Quote from: Christopher Brady;916275Thing is, Wizard's of The Coast apparently ran a customer survey about what players disliked the most, and according to them, the Vancian system was the top rated thing that people wanted to change.

Except, as Pathfinder sales proved, they didn't.  But Wizard's not being mind readers went along with the survey, as well as Hasbro's mandate to make a profitable venture and made 4e.  Between the OGL and the Internet, there was no way in hell that 4e was ever going to succeed.

But then...  If the OGL and Internet existed during the 2e era, 3e would have flopped.

Well it depends on who you ask; I mean, look at the current election.  Some poll or the other came out a couple of weeks ago, and suddenly Trump who had been in the cellar was at +3.  The pollster quickly went to Twitter and said "Oh we sampled that wrong, we'll re-sample it" and did it with Democrats +9 and suddenly Hillary was back out in the lead.  (NOTE: BOTH SIDES DO THIS I DO NOT WANT TO TALK POLITICS I AM ONLY USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE OF CORRUPTING DATA TO FIT A CERTAIN NARRATIVE)

Well, if you have a certain way you want D&D to go and you're a head designer, who are you going to ask about what people do or don't like in D&D?  Those who already like your ideas or those who don't?  

But to return to what I said: if 4e had been released as a "D&D Tactics" game, it might have not been so dismal.  So dreary, and tiresome.  A clean-slate 5e approach (or not, if you think 5e is a throwback game as many 4E WAS OBJECTIVELY THE BEST D&D EVER! people shriek) to the actual RPG and a quick but painless "retirement" of 4e nee "D&D tactics" might have served gamers better.

Oh and the public flogging of whomever created the 4e ad campaign.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916384Am I?  Honest question, because as I remember it, forums and discussions didn't really take off until midway of 3e's life span, and there was a lot of resistance on-line about 4e on a lot of forums, and if that atmosphere had existed just ten years earlier, in 2e's lifespan, I'm thinking we might have had the same thing that happened with 4e with 3e.  I could, of course, be wrong and this is nothing but supposition after all.

Also don't forget that 1999 we didn't have anything close to the amount of social media that we enjoy today. Facebook, YouTube, plethora of on-line forums (I understand they existed in 99, just not to the extend as they do now or even in 08') and things like Amazon reviews. Heck Paizo forums already had a Ban 4e/WotC threads going on even before 4e came out as a system. And if anyone was interested in looking at what 4e had to offer, you didn't need to go to the store to look at the book or even play it to see if it was "good" or not. You could get all your review strictly from what people were saying on YouTube or read the reviews on Amazon. They were not good nor were they, IMO, great representations of what the game was or could do.

Now that doesn't mean that 4e and WotC doesn't deserve a LOAD of criticism, because it does, it's just that I feel a good portion of people's perspective about the game (That it's an MMO on paper, for example) was usually an ill-formed opinion formed primarily by the interior design of the book and hear-say by the larger online community. WotC DID do a lot of stupid stuff to help alienate their fans, from cutting Dungeon/Dragon print to a completely on-line subscription done ONLY in house, to the promises of a VTT (regardless if it was due to a tragic affair), to a dumb video featuring a french guy bashing on previous editions, and a completely terrible GSL that no 3PP in their right might would touch. Then there was the Dungeons and Dragons Insider which, even though I'm still a subscriber to, didn't help their product sales in the least. All any group had to do was pay one of their friends a few bucks a month ($2-$4) and you had instant access to ALL classes, races, templates, monsters, traps, etc. plus the Character Builder AND DM tools that helps create more monsters. I mean I could save up to 20 some characters in 1 account (more if I exported them onto the computer) without ever touching a book. Think about what would've happened to 3rd Edition of EVERY single resources was available online with a single subscription and you didn't have to buy one book! How exactly would that have grown their sales?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916384What I'm saying is that I've noticed among people and gamers especially, we say we want change and 'innovation', but whenever we're presented with something that's different than what we know, we push back and hard.  I personally think, along with the fact that we can find more people who agree with us now, because of the ubiquity of information through the power of the intertoobs, that this was what really killed 4e.

And really, what do you all think the OSR really is?  A bunch of people who think that their way of playing is/was 'the right way it was done back then' and wanted to share that with potentially like-minded people.  The fact that in some places it's become something like a cult only reinforces my belief.

But, I could be wrong.

Yeah, that's been my experiences too. We want change, but only so much or only specific things or the ENTIRE thing is terrible!!! 4e did a LOT of stuff to "fix" perceived problems that the previous edition created. Fighters and non-magical classes in general were terrible after 7th level and item dependent throughout and 4e changed the game to fix that. Spell casters were terribly overpowered with too many spells and 4e fixed that. People wanted to play uncommon races like half-dragons, Drow, Minotaurs, and Vampires and 4e fixed it so that these options were more inline with traditional ones like humans and dwarves. And then there's the tactical gameplay that, at least in my experiences, is pretty similar to 3rd Edition. I mean the encounter layout has been pretty much the same since 3.5 adventures and haven't changed over much with 4e.  But obviously the fixes, even though they were asked for, weren't liked when they were applied. But maybe 5e has hit the nail on the head in balancing the "Fixes" with maintaining tradition.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;916442Well it depends on who you ask; I mean, look at the current election.  Some poll or the other came out a couple of weeks ago, and suddenly Trump who had been in the cellar was at +3.  The pollster quickly went to Twitter and said "Oh we sampled that wrong, we'll re-sample it" and did it with Democrats +9 and suddenly Hillary was back out in the lead.  (NOTE: BOTH SIDES DO THIS I DO NOT WANT TO TALK POLITICS I AM ONLY USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE OF CORRUPTING DATA TO FIT A CERTAIN NARRATIVE)

Well, if you have a certain way you want D&D to go and you're a head designer, who are you going to ask about what people do or don't like in D&D?  Those who already like your ideas or those who don't?  

But to return to what I said: if 4e had been released as a "D&D Tactics" game, it might have not been so dismal.  So dreary, and tiresome.  A clean-slate 5e approach (or not, if you think 5e is a throwback game as many 4E WAS OBJECTIVELY THE BEST D&D EVER! people shriek) to the actual RPG and a quick but painless "retirement" of 4e nee "D&D tactics" might have served gamers better.

Oh and the public flogging of whomever created the 4e ad campaign.

I think that idea might have flown. Unfortunately, I think many at WotC/Hasbro may have felt that the OGL had already split the market more than they wanted and that 4e was an attempt to rein some of that in. That is pure speculation on my part, however.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;916442But to return to what I said: if 4e had been released as a "D&D Tactics" game, it might have not been so dismal.  So dreary, and tiresome.  

Nah, what really needed to happen was 4e released as a computer game. The whole thing was built from the ground up to be a computer game, all that complexity that made table play such a drag would have been trivially handled by a computer.

That's easily the biggest sin of 4e: no 4e based computer games.

Quote from: Doom;916478Nah, what really needed to happen was 4e released as a computer game. The whole thing was built from the ground up to be a computer game, all that complexity that made table play such a drag would have been trivially handled by a computer.

That's easily the biggest sin of 4e: no 4e based computer games.

Yeah, IDGI.  TSR handed D&D off to SSI, the D&D games sold like hotcakes, the Baldur's Gate series was probably one of the best received RPGs ever, and so on, but I don't think there have been 1/10th of the number of computer games based on 3e as there were on 1e and 2e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916384Am I?  Honest question, because as I remember it, forums and discussions didn't really take off until midway of 3e's life span, and there was a lot of resistance on-line about 4e on a lot of forums, and if that atmosphere had existed just ten years earlier, in 2e's lifespan, I'm thinking we might have had the same thing that happened with 4e with 3e.  I could, of course, be wrong and this is nothing but supposition after all.



What I'm saying is that I've noticed among people and gamers especially, we say we want change and 'innovation', but whenever we're presented with something that's different than what we know, we push back and hard.  I personally think, along with the fact that we can find more people who agree with us now, because of the ubiquity of information through the power of the intertoobs, that this was what really killed 4e.

And really, what do you all think the OSR really is?  A bunch of people who think that their way of playing is/was 'the right way it was done back then' and wanted to share that with potentially like-minded people.  The fact that in some places it's become something like a cult only reinforces my belief.

But, I could be wrong.

Does what you said in any way shape or form relate, cross-reference or mention in any way a version of an RPG published by TSR?  Yes, so according to Brady's Law, by definition, you are wrong.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;916520Yeah, IDGI.  TSR handed D&D off to SSI, the D&D games sold like hotcakes, the Baldur's Gate series was probably one of the best received RPGs ever, and so on, but I don't think there have been 1/10th of the number of computer games based on 3e as there were on 1e and 2e.

Thats partially because near the end TSR partialed out the IP to a couple of PC and console game makers. WOTC had to sort that out and 16 years later is STILL sorting out some of the aftermath.

SSI stopped making the D&D games because TSR upped the licensing fee. Least thats what SSI staff told us way back.

So you had one company with Birthright, one with Ravenloft, one with Dark Sun, one with Dragon Dice, and on and on. And in at least one case they licesnsed off the same IP to two different companies which got them in some trouble.

Quote from: CRKrueger;916526Does what you said in any way shape or form relate, cross-reference or mention in any way a version of an RPG published by TSR?  Yes, so according to Brady's Law, by definition, you are wrong.

Actually hes covering alot of eras in that post and is right on several points.

Surveys may say people want change. The proof is the customers dont. Otherwise we would not have the numerous stories of campaigns lasting years, or DMs running the same system for decades.

And yeah there is/was a faction in OSR who were pretty nutty. Gronan's mentioned his run ins with them. Others have mentioned it too. But I dont think the whole OSR community is like that no more than I think the whole of the OSR community are flat out thieves and crooks. Some are. but thats not representative of the whole.

So we still have only three brown books in the RPG Industry made by TSR...oh no wait.  Kinda looks like people may have welcomed some change somewhere along the line, huh?  Some people stay in the same job, or stay married to the same person their entire adult lives, others may not, but neither one has to have anything to do with "wanting change", which is such a vague term as to be meaningless.  

If you don't like a game, then those people who play it are hanging onto it trying to recapture their youth and some golden age, the fools.
If you like a game, then those people who try a different game are chasing the new thing, trying to prove they're still young and find some golden age, the fools.

Or, humans just like things, or not like things, or feel like trying things, or don't feel like trying things.

Whichever.

Channeling the ghost of Chris today?

I'm going to be honest CRKrueger, I can sense the snark, but I can't even tell who it's directed at.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;916561I'm going to be honest CRKrueger, I can sense the snark, but I can't even tell who it's directed at.

Directed at...The concept of..."A bunch of people who think that their way of playing is/was 'the right way it was done back then' and wanted to share that with potentially like-minded people."

No one can like or dislike anything anymore, motive is always suspect.  Yeah there's grumpy old bastards, and there's fashionable hipsters, and then there's everyone in between.  Hell, even the groggiest of grognards, Old Geezer himself, has played Dungeon World.

The OSR can't just be people who said, "You know what, 3,3.5,4 they made a whole bunch of changes.  There was nothing really wrong with the older game, hey, let's still play it."  There always has to be the "right way it was done back then" bullshit, the "OSR Taliban" or "D&D Talmud" crap, the "Gygaxian Worship" horseshit, all the petty little sneering dismissals Gamers need to use to distinguish themselves as a higher form of geek.

Quote from: Omega;916549Channeling the ghost of Chris today?

I dunno, look at the industry, the success of 5th and tell me that the "Proof" is that customers don't want change.  FFG didn't repackage West End Games' d6 system for Star Wars - doesn't really seem to be hurting them, does it?

There are people who play one game only, there are people who try every new game.

"Surveys may say people want change. The proof is the customers dont." is just one of those False Common Wisdom things that gets bandied about without thinking too hard.  If I play in your campaign for 10 years it's because your campaign is good, if I leave it's because it's not.  Neither has anything to do with any specific "desire for change".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916384Am I?  Honest question, because as I remember it, forums and discussions didn't really take off until midway of 3e's life span, and there was a lot of resistance on-line about 4e on a lot of forums, and if that atmosphere had existed just ten years earlier, in 2e's lifespan, I'm thinking we might have had the same thing that happened with 4e with 3e.  I could, of course, be wrong and this is nothing but supposition after all.

You are right and wrong. Forums didn't take off until after the release of 3e. Before that it was newsgroups, gopher, ftp sites, AOL, and custom built websites. Seeded from all the stuff done on dial-up Compuserve, Genie, and AoL.

I regularly participated back then and there was plenty of roleplaying discussion among those who were on-line. And it was enough that TSR took notice and behaved like an ass.

Traveller fandom also made every use of the early internet as well.

Quote from: Harlock;916474I think that idea might have flown. Unfortunately, I think many at WotC/Hasbro may have felt that the OGL had already split the market more than they wanted and that 4e was an attempt to rein some of that in. That is pure speculation on my part, however.

The reliable antedotes I have seen was that there was a faction within Wizards design staff during the 3e era that HATED the OGL . They got the upper hand when 4e was developed. Apparently not everybody at Wizards was on board with Dancey and Atkinson and their vision of the RPG industry.