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

[Evenglare]

This guy should be the example for everyone in the topic. Good job!

 

[Umbran]

I have a third answer (that others have also given)...

Only rarely does a game do well in comparison to D&D - the likes of the original World of Darkness games, or of Pathfinder, are not common.

4e was a perfectly fine game. But, without the D&D name, it would be faring about as well as any other game without the D&D name. So, if by "going strong" you mean "going strong compared to FATE or Savage Worlds," then yes it'd be going strong. If you mean, "selling as well as it did as 4e," then I am skeptical. This has nothing to do with the game design, and all about marketing.

 

[Umbran]

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.

I think if they tried that, and stayed in the fantasy genre, they would have invited the comparison with D&D - especially if they stopped publishing 3e upon release of the game - and that would have led to many of the same conflicts and limitations. Folks would have asked, "Why are they pushing this new fantasy game? Why don't they just do another D&D?"

Now, I think that 4e might have made a decent engine for, say, a Space Opera game. And then the picture might be different. But again, if they stopped publishing 3e to support the Space Opera line, that would have been problematic.

 

[David Fair]

I voted for "Deny". I never player 4e, only read the PHB and DMG. It really struck me as no longer a fantasy game but a superhero game in fantasy clothing. I like superhero games, but unlike Reese's peanut butter cups, they aren't always two great tastes that taste great together. Maybe as Umbran suggests it would have worked in a different genre, but it failed to inspire in me any desire to play it with the intended genre.

 

[Iosue]

I voted for "Confirm", but my definition of success is not "D&D 4e as it was". I think if it had been published by another company as a d20 offshoot, it would have been warmly received much like 13th Age, Numenara, and other "off-brand" fantasy RPGs. It would have gathered many of the people who like the game play and interested others who would happily play it. It would not have gotten all the casual players that the D&D brand brings, but by the same token there would not have been nearly so much negativity. At worst, even the most vociferous 4e haters would have said, "Eh, I tried it, but it's not really my bag."

 

[Zustiur]

I also agree with everything that Mishihari Lord said. Iosue also has a good point.

 

[tuxgeo]

Everything Mishihari Lord said.

In my mind, it's a matter of headcount: how many designers and developers (and artists and editors and everything else) could they have devoted to 4E, for how long, if it had not been named D&D? I'm thinking the real answer would have to be "few," so we might not have gotten PHB2 and PHB3, DMG2, MM2, MM3, or Essentials if it had not been named D&D.

tl;dr -- it wouldn't have been going strong in the first place.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

4e was a perfectly fine game. But, without the D&D name, it would be faring about as well as any other game without the D&D name. So, if by "going strong" you mean "going strong compared to FATE or Savage Worlds," then yes it'd be going strong. If you mean, "selling as well as it did as 4e," then I am skeptical. This has nothing to do with the game design, and all about marketing.

This sums up my thoughts pretty well.

 

[billd91]

I suspect if it had been spun as a Feng Shui-style version of D&D, "Fantasy Action Cinema D&D" or somesuch, it might have held that niche better than as a replacement for D&D.

 

[SirAntoine]

I don't think the poll question is right. The 4th Edition was a basic success. It might not be going strong still today for other reasons. I don't know for sure, but I draw a conclusion from the many fans of 4th Edition I've read and spoken with that they still like th Edition very much and many considered it the best edition of D&D they had ever seen. Let's say, conservatively, that 4th Edition captured 10% of the market. That is a success to me. When I publish my own game, I hope to get so many players.