|
Post by Havock on Feb 28, 2019 15:15:10 GMT
Also, the OP could be taken another way: -Are Warcasters/locks bad for the game?
:v
|
|
|
Post by tjhairball on Feb 28, 2019 17:12:39 GMT
Everyone loves to say that but there's a primary issue here. What I said is a simple statement of fact. After 4th edition D+D lost the top spot, thats not up for dispute. What everyone says as 4th ed apologia is a bunch of unsupported opinion based on supposition and no actual data points. Loves to say what? That statement is unclear. I don't believe anyone has stated that the fact you presented was false or even up for dispute. I did point out that your eluded statement [paraphrasing here so if I'm wrong, please correct me] "A balanced system like 4E is not fun, and that is why 4E failed" was not a complete picture of why 4E failed. If this is not the opinion that you are trying to covey - please help me understand. I did have to look up "apologia" - I won't lie - and most of things presented on the forum an apologia? This. Saying that 4th was a commercial because it was bland and balanced is no less of an "unsupported opinion" than saying that 4th's commercial failure had little to do with the intrinsic properties of the system and everything to do with context and community.
And I would say I have some strong evidence in favor of my explanation for why 4th edition was a commercial failure as opposed to yours, and that those factors I'm pointing to are also factors we can see elsewhere.
3rd edition was a commercial success. It was more balanced (at least at low-level play with close to no splatbooks out, i.e., the initial gameplay state that people adopting 3rd at the time would experience - I would argue that 3rd edition made high-level imbalance between casters and non-casters worse in ways that were not immediately obvious and that balance in all aspects got downright terrible once enough splatbooks were out) and more bland than 2nd edition. One of the things they did was iron out a lot of the arbitrary quirks built into the system - flavorful but cumbersome and imbalanced.
Did 2nd edition NEED to have 18 different polearms in the core rulebook, some of which were simply bad choices? No. Did 2nd edition NEED five different saving throws, modified erratically by some ability scores and racial abilities and handled by a priority list with case by case exceptions, plus some cases calling for a system shock roll, resurrection survival check, or raw stat check instead of a saving throw, plus a separate magic resistance system? No. Did it need classes to be hardcore straightjackets with radically different gameplay and almost completely independent mechanics with weird and arbitrary restrictions? No.
But it was very flavorful. It's extremely difficult to argue that 2nd-3rd was any less of a "blander and more balanced" transition than 3rd-4th. I was still starting new 2nd edition campaigns with new players as late as 2014, in large part because 2nd edition lent itself well to flavorful games in spite of its mechanical quirks (and because in spite of those quirks, it was genuinely a lighter-weight system in operation).
3rd edition was (A) not a very dramatic change mechanically (3rd to 4th was much larger) and (B) didn't have much competition for drawing customers out of the AD&D 2nd edition pool. It was easy for old players to transition (including converting current characters / campaigns) while easier for new players to learn. WotC also conducted extensive market research and took steps to reassure 2nd edition players. The result was largely considered a commercial success.
I'm familiar with a lot of RPG systems. Personally, I'm a fan of running games where characters are not designed to be on the same power level as each other, but balance within the system is one of the major motivations gaming groups have for making a rule system choice or a rule system change, and systems being wildly imbalanced between different choices in ways not blatantly obvious to a new player is one of the ways you lose players and groups.
If you want to look at what happens when you engage in shoddy community relations and competitors start marketing themselves based on NOT pissing off the community in the ways that you've been pissing off the community, you can look at PP's success in growing Mk I-II Warmahordes in spite of the entrenched position of Games Workshop in the same market.
You want to claim that 4th edition failed because it was blander and more balanced? I'll grant you that it was more balanced, but not that being more balanced is a real problem for an RPG; and I'll contest the bland part as a matter of opinion. And I can point to much better factors for the commercial failure.
- Why shouldn't the volume of changes be a major factor in choosing which new system to adopt?
- Why shouldn't addressing current problems with the system people are using be a way to attract customers?
- Why shouldn't screwing up community relations while your competitor capitalizes on your failures be a you lose market share?
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Feb 28, 2019 22:35:51 GMT
4th ed. failed because it tried to be an MMO.
It wasn't massive, it was multiplayer, but it sure wasn't online.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Mar 1, 2019 1:54:53 GMT
People hate games the more balanced the results. People talk about how they loathe thememachine but its providing a far more balanced field than mk2 ever did. L5R's most complained about arc was also the one that saw the broadest selection of faction victories through their tournament season. 4th edition all but removed the caster/martial disparity and lost the top spot. There's a strong pattern, it holds through the pathfinder 2.0 playtest forum as well, that game is unlikely to be a huge success long term, though it may not be an utter failure.
|
|
|
Post by tjhairball on Mar 1, 2019 17:17:37 GMT
People hate games the more balanced the results. People talk about how they loathe thememachine but its providing a far more balanced field than mk2 ever did. L5R's most complained about arc was also the one that saw the broadest selection of faction victories through their tournament season. 4th edition all but removed the caster/martial disparity and lost the top spot. There's a strong pattern, it holds through the pathfinder 2.0 playtest forum as well, that game is unlikely to be a huge success long term, though it may not be an utter failure.
- Warmachine: Mk II was more balanced than Mk I, and also more commercially successful.
- D&D: 3rd was more balanced than 2nd (at least apparently and initially), and also more commercially successful.
- AD&D: 2nd was more balanced than 1st, and also more commercially successful.
- D&D: 5th hasn't moved the balance needle much from 4th, but is doing much better.
- Pathfinder: The 1st edition of Pathfinder was more balanced than D&D 3.5. This didn't hurt its widespread adoption as a successor to 3.5.
- Warhammer: 8th edition is widely touted as more balanced from what I can see, and GW is doing quite well commercially right now.
A few cherry-picked examples doesn't make a "strong pattern" when there are plenty of examples pointing in the opposite direction. There are also a lot of cases where the balance needle didn't really move much, and games became more or less successful for other reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Mar 1, 2019 23:58:44 GMT
Warhammer 8th edition was during a time when GW was far from going strong though.
Somehow, Age of Sigmar is actually catching on.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 2, 2019 5:58:47 GMT
Probably because GW has embraced the fact that they are not making Warhammer games to be balanced, competitive games, unlike the numerous previous iterations. This is represented by being a far smaller set of rules between the current and previous versions. Unfortunately, the player base still keeps trying to play them as competitive.
|
|