No some gamers are scared of change imo. You can disagree with me on that all you like nothing anyone here or elsewhere will change my mind on that subject.

Wotc did themselves no favors with the terrible marketing for 4E. In terms of fanbase many on both sides PF and 4E did not do the hobbies a favor. Coming across as mere stereotypes and in some cases proving that that they never read either edition. Those who were anti-4E also came off as hypocrites with 5E as that edition borrowed many elements from 4E. So much for "never" playing anything that had 4E mechanics in it ever again. To be honest I think if they had written 4E in a more tradition format like 5E it would have gone over better imo. I admit I could be wrong on that.

I was able to roleplay in both 4E and Pathfinder. Neither set of rules was any hindrance to myself and the other members of the group ability to effectively roleplay our characters and as above don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034404And Pathfinder just added to the bloat and people were OK with that.  In fact, a lot of D&D 3.x fans actually claimed that PFRPG was the 'second coming'.  Disagree all you like, evidence suggests otherwise.

Seconded.

Sorry Pundit yet I think your wrong. I admit to not being a fan of PF like I used to be. Yet when it was released and compared to 4E it was considered the second coming of D&D. Whether you like it or not some people like that kind of style of play.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1034434You're correct in that the OGL made it impossible for WotC to shelve 3/3.5 without consequence.

Where you're full of shit due to your own mental issues is claiming that people didn't like 4e because it was "scary change".  They didn't like 4e because...they didn't like 4e.  4venger fandom and idiotic marketing didn't help, but WotC chose to create a tactical miniatures RPG with cardgame and MMO sensibilities and pass it off as D&D 4th Edition instead of D&D Tactics.

If Cubicle 7 took WarhammerQuest and reskinned it as Warhammer 4th Edition, people would be upset and not because of "scary change".

Look, I get it, you don't like it when I'm right, but you have to concede that sometimes, even I can be.  Given all the chatter and hatred that 4e generated before it's launch, especially with the release of the Dragon Magazine contract from Paizo, 4e never had a chance to actually be anything more than a footnote.

The fact that Paizo was able to get the majority of D&D fans to rival WoTC's fanbase for not just one year, but at least two, if not more, and not to mention that a lot of 4e haters simply parroted a lot of incorrect information that ruminated on the internet, and the admission of a lot of people who never actually tried 4e, because 'they knew' it would suck, is yes, anecdotal, but I've seen the same behaviour for well over 20 years now:

Gamers absolutely despise change.

Thing is, I have my suspicions that 4e wasn't going to be long for this world anyway, because as you say, it changed too much and likely wouldn't have liked it anyway.  But I have no evidence of this.  The OGL precluded that from ever happening.

How about something that isn't anecdotal?

Like that ever since OD&D, gamers purchased every new edition of the game, even when multiple versions were still selling.

11 versions of D&D, all selling, many bringing radical change. Nearly every version of D&D is available for sale now, and 5e is still a juggernaut.
5 versions of Shadowrun, all sold, even with three major mechanics changes.  All 5 are available now and the new stuff still sells.
nWoD is still selling, even after oWoD became available again.

Yes, some people, oddly enough, actually like the game they have been playing and supporting for many years and want to keep playing that game.

You say "scary change" because of whatever your problem is, the reality is, not everyone needs or wants what the new edition is bringing (which might be nothing more than change for the sake of selling a new edition).

The actual facts however, are clear:  most people just keep buying the new edition.  Not exactly supportive of your histrionic "gamers hate change" nonsense.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034446Thing is, I have my suspicions that 4e wasn't going to be long for this world anyway, because as you say, it changed too much and likely wouldn't have liked it anyway.  But I have no evidence of this.  The OGL precluded that from ever happening.

I run both 4e & 5e & have run Pathfinder. I've played & GM'd with many dozens of gamers over the last 10 years.

I think PF probably did hurt 4e, but there is IMO no doubt that 5e is more attractive than 4e to most gamers, particularly new gamers. There IS a market for 4e, there are definitely players who prefer 4e to either 3e or 5e. They are a pretty small minority IME. 5e IME & IMO is much better designed for growing the player base than 4e was.

It's human nature to be afraid of change imo. I had a friend who worked 15+ years in retail and simply moving say the science fiction section from the left side of a bookshelf to the right would cause customer to freak out. I wish I was joking yet one time I had to defend my friend from a customer laying into him because they dared to move over their favored section over a few shelves. Yes to be fair other factor are a issue too. From disliking the rules of the new edition. To not wanting to purchase a new edition. To dismiss being afraid of change out of hand because it does not fit the narrative is being naive imo. Humans as a species don't like change imo. Call it anecdotal as much as one wants it won't change the fact that our species for the most part hate change.

PF did take sales away from 4E. That was only to be expected as 4E was a major change. PF, 4E, whatever rpg it as long as I'm having fun I could care less about the version. Then again I consider myself a enlightened grognard. I don't like change for change sake yet it happens whether I want it or not so I adapt to the changing rpg landscape.

People aren't "afraid of change." The deal is that a brand carries with it certain expectations, and when you fail to meet them, you irritate the customer. The customer buys your brand because he wants needs/desires (they are the same as far as marketing cares) X, Y, and Z. D&D 4e should be taught in business school along with New Coke on what happens when you have a product that seems good according to focus testing and design theory, yet craps all over your customers' expectations.

Well many people perhaps too many are afraid to admit of being afraid of change. Almost no one wants to admit to that. I admit don't like change sometimes. People don't like change. We as a fandom refuse to admit that.
 
4E was too much of a change and yes their own ad campaign for it was terrible. The thing about rpg fans from what I see some or at least very vocal one want change or the ability to complain about flaws in a rpg yet at the same time they don't want to see any changes. The ones that complain that Paladins are LG in alignment yet also don't want the class to be anything but LG. Complaining for the sake of it yet don't you dare change their rpg.

4E was, in no particular order:

- A huge break from tradition (whatever you think of that pro or con, it was a break).
- Poorly marketed, including insulting part of the existing customer base.
- Written with at least two different design directions--tactical play and narrative play--which don't necessarily need to be in opposition, but were in this case.
- Incredibly bloated from the get go due to the sale plan for splats.
- Conflicting advice from some of the writers on how to run it, demonstrating fairly clearly that they didn't understand or accept the design.
- Launched in the middle of a recession with an attempt at a major splash (instead of "grow slow" approach that that might have given them time to correct course).
- An impossible brand plan imposed by unrealistic expectations at the Hasbro level.
- A drive to have a software component coupled with zero understanding of how to outsource it to someone that could do it.

To counter the negatives of the above, they had some thought put into the math, thought put into the tactics, some play testing (flawed though it apparently was), and some willingness to get a little fresh with the setting material (what could peek through from the bloat).  They had some new stuff that hadn't worked quite that well before in D&D.  There's elements of two different fun games in there, if you spend some time teasing them out.  

It wasn't enough.  It's a wonder it did as well as it did.  Really, it's a testament to how well the good parts worked that it lasted at all.  And I still say WotC was incapable of making 5E without trying 4E first.  Of course, had Pathfinder been a system designed to clean up the problem in 3E (as opposed to slapping a coat of paint over them and hiding them in the closet), it might have run WotC out of the business and taken over for good.  But when you build a company on using other peoples' designs, you don't have the background to do that.

Good post Steven.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1034560- Written with at least two different design directions--tactical play and narrative play--which don't necessarily need to be in opposition, but were in this case.

When the tactical play meets the narrative play, the narrative play is the dead play - to misquote The Good The Bad & the Ugly.

They made a nice setting for narrative play, but never really knew how to implement it - Pemerton over on ENW is about the only GM I've ever seen really make it work. Almost always the game becomes tactical-centred with all else as fluff/colour.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1034560- A drive to have a software component coupled with zero understanding of how to outsource it to someone that could do it.

What do you mean, Silverlight is here to stay!

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1034523People aren't "afraid of change." The deal is that a brand carries with it certain expectations, and when you fail to meet them, you irritate the customer. The customer buys your brand because he wants needs/desires (they are the same as far as marketing cares) X, Y, and Z. D&D 4e should be taught in business school along with New Coke on what happens when you have a product that seems good according to focus testing and design theory, yet craps all over your customers' expectations.

New Coke is exactly the analogy I use.

jg

Quote from: S'mon;1034593Good post Steven.



When the tactical play meets the narrative play, the narrative play is the dead play - to misquote The Good The Bad & the Ugly.

They made a nice setting for narrative play, but never really knew how to implement it - Pemerton over on ENW is about the only GM I've ever seen really make it work. Almost always the game becomes tactical-centred with all else as fluff/colour.

It works well enough for 13th Age.  But then I think it helps people's expectations if a game that deviates so much from previous D&D standard isn't actually called D&D or in an official D&D universe, however much roots it has in the system.

JG

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034404And Pathfinder just added to the bloat and people were OK with that.  In fact, a lot of D&D 3.x fans actually claimed that PFRPG was the 'second coming'.  Disagree all you like, evidence suggests otherwise.

Yep this is true if you are A fan of 3.x the bloat isn't A problem for you the bloat may be part of the attraction why because that bloat comes with options lots of them and that is likely why you like the system.

The new details on spells today are interesting...

Basically just 5e changes / martials being able to cast rituals with skill feats