people who want the game to be more detailed than Rolemaster? They exist, but they are in such a small number compared to the people that want the complexity level set somewhere else on the spectrum of complexity that they are not a demographic worth chasing for a major publisher. And then there are the 20 Percenters - the people who will be happy with absolutely anything done by anyone who is in power no matter what. Those people ill give glowing reviews to anything, and will dogpile anyone who says anything negative about anything that is currently being made.

WotC's own forum and EnWorld are pretty heavily dominated by Twenty Percenters. Dissent of any kind is brushed off with the Oberoni Fallacy, and people like Abyssal Maw rage troll anyone who says anything negative about anything WotC writes. That's nice for the egos of the writing staff, but it's not particularly useful feedback. It takes something really egregiously wrong (like Skill Challenges), or something that is very simply out of whack (like Hurricane of Blows) for those areas to generate criticism on the subject, and even then threads on the subject are filled with disingenuous static about how it works fine if the DM intervenes to change how it works.

For a more useful form of criticism, they have to find people who don't like their system but are close to the fence and analytical about why they don't like their system. Only by finding those complaints and then evaluating them for how many people would be attracted/alienated by addressing them.

Basically you're almost exactly wrong. WotC doesn't give a crap about 4vengers. Because those people will buy their books no matter what they say and defend their products no matter what they are. Those are like the 20% who continued to approve of Bush's performance after Katrina and the financial collapse. The Man doesn't need to pander to those people or listen to what they have to say. The Man needs to appeal to swing voters. And you aren't going to find a lot of those guys on their dedicated fan sites.

The people who were psyched about some of the 4e design principles but turned off enough to not buy by others, those are the people that WotC wants to hear from. Not the people who already bought, and not the people who never seriously considered buying.

-Frank

Swing voters.
I like the politcal analogy.  

The thing that I have yet to understand about the situation, especially with the amount of houseruling, is the lack of optional ruleset.  In another thread, we were talking to a designer about his ruleset, and he mentioned some of the optional rules.  
I also have optional and advanced rules that can be plugged into my own system, depending on the type of game I want to play and the Players I have.

And it is amazing how many optional rules become central rules through starting as optional rules.

Finally, I have always seen optional rules as the way that a game system can lure players back who don't like something.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;384857I must admit to not being particularly interested in getting "factual corrections" from Ari Marmell, because he's a liar. When 4e was coming out, he released a "review" as "one of the playtesters" about how impressed he was with the writing he saw in the 4e game. Leaving aside the fact that numerous pieces he chortled about (like skill challenge attacks from the challenge) were not in the rules and never had been, he neglected to mention the conflict of interest of being a paid writer on 4th edition. So yeah, Ari Marmell can take his "facts" and shove them up his ass sideways.

Unless I'm much mistaken, I think you make the error to conflate Massawyrm (who did indeed pen a review at AintItCool.com of the nature that matches your description closely), with Marmell himself. Massawyrm was Marmell 's GM in the 4E play test period, indeed his review references (anonymously) a freelancer about to work for 4E and wishing to get to know the system from the player's POV.

Personally, I don't think either Marmell or Massawyrm to be liars; rather, I regret that in being (genuinely) enthusiastic about 4E they both were extremely outspoken about 4E rendering 3E 'obsolete'. This claim of obsolescence (?), more than anything else, fueled the edition wars, as it not only put the editions in direct competition (which they were already) but made a strong effort to undermine the possibility one could genuinely like and appreciate both editions, perhaps for different things.

Quote from: Windjammer;384948Personally, I don't think either Marmell or Massawyrm to be liars; rather, I regret that in being (genuinely) enthusiastic about 4E they both were extremely outspoken about the 4E rendering 3E 'obsolete'.

Nod. Wasn't Ari Marmell posting a lot of comments on ENWorld post-announcement, pre-release, commenting on 4e with an enthusiasm that was to the effect of "4e is as close to the D&D I always wanted to play as you can get"?

Quote from: Benoist;384949Nod. Wasn't Ari Marmell posting a lot of comments on ENWorld post-announcement, pre-release, commenting on 4e with an enthusiasm that was to the effect of "4e is as close to the D&D I always wanted to play as you can get"?

In hindsight I think Marmell's enthusiasm about 4E is like Abyssal Maw's, in that it is only partially colored by the ruleset considered simply as such, and more broadly owed to extraneous factors. Marmell was looking forward to free lance more widely for WotC in the 4E era - indeed, he repeatedly voiced his hopes (I think) of becoming part of the permanent staff - and Abyssal Maw really was excited about the edition overhaul as it meant he could move in to become a much more formative influence on the RPGA in the 4E era (compare his occasional negative remarks about the RPGA in the 3E era when other people were in charge, making decisions he didn't like).

These factors - the prospect of freelancing more extensively, of running the organized format at a much more influential position - are huge to determine one's excitement over a new edition. It feels -rightly- like a change at a huge scale, the change of an era, and there's the tremendous excitement to be part of it, to be standing right there in the centre of where it's happening.

Well, and then someone like Frank Trollman comes along who couldn't care less about 4E except at the level of it being a ruleset. I do admire Trollman's analyses of 4E - and, unlike Thanlis and others, I actually believe they are true - but I can't help but wonder whether this reductive attitude to RPGs misses out on something. Obviously, the analyses are absolutely precious as analyses of rulesets, but looking at people like AM and Marmell, it's obvious at once that "4E" is something much, much larger than a mere ruleset for them. Which leaves me wondering where the rest of guys is, on the spectrum of AM/Marmell on the 'wider' 4E experience and with Frank at the other end of the spectrum, absolutely hating on the culture and community of WotC.

Quote from: Windjammer;384948Unless I'm much mistaken, I think you make the error to conflate Massawyrm (who did indeed pen a review at AintItCool.com of the nature that matches your description closely), with Marmell himself. Massawyrm was Marmell 's GM in the 4E play test period, indeed his review references (anonymously) a freelancer about to work for 4E and wishing to get to know the system from the player's POV.

Personally, I don't think either Marmell or Massawyrm to be liars; rather, I regret that in being (genuinely) enthusiastic about 4E they both were extremely outspoken about 4E rendering 3E 'obsolete'. This claim of obsolescence (?), more than anything else, fueled the edition wars, as it not only put the editions in direct competition (which they were already) but made a strong effort to undermine the possibility one could genuinely like and appreciate both editions, perhaps for different things.

I think you are right and I am wrong. Mouseferatu and Massawyrm appear to be different people.

I can still stay mad at them for having given a glowing review to a Skill Challenge system they had obviously never played, but not for overt conflict of interest. Mea Culpa.

But I think you are right that the 4e proponents came out swinging with edition war rhetoric that was unhelpful and unwarranted. The whole "I didn't realize how much 3e sucked until I played 4e!" tact was a bad one. Much of their target audience were currently playing 3.5 and having a great time. Telling them their game sucked was just a recipe for pissing people off, not for getting them to throw off their chains and rejoice in the liberty of a new edition.

Still, two years in, those kinds of blunders should be over and done with. If WotC is canceling books and rebooting the franchise now it is because of poor word of mouth, not poorly chosen marketing tacts. And really: I rest the cornerstone of it all on Skill Challenges. Had they delivered on just that, I think the edition would have been a success. People (including me) really wanted to like those.

-Frank

Quote from: ggroy;384887A quote from Ari's followup blog post:

http://mouseferatu.livejournal.com/681802.html



Ari is probably referring to Frank's post,

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=384587&postcount=34


He's been laughing at you Frank, all along.  :banghead:

He's quite right to laugh. What a load of old wank.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384896Haters aren't customers. They're just haters.

Yep.

I don't think Ari Marmell "betrayed" anyone. He had just found work in the OGL/D&D field at the time of third edition, and wanted to keep working in this field. He chose to embrace the 4e hype to get some work with WotC, when in fact he doesn't like the game nearly as much as his most enthusiastic posts would suggest. At the end of the day, he'll work where work's to be found. Whether it's 4e, Pathfinder, whatever. That's all it is, to me.

Quote from: Windjammer;384951In hindsight I think Marmell's enthusiasm about 4E is like Abyssal Maw's, in that it is only partially colored by the ruleset considered simply as such, and more broadly owed to extraneous factors. Marmell was looking forward to free lance more widely for WotC in the 4E era - indeed, he repeatedly voiced his hopes (I think) of becoming part of the permanent staff - and Abyssal Maw really was excited about the edition overhaul as it meant he could move in to become a much more formative influence on the RPGA in the 4E era (compare his occasional negative remarks about the RPGA in the 3E era when other people were in charge, making decisions he didn't like).

These factors - the prospect of freelancing more extensively, of running the organized format at a much more influential position - are huge to determine one's excitement over a new edition. It feels -rightly- like a change at a huge scale, the change of an era, and there's the tremendous excitement to be part of it, to be standing right there in the centre of where it's happening.

Basically, yes. That's more-or-less what I was getting at.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384896It's not just the designers. I mean, I also think that. You're all stupid schmucks.

Haters aren't customers. They're just haters.

I was a customer until recently.  I have many of the 4E books and modules up to Plane Below and Underdark.

I'm not strictly a 1E AD&D grognard.  

Quote from: ggroy;384971I was a customer until recently.  I have many of the 4E books and modules up to Plane Below and Underdark.

I'm not strictly a 1E AD&D grognard.  

Please. don't confuse him.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;384906He said that wanted to perform Action X. He also said that there was a thing preventing him from doing so: his distaste for producing unbalanced material.

Right. So he doesn't write new material off the cuff, because he feels the need to examine it for balance, and for a home game that's "more trouble than it's worth." But he never ever says he can't do it. In fact, he says that he's done it all the time. He says he's done mechanical work for both 3E and 4E, and he's generally happy with it.