A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[MerricB]

4E doesn't have an ongoing, supported setting.

A counterpoint is that original D&D and AD&D didn't have an ongoing, supported setting until after 1987, by which time I believe they were already in decline from their sales peak. (1982-5)

Greyhawk was a setting "by default" more in the early days than something that was strongly supported setting, though it was just beginning to move out of that obscurity when Gygax left TSR and "good" support of the setting ceased for a number of years. Dragonlance wasn't really an ongoing setting (and has had many problems in later years because the initial release really told the story of the setting). It was only with the release of the Forgotten Realms in 1987 that you really get to the conception of the supported setting with sourcebooks, adventures and novels appearing.

The trouble here is that the Forgotten Realms, twenty years on, are no longer the sales engine they used to be. Wizards got ample proof of that through the 3E era. The decision for only 3 books per setting isn't something that was decided on just to be different; it was a reaction to the poor sales of ongoing campaign supplements in mid-to-late 3E.

The idea of having a well-selling campaign setting is a good one, but what campaign setting are we talking about? Forgotten Realms is played out, and I'm guessing Eberron - for all its merits - doesn't come close either.

From my perspective, they have actually produced a new campaign setting: Nentir Vale. In a lot of ways, it is more developed than Greyhawk was in 1985. I know that a key component of my enjoyment of 4E derives from the mythology of the Nentir Vale setting, as expressed through the adventure and later 4E supplements.

If we look at Pathfinder, how much of their sales are due to Golarion? How many people are buying their products mainly due to the setting? While I don't buy Pathfinder RPG products, I have been getting the Adventure Paths, and now I'm in my fifth AP with them, I have a hard time believing they're all in the same setting: they're just too diverse.

A popular setting is a welcome bonus, but I don't think it is (a) essential or (b) easy to manufacture.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Right now, I'm trying to figure out who this competitor could have been who convinced WotC to make the GSL so restrictive.

If you look at the history of 3E and the OGL, you'll find a number of d20/OGL-based products that were very well received that basically took their design precepts straight from D&D: Iron Heroes, Mutants and Masterminds (although that one was more innovative), World of Warcraft RPG, Spycraft, Arcana Unearthed, etc.

A few of these games were very much in the same design space as 3E. Then too, you also have products such as the Mongoose Quintessential books which were in the space of Wizards' most successful supplements and thus (obviously) reducing Wizards sales (whether that was true or not).

I have little doubt that people like Ryan Dancey see this as a great success on the part of the OGL. For other people, it's a failure: the OGL is there to allow other companies to make less successful products (i.e. Adventures) and not compete with Wizards directly!

When that faction won, you got the GSL out of it: something Wizards could control more strongly, and that made it pretty much impossible to create games that competed with D&D directly. (The GSL works best when you create a lot of original material, rather than the bare minimum some OGL products did, which might be seen as a point in its favour.)

Or, at least, that's how I see it.

Cheers!

 

[Dannager]

Right now, I'm trying to figure out who this competitor could have been who convinced WotC to make the GSL so restrictive. When Paizo made the shift to competitor, it was because license was already a no-show and the writing on the wall wasn't favorable. Until then, I would have described Paizo as a very close ally.
Paizo may be one of WotC's biggest competitors now, but saying that Paizo's competition drove WotC to make the GSL so restrictive looks like putting the cart before the horse to me. I'd be more inclined to say that mishandling the GSL development and launch was a major factor in driving the wedge between WotC and Paizo's relationship.

Unless you're thinking of someone else...

I wasn't. I'm sorry if it came across as me saying that Pathfinder prompted the GSL. I'm sure that isn't entirely true. The OGL, however, made it possible for anyone to compete with WotC directly in a number of arenas, using their own work against them. Even during the buildup to 4e, Paizo was releasing Pathfinder adventures that were clearly a step above what WotC was offering at the time, especially from a story standpoint. If anything, reining in the OGL like that ended up being a little prescient (perhaps not prescient enough, but whatever). Their concern was justified soon afterward with the release and subsequent popularity of Pathfinder.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hardly. I think a handful of people might have had really solid reasons for wanting to dislike the decisions WotC was making.

Only a handful? Really? I suggest entertaining the thought that there was more than a handful.

I think, past a certain point, they became drowned out by people who had latched onto anti-WotC "talking points" without really giving any serious consideration as to what they were railing against.

I think you might have mixed your ratio around with the former here. There was a vocal minority of idiots on both sides of the divide posting for no other reason than to stir up trouble. Fortunately, most of them are now elsewhere.

The inevitable result of this is, of course, what we see today: WotC can't announce or discuss any plans, really, without provoking an internet backlash based on nothing but speculation and worst-case-scenario crisis-mongering. Some of that backlash is grounded in genuine mistrust, certainly. A lot of it, however, is silliness.

WotC for good or bad upset a lot of people I suppose.

There is an active thread on these very forums where members of the "upset portion of their customer base" have discussed, in entirely serious tones, the possibility of pursuing a lawsuit against WotC for producing and supporting 4e in the way they have.

Never again will I underestimate the potential for that "upset portion of their customer base" to display shallow behavior.

I have not seen such a thread. Such shallowness is not something I would be painting the entire "portion of their customer base" that I was talking about though. Particularly the people who have expressed such views on this thread anyway.

What's always intrigued me about the supposed division in the D&D community, though, is why are those people upset, and why are we not?

I am assuming you are a 4e "supporter" here from posts you have made but unlike some, I will not make the co-assumption that you do not like 3.x (a mistake a lot of people make and which in fact highlights the counterpoint to your post). As a 4e supporter, you (and I as I am a DDI subscriber) have the entire weight of support from the industry's 800lb. gorilla supporting us. You are therefore not upset because you are happy with the direction that WotC has taken the game (and perhaps cannot see from the counter-perspective). Imagine though, that 4e rather than becoming more "gamist" that it become more "simulationist" and for whatever reason you hated what they did with the game you were enjoying and the "improvement" you were hoping for. Then you would find yourself as part of the crowd who was "upset".

You know what is going to make WotC relevant as an RPG publisher in a couple of years' time? Their continued performance as an industry leader, and the innovation that they push for in that capacity. 4e's legacy will be DDI, the tight structure of its rules, and its focus on making the game accessible. These traits will carry forward into wherever D&D goes next, and those traits will keep it relevant.

Or perhaps they will further fracture their customer base with a glut of versions of the game (similar to the glut of settings that some believe hurt 2e so much). All fine and dandy if you like what they are doing but a great opportunity to be yet another customer jumping off the edition wagon if you don't. Personally, I think a 5e cast too soon will come close to killing D&D as a game (if not a brand).

If you think that putting their entire rules database, character creation system, monster creation system and play tabletop online for subscription access doesn't trump the fact that we no longer have PDFs, you don't understand where this industry is going.

And thank you for pointing out to me my lack of understanding of where the industry is going. Perhaps following the advice you gave to a previous poster may have been more appropriate.


Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have not seen such a thread. Such shallowness is not something I would be painting the entire "portion of their customer base" that I was talking about though. Particularly the people who have expressed such views on this thread anyway.

While there IS a thread entitled something like "Do you think WotC be sued", the premise was largely disagreed with, and the bulk of the thread is discussing other lawsuits...IOW, its pretty much off-topic and out of control.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I cant believe these debates are still going on.
Im not reading 5 pages of responses. But does anyone actually have any sales figures from 4e?
Me im a 3.5 player all the way when it comes to D&D, though I plan to buy Pathfinder and adopt some of the rules for my homebrew campaign setting, like the sorcerer and the magic item creation rules.

My personal opinion based on only my own experiences from living in three places since 4e came out and looking for gamers in all places, is that only one person ive ever met has liked it. And only because he said it was "easy." Easy to level up, challenges were easy, rules and builds were easy. All around easy.
Now my personal opinion is that it hasnt been as popular because its simply not a quality game. Sure it looks nice, and i admit I own 5 4e books, and ive read them all. They arent good. Not nearly as good as some of WOTC more boring or 3.5 products. Course this is all my opinion. But since 4e came out, I know of two hobby shops that quit carrying D&D because they couldnt move the 4e products, and two others that quit selling roleplaying games altogether. But on the other side, I know of one that sells 4e very well and another than only sells 4e as a special request by customers. Like you have to ask them to order it for you.

Either way. It could be as a whole people just dont think its a good product, but at the same time, think about this. The United States is in a recession, there is still very little recovery, or none if you live where I do, and people just dont have the money to spend. It could all just be timing. But unless we ask every gamer in the world or see some sales figures no one will ever know why 4e hasnt been the success that 3.5 was.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

While there IS a thread entitled something like "Should WotC be sued", the premise was largely disagreed with, and the bulk of the thread is discussing other lawsuits...IOW, its pretty much off-topic and out of control.

Disagreed with and roundly mocked.

It was in fact a rather silly thread and going off topic is the only reason that it is still there.

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Disagreed with and roundly mocked.

And pretty much right out of the gate. (I was there.)

 

[pemerton]

Outside of magic, 3.5 is pretty easy to teach. The player describes what they want to do (e.g, attack, bullrush, disarm, dodge) and the DM can apply the appropriate maneuver. Since there are no powers, the DM does not have to worry how one class fights two handed vs. how another does it.

While this is true, I think it isn't the whole truth.

First, 4e has rules for attacking (basic attacks plus class-specific powers), bullrushing, dodging (total defence), grappling (grab) etc. Unlike 3E it doesn't have a generic trip or disarm manoeuvre - although I'm one of those who think these can be adjudicated using p 42 - but then 3E doesn't have a generic power-strike manoeuvre (you need the appropriate feat) whereas HARP (one of ICE's fantasy RPGs) does.

So the difference isn't actually that marked. The 4e player says "I grapple!" The GM in 4e responds the same as the GM in 3E, by applying the rules. The 4e player says "I trip!". The 4e GM responds the same as the GM in 3E does to "I powerstrike!" from a player without the Power Attack Feat - maybe s/he disallows it, maybe s/he wings it (using p 42 in the 4e case - and in the 3E case presumably relying on intuition).

Second, what if a new 3E player says "I want to use my kit shield to push away the one on my left, while stabbing the one on my right!". Within the framework of 3E's PHB, this is a two-weapon attack which has almost no chance of success for a standard 1st level Fighter, and is pretty sub-optimal even for well-designed Rangers.

Likewise for bullrushing, disarming etc. Most of these are mechanically pretty complex and unlikely to be sensible actions for any PC not at least modestly optimised in favour of them.

If the game provides formal options that are pretty suboptimal for typical approaches to play (like use efficient atttacks against the monsters if you want to avoid TPK), then they not so much genuine options as traps for newbies.

Now it's true that 4e's equivalent of this is the basic attack, which is likely to come into play more often. But the PHB makes it pretty clear that most PCs most of the time won't be relying on basic attacks.

 

[Dannager]

I am assuming you are a 4e "supporter" here from posts you have made but unlike some, I will not make the co-assumption that you do not like 3.x (a mistake a lot of people make and which in fact highlights the counterpoint to your post). As a 4e supporter, you (and I as I am a DDI subscriber) have the entire weight of support from the industry's 800lb. gorilla supporting us. You are therefore not upset because you are happy with the direction that WotC has taken the game (and perhaps cannot see from the counter-perspective).

I, like everyone else, had a choice early on to make of whether I would support the next edition of D&D. I did.

But what I want to know is why, of all the people who were happy with and played 3.5, some of them went to 4e and some didn't. Clearly, some of them made the decision based on the design direction. Some, however (even most, I might assert), decided based on some other factor: perceived PR mishaps, canceled features, etc. These things bothered some people, and they didn't bother others. So what was the factor that drew the line? What was it about some people who were okay with these things, and didn't let them affect their choice in game, and what was it about the others who did?

Imagine though, that 4e rather than becoming more "gamist" that it become more "simulationist" and for whatever reason you hated what they did with the game you were enjoying and the "improvement" you were hoping for. Then you would find yourself as part of the crowd who was "upset".

I don't think I would be upset, that's the thing. I'm pretty confident in my ability to enjoy a well-crafted game, and honestly sliding a bit one way or the other on the simulationist-gamist scale isn't going to affect that. If, however, a company like WotC were to suddenly go in a direction that I couldn't stand, I don't think it could get me riled up even then. I'd still have whatever I was into before, and undoubtedly other opportunities from other companies would present themselves.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons I'm so curious about that sort of person.