What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Herschel]

Should a "5E" ever come out, I will certainly be interested in seeing what it offers.

It would likely have to be very different from 4E and more similar to the other editions to be worthy of my purchasing it.

Honest question: You've admitted you didn't read OR play 4E so why should anyone at WotC believe you'll do so for a new edition? How can they actually market to you to give something a try/read?

You like 3E and what Paizo has done with it, that's cool. You have a game you like and people that play it. That's really all any of us can ask for.

So why rail against a game you know nothing about but heresay bits from the rumor mill? There is literally nothing WotC can do to bring you back in to the fold unless they bring back in whichever heresay sources you listen to first?

That's an impossible bit to market research to bring a customer back in. Fortunately or not, if you can't show up in market research, getting what you want is much tougher. Sifting through posts on internet fan sites isn't the most efficient or beneficial way to garner information.

 

[Shemeska]

Hobby games are (obviously) an emotional buy in. If one's felt personally insulted by a company representative, the insulted person is highly unlikely to buy that company's products.

I got a mean email from Andy Collins several years ago after I gave him grief on the WotC forums over something. It didn't much change my opinion of the company one way or the other, and in his defence I actually got on his case over two things and as it turned out one of them was actually something that James Wyatt had said.

It was all design stuff, and nothing personal in those instances, though some of the early 4e design comments don't exactly endear me to buying stuff from the folks who said one or two of them. However if something was truly awesome I'd still buy it regardless of the author, just some people can raise the bar of what I consider totally awesome a bit further away than it might have been otherwise.

 

[Herschel]

Or that he dealt with them while they were having a bad day. Or are you flat out calling him a liar because the WotC personnel can't possibly have bad moods or unprofessional moments from time to time?

People do have bad moods or days. I don't deny that, but it's pretty strong to call them out where they may not be active to defend themselves. People can be pretty emotional about their game/sport/tea preference/whatever. I'm not intending to call him a liar, per se, but it would be nice to see a specific type or instance of that behavior mentioned rather than just a general "they were poopy" in order to better verify a statement rather contrary to many others' experience.

They also, IIRC, have people at booths that are temp hired, etc. and not necessarily true, regular WotC employees. While what they do while working the Con Booth/area for WotC reflects on WotC, it would be nice to know whether or not the offenders were actually "central" to the game.

 

[billd91]

People do have bad moods or days. I don't deny that, but it's pretty strong to call them out where they may not be active to defend themselves. People can be pretty emotional about their game/sport/tea preference/whatever. I'm not intending to call him a liar, per se, but it would be nice to see a specific type or instance of that behavior mentioned rather than just a general "they were poopy" in order to better verify a statement rather contrary to many others' experience. [emphasis mine]

They also, IIRC, have people at booths that are temp hired, etc. and not necessarily true, regular WotC employees. While what they do while working the Con Booth/area for WotC reflects on WotC, it would be nice to know whether or not the offenders were actually "central" to the game.

How can you verify the statement without having an impartial witness there? What's the point of even asking or thinking you have the right to do so? He says he had he experience. Would it be definitively invalidated just because you might have had a good exchance or two with the person involved?
And who really cares whether it was someone central to the game? If the experience left a bad impression with WotC, that's enough.

EDIT: Didn't see the mod comment up above. Can we really consider putting them in a new message rather than just editing the previous one? I don't routinely go back and re-read posts in the thread before I post new stuff.

 

[DaveMage]

Honest question: You've admitted you didn't read OR play 4E so why should anyone at WotC believe you'll do so for a new edition?

Heh. My one opinion will likely have absolutely no effect on WotC's plans. They don't need to "believe" anything. This is not a promise to pay.

The point is that they removed elements of the game I enjoyed for 4E. I've bought almost everything from every other edition (except OD&D - that stuff's too expensive today!).

You like 3E and what Paizo has done with it, that's cool. You have a game you like and people that play it. That's really all any of us can ask for.

Yep.

So why troll against a game you know nothing about but heresay bits from the rumor mill?

You lost me here. I've read tons of previews, WotC ad copy, and messageboards full of lots of 4E players discussing 4E. Unless the game doesn't match any of this commentary (which I highly doubt), I think I know quite a bit about it.

As for "trolling", I think that's unfair. I'm expressing my opinion - which happens to differ from yours (and, obviously, others) - in a thread specifically addressing those who are disenchanted. (Indeed, since you are not disenchanted, I would ask you why you are posting in this thread? )

Truth be known, the reason I still participate in these convesations is that I have a great deal of affection for Dungeons and Dragons. It's been a part of my life for 30 of my 40 years. I don't like seeing it become something that doesn't interest me.

There is literally nothing WotC can do to bring you back in to the fold unless they bring back in whichever heresay sources you listen to first?

That's an impossible bit to market research to bring a customer back in.

Of course they can bring me back. Like I said in the first post I made in the thread - make products I want to buy. I *do* still buy the dungeon tiles and I do buy the minis (at least, the ones that work in my 3.5/Pathfinder game).

I don't like 4E D&D, that's all.

 

[Piratecat]

EDIT: Didn't see the mod comment up above. Can we really consider putting them in a new message rather than just editing the previous one? I don't routinely go back and re-read posts in the thread before I post new stuff.

That probably won't change. In most cases it's actually much more effective to put it in the offending post, although we occasionally follow that with a post at the end of the thread. You'd be amazed by how many people read a problematic comment and either re-report it or reply angrily, even when there's a moderator warning later in the thread. Worse, reading an apparently unchallenged jerky post makes people angry, and that anger carries over to their later responses.

If you're in doubt, scan a page quickly and look for colored text. You may want to increase the number of posts per page in your settings, if you haven't already. I personally find it more convenient.

Back on topic, WotC is made out of people and people are human. I've seen incredibly nice, conscientious people in bad moods. If you catch someone at the wrong time, you just get a bad first impression.

 

[Herschel]

You lost me here. I've read tons of previews, WotC ad copy, and messageboards full of lots of 4E players discussing 4E. Unless the game doesn't match any of this commentary (which I highly doubt), I think I know quite a bit about it.

...I don't like 4E D&D, that's all.

But again, how do you know unless you read and play it? Just reading the board is reading others' opinions but doesn't give you any real, personal experience. That would drive me absolutely nuts.

Example: I generally like Roger Ebert as a movie critic. He's generally the most "down to Earth" of the major critics when attempting to view movies like a "regular, non-critic" viewer would. But if a movie is in a genre I am interested in, it doesn't matter one lick what he wrote about it or if he liked it.

IMO, It also isn't going to be indicative of any other's real tastes. I don't think anyone can agree with another on everything, or even a group. We're just alll different people with different thoughts.

To bring this back to the original topic, how can they market to people who only go by internet boards and the like? That's more imporatant than what they put "in" the game because if they have something you would love but will never see, it doesn't matter what "it" is.

 

[Umbran]

But again, how do you know unless you read and play it?

Dude, everyone has their own thresholds of information for making various forms of decision.

You're considering going to the movies. Do you actually have to have seen a particular film before you can decide whether you want to pay full-price for the tickets, or will only pay matinee, or wait for DVD release?

 

[Shazman]

You don't have to know every single thing about something to be farily sure that you don't/won't like it. I've never seen any of the Twilight movies and a fair number of other "chick flicks" because I know that those types of movies aren't for me. It's easy enough to find out quite a bit about 4E without buying the books or playing the game. If you don't like the way all classes have the same structure, or that everyone has at-wills/encounter/dailies, you know that 4E isn't for you. If you don't like having to focus fire on one kobold for three rounds to drop it, you know that 4E isn't for you. If you don't like some of the excessive gamist/metagamey things in 4E like martial healing, divine challenge, healing surges, hit points aren't physical damage yet you can become "bloodied" and "dying" by losing hit points, you know that 4E isn't for you. You can get all of this information about 4E without reading the entire PHBI or playing several sessions of it.

 

[Herschel]

Dude, everyone has their own thresholds of information for making various forms of decision.

You're considering going to the movies. Do you actually have to have seen a particular film before you can decide whether you want to pay full-price for the tickets, or will only pay matinee, or wait for DVD release?

Not at all, but I do want to actually see it before telling people how bad it is.

Example as it applies to the thread: I think the "Twilight" series is goofy from the chapters I read (which was literally painful) and the SO dragged me to the movies. I'm not generally their target market sure, but the trailer for the latest one showing the big battle bits intrigued me slightly and made me not so desperate to find an excuse not to go (it's important to her because she's a big fan of the books and she's going to Gen Con with me again. :v) ).

And you know what, the movie wasn't as bad as the others (for me). And that's very likely in no small part because they found a way to market it that appealed to me. Had I not seen the trailer, the teen angst crap leading up to the final scenes would likely have sent me to the bathroom, for popcorn, whatever before it got that far but they found a way to have me "give it a try".

I can't say I liked the film, but I do like those scenes and two characters, Alice and Carlisle, and I'll take her to the next one willingly.

And whiny Bella disturbs me more than Jar Jar.