Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

Evenglare · Mar 31, 2015

Just a poll I wanted to make. I have a sneaking suspicion that the worst part about Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was that it was attached to the name. With that name came expectations which led to an early demise. We didn't even get a proper DM3 for epic level play which I'm still salty about.

So hopefully this won't turn into an edition war thread, if it does just close it, but I'd like to see results from the poll.

Mishihari Lord · Mar 31, 2015

Um, none of the above. (Sorry, I know poll makers hate that response) So I think that 1) 4E is a good game, and 2) 4e was too different from previous editions for me to accept. However, I don't think it would have succeeded at all without the attachment to the D&D brand. Although it was a good game, there are a lot of games with good mechanics that don't go anywhere. The fluff/setting/etc were pretty standard D&D and thus not distinctive enough to draw attention. If 4E were attached to another strong IP besides D&D and had the appropriate characters, setting, and unique features, I would guess that it would be still going strong.

Jan van Leyden · Mar 31, 2015

What [MENTION=128]Mishihari Lord[/MENTION] said. The argument "holy cows are absent" would have expunged many traditional D&Ders regardless of the name, the only difference being that they wouldn't have left the ship but never entered the new one. From WotC's point of view the end result would have been worse.

delericho · Mar 31, 2015

Deny, but not for the reason given in the poll. Without the name, 4e would have been another "Arcana Unearthed" - it's a fine game, but it would only ever have been played by a very small number of people, would have made a fairly small impact, and would essentially have disappeared after a year or two.

The name was a mixed blessing for D&D 4e. It got a million people to at least look at the game (instead of ten thousand), but it also meant that they came with significant expectations that 4e then didn't meet.

Evenglare · Mar 31, 2015

delericho said:
Deny, but not for the reason given in the poll. Without the name, 4e would have been another "Arcana Unearthed" - it's a fine game, but it would only ever have been played by a very small number of people, would have made a fairly small impact, and would essentially have disappeared after a year or two.

The name was a mixed blessing for D&D 4e. It got a million people to at least look at the game (instead of ten thousand), but it also meant that they came with significant expectations that 4e then didn't meet.

You seem to imply every small non D&D game is doomed for failure (saying that 4e wouldn't have been as big as it was with having the name) when clearly that isn't true. Look at... well just about ANY D&D esque rpg, 13th age, Dungeon World, Mutants and Masterminds, Castles and Crusades... the list goes on. Most have been going strong (relatively speaking) for years now.

I guess another way of asking the poll is : Would 4e have survived if it was named anything else?

delericho · Mar 31, 2015

Evenglare said:
You seem to imply every small non D&D game is doomed for failure (saying that 4e wouldn't have been as big as it was with having the name)

Without the name, it wouldn't have had the numbers to even consider providing the DDI or the mass of supplements. Without those, is it really 4e?

well just about ANY D&D esque rpg, 13th age, Dungeon World, Mutants and Masterminds, Castles and Crusades...

Mutants & Masterminds is different enough to have carved out its own niche. It's not really comparable to any of the others.

Dungeon World and 13th Age are both recent games. It will be interesting to see how they do, but my suspicion is that in five years they'll be added to the same list as Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Iron Heroes, and indeed Castles & Crusades - games played by a small number of devotees but with little mainstream presence, and with no new supplements coming. Which is to say nothing about the quality of any of those games, merely the popularity thereof.

Dannyalcatraz · Mar 31, 2015

Personally, I think it would still be going if it were branded other than D&D.

I know the power of branding.

But there are ways to link yourself to a brand without BEING that brand. An ad campaign during the rollout that included language like "from the designers that brought you Dungeons & Dragons 3.5Ed" would have generated a significant halo effect. That, coupled with a (comparatively) blank slate of expectations and mechanics that didn't have to shoehorn legacy concepts would have given it a significant leg up on games not launched by WotC.

pemerton · Mar 31, 2015

I tend to agree with [MENTION=128]Mishihari Lord[/MENTION]. There are a lot of good fantasy RPGs, but the only ones from this century that would be candidates to have made more money than 4e would be 3E+3.5E, PF and/or 5e.

Evenglare said:
You seem to imply every small non D&D game is doomed for failure (saying that 4e wouldn't have been as big as it was with having the name) when clearly that isn't true. Look at... well just about ANY D&D esque rpg, 13th age, Dungeon World, Mutants and Masterminds, Castles and Crusades... the list goes on. Most have been going strong (relatively speaking) for years now.

But none of them is remotely as big as 4e was, either in terms of sales or in terms of popular uptake.

It's utterly inconceivable to me, for instance, that you could have had tends of thousands of paying subscribers for a DDI that was not supporting D&D. How many of the games you mentioned have sold tens of thousands of copies?

Mishihari Lord · Mar 31, 2015

Evenglare said:
You seem to imply every small non D&D game is doomed for failure (saying that 4e wouldn't have been as big as it was with having the name) when clearly that isn't true. Look at... well just about ANY D&D esque rpg, 13th age, Dungeon World, Mutants and Masterminds, Castles and Crusades... the list goes on. Most have been going strong (relatively speaking) for years now.

I guess another way of asking the poll is : Would 4e have survived if it was named anything else?

Sure there are non-D&D games that succeeded. But they are a tiny fraction of the total number of games produced. And a lot of those obscure games are pretty good! Just percentage-wise, the chances of a no-brand 4E are poor. Add in the lack of differentiation from vanilla-generic D&Dish fantasy genre and it's an even longer shot.

Mishihari Lord · Mar 31, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
Personally, I think it would still be going if it were branded other than D&D.

I know the power of branding.

But there are ways to link yourself to a brand without BEING that brand. An ad campaign during the rollout that included language like "from the designers that brought you Dungeons & Dragons 3.5Ed" would have generated a significant halo effect. That, coupled with a (comparatively) blank slate of expectations and mechanics that didn't have to shoehorn legacy concepts would have given it a significant leg up on games not launched by WotC.

That's a very good point, and I think it would work, but it would cause other problems. WotC would need to continue to support 3E, as its the current edition of D&D, and the new not-4E at the same time. I expect this would split the fanbase much as it did, just with less animosity. With a fixed cost to develop each new product, and selling each product to a smaller audience, their profitability would take a significant hit. I dunno if it's true or not, but many people point to a similar issue in the latter days of TSR as one of the causes of its demise.