Quote from: fearsomepirate;1034523People aren't "afraid of change."

Actually, yes they do.  Simply because of our psychology.  We're creatures of a patterns and habits, so when something deviates from it, we notice it.  And given that disrupted routines were usually a sign of danger, humans don't like it.  Hence, fear of change.

This is basic stuff, no degrees needed to know this.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1034523The deal is that a brand carries with it certain expectations, and when you fail to meet them, you irritate the customer.

Which is what CHANGE is.  And they didn't like the change, because they thought it was too drastic.  But Pathfinder, despite it's flaws (every game system has issues), was something familiar, or safe, so people flocked to it.

Ergo, basic deduction says "Gamers HATE change."  Which has been my argument since the inception of this.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1034523The 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.

No, customers buy the brand because they've been convinced they NEED it.  And in this case, 4e didn't, because there was a competitor that did everything the customer was OK with, because it didn't change anything.  If 4e had been the only game in town, then gamers would have been convinced that they 'needed' 4e to stay 'relevant'.  It's why, for example, 4K TVs are a thing.  The TV makers have pushed people into thinking that it's needed, thus people buy it.

But the OGL killed that option for D&D in general, by allowing a competitor to take over a previous, safe, edition and peddle it to gamers.  And so gamers went with, as the saying goes, 'the Devil they knew'.

It's why 5e doesn't really take any chances with its design, by going backwards to older editions.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034678Actually, yes they do.  Simply because of our psychology.  We're creatures of a patterns and habits, so when something deviates from it, we notice it.  And given that disrupted routines were usually a sign of danger, humans don't like it.  Hence, fear of change.

This is basic stuff, no degrees needed to know this.



Which is what CHANGE is.  And they didn't like the change, because they thought it was too drastic.  But Pathfinder, despite it's flaws (every game system has issues), was something familiar, or safe, so people flocked to it.

Ergo, basic deduction says "Gamers HATE change."  Which has been my argument since the inception of this.



No, customers buy the brand because they've been convinced they NEED it.  And in this case, 4e didn't, because there was a competitor that did everything the customer was OK with, because it didn't change anything.  If 4e had been the only game in town, then gamers would have been convinced that they 'needed' 4e to stay 'relevant'.  It's why, for example, 4K TVs are a thing.  The TV makers have pushed people into thinking that it's needed, thus people buy it.

But the OGL killed that option for D&D in general, by allowing a competitor to take over a previous, safe, edition and peddle it to gamers.  And so gamers went with, as the saying goes, 'the Devil they knew'.

It's why 5e doesn't really take any chances with its design, by going backwards to older editions.

Our group played 3.5 until we felt the need to switch. We looked at both 4e and Pathfinder and switched to Pathfinder.

In the grand scheme of things 4e didn't measure up especially after the years of anti-fan ranting about the system.

Half a decade later we are looking at 4e again.

Since when is change considered a virtue? Gamers don't fear change. That's bullshit. Gamers fear the wrong changes. 4E changed D&D but it did so the wrong way. It's not that we feared the change we just didn't like the change. Change in and of itself isn't good. Christopher Brady, customers purchased 4E because they bought the brand D&D, convinced, they NEEDED it. What Pathfinder and the OGL did was to let customers know that they actually don't need to be playing D&D and can play other games that tickle the itch that their favorite version of D&D did.

Gamers do not fear change. Gamers are suspicious of change. Especially, when the change is primarily driven by a company, for this example, WotC, to drive sales. In your world, you don't believe that D&D is an actual thing that people played for decades and have expectations of what D&D should be. I don't want to spoil the end but you're fucking wrong. You are the type of guy that would try to sell New Coke and when it fucking bombs in the market start blaming the customers for not wanting to drink your shitty sugar water. People had expectations of what D&D is. It just isn't a brand. The game has a tone, a feel, and way of doing things that people like and expect out of their D&D game. When 4E came out and from the get go their marketing strategy was the game you liked? It was total shit. And then the game comes out and it doesn't taste like the coke you've been drinking all of your life and you don't want to buy it. D&D 5E is the Coke a Cola Classic of the gaming world. It came out after New Coke almost ruined the company and said: We are sorry. Here is the product you actually like.

It is going backward in a sense. It's going backward to the path that actually leads to market success.

Change != Good. Change = Change.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034678Ergo, basic deduction says "Gamers HATE change."  Which has been my argument since the inception of this.

...and yet 4e went through multiple printings even though PF was available, and 5e sells even though nearly all of D&D is available now.
...and the same with Shadowrun.
...and the same with oWod, nWod, etc.
...and the same with Classic Deadlands vs. Savage, etc.

Ergo, you're completely full of shit because most gamers just move on to the current product even when legacy products are still being sold.

Paizo using 3.5 to beat 4e is the exception, not the rule, and even then 4e was still selling in volume that would have made anyone ecstatic except WotC.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1034685...and yet 4e went through multiple printings even though PF was available, and 5e sells even though nearly all of D&D is available now.
...and the same with Shadowrun.
...and the same with oWod, nWod, etc.
...and the same with Classic Deadlands vs. Savage, etc.

Ergo, you're completely full of shit because most gamers just move on to the current product even when legacy products are still being sold.

This is another true thing. But, it is also true that the D&D market shrunk a lot when 4E came out and Pathfinder was able to actually win the 'market share' battle for a few years. D&D is traditionally >90% of the market. We sometimes forget that outside of D&D there really isn't a hobby that makes money to support the business as a real going concern.

Numbers matter, though. 4e sold, but not terribly well. IIRC it actually succeeded in bringing in new customers, it just drove off a lot of old ones.

QuoteWe sometimes forget that outside of D&D there really isn't a hobby that makes money to support the business as a real going concern.

I have maintained for some time now that "the RPG industry" is really just "D&D's coattails."

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1034692Numbers matter, though. 4e sold, but not terribly well. IIRC it actually succeeded in bringing in new customers, it just drove off a lot of old ones.



I have maintained for some time now that "the RPG industry" is really just "D&D's coattails."

I think a lot of publishers agree with that. I've had many publishers say that they are the bottom feeders that feed on D&D's leftovers.

There used to be a larger 'hobby' and a smaller D&D market. Remember in the 90's? GURPS, WoD, Palladium, and others were selling tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of books. It was glorious. I miss those days.

The problem with CB's frequent tirades about change is you're pathologizing the customer. There's nothing unique to gaming here. When a brand has an identity, people associate the brand with something, so when they buy that product, they expect certain things.  If you don't give them what they want from the brand, the problem isn't "customers are afraid of change," the problem is "you are managing your brand poorly and either misread or undervalued customer expectations."

One cannot claim that gamers don't hate change yet then in the same sentence then claim they hate certain types of change.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways imo. Fearing change even certain types of change is still being afraid of change. To me being suspicious of change and fear of it is the same to a certain extent. Their is nothing wrong with being scared of change because humans are creatures of habit. Then again typical of the rpg hobby everyone is a paragon of virtue with no flaws whatsoever. Except I'm not afraid to admit that I sometimes dislike change. No matter the scope of it. The difference between myself and CB is my position is that some not all hate change. Too damn often I have seen some in the hobby prove just that. Made worse when they think by starting a rant by going "it's not that I'm against change" then proceed to rant about exactly that. Fear of change in the hobby is just one of many factors that can ruin a new edition imo. Then again no wants to be told that let alone they might be afraid of change.

I'm fearful of bad change. Good changes I like.

I think most folks are like me.

Very true the problem is change being bad or good is extremely subjective imo.

Too often I have seen some in the hobby simply hate on a new edition simply because it's a new edition and nothing else. They never read the book, heard second or third hand information, hide behind years being in the hobby to justify both hating the new edition and not needing to read the book. It's not even a matter of good or bad change. They dared to change a beloved edition and by god they will hate it because it's different.

Quote from: Robyo;1034116In AiME they call it Cultures. That seems fitting enough.

The problem with the term culture in the context of Middle-Earth is that the difference between an hobbit and noldor elf is far more than that.

Quote from: sureshot;1034699One cannot claim that gamers don't hate change yet then in the same sentence then claim they hate certain types of change.

If McDonald's starts selling hot dogs and calling them Big Macs, people are going to be mad. It's not because they have a general hatred of "change" or, in an even more idiotic extreme, are afraid of a world where the Big Mac is different. Most people who like Big Macs probably like hot dogs, too. But when you order a Big Mac, you expect 3 buns, two beef patties, and some weird-tasting orange slop.

Quote from: Ulairi;1034694There used to be a larger 'hobby' and a smaller D&D market. Remember in the 90's? GURPS, WoD, Palladium, and others were selling tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of books. It was glorious. I miss those days.

We got a taste of that during the 4e years, I think. Overall, the industry (such as it is) seems pretty healthy. I'm sure more people make a living at it than we think.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1034682Our group played 3.5 until we felt the need to switch. We looked at both 4e and Pathfinder and switched to Pathfinder.

In the grand scheme of things 4e didn't measure up especially after the years of anti-fan ranting about the system.

This is what killed 4e.  And it started before 4e even came out.  People were hating because it was rumoured to be different.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1034682Half a decade later we are looking at 4e again.

And it was so bad for you and your crew apparently that you had to stay away for 5 years to get that 'bad taste' out of your 'mouth'.

Quote from: sureshot;1034699One cannot claim that gamers don't hate change yet then in the same sentence then claim they hate certain types of change.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways imo. Fearing change even certain types of change is still being afraid of change.

Yeah, this is a binary.  Either you fear change, or you don't.  And most humans don't.  Thing is, it's still, ironically, not an all or nothing thing it's degrees of 'fear', dislike is after all, is an expression of this fear.

Quote from: sureshot;1034699To me being suspicious of change and fear of it is the same to a certain extent. Their is nothing wrong with being scared of change because humans are creatures of habit. Then again typical of the rpg hobby everyone is a paragon of virtue with no flaws whatsoever. Except I'm not afraid to admit that I sometimes dislike change. No matter the scope of it. The difference between myself and CB is my position is that some not all hate change. Too damn often I have seen some in the hobby prove just that. Made worse when they think by starting a rant by going "it's not that I'm against change" then proceed to rant about exactly that. Fear of change in the hobby is just one of many factors that can ruin a new edition imo. Then again no wants to be told that let alone they might be afraid of change.

There will always be outliers and exceptions.  I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that it was well, assumed.  Because there are ALWAYS exceptions, but they're exceptions, not the rule.

Personally I like new things.  I've collected at least a book from every D&D edition and supplement since '89, always curious about the newest choices and rules adaptations.  I collect new games all the time (when I can afford it) because I want to see the new things.  Will they be all good?  Maybe.  But I still wanna see!

Quote from: Ulairi;1034702I'm fearful of bad change. Good changes I like.

I think most folks are like me.

Define good and bad?  Also, most people don't like change because they believe that ALL change is bad, hence the phrase:  "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't."  It's often immediately assumed that the change is going to be a 'Devil'.