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

[EzekielRaiden]

Even 'dominant RPG' doesn't add up to 50 mil. IcV2 has the TTRPG market at 15 mil recently. Prior to the recession, industry insiders estimated it at 20 mil or so.

Which goes to show that, if there was any "failure" involved in 4e, it was a failure of WotC's expectations. They expected--or hoped--that they could revolutionize and revitalize the TTRPG market, in part by bringing it into the new millennium (technologically speaking), from more-or-less launch. That hope not only didn't happen when expected, it flat out never really happened at all. Refusing to do PDFs, failing to complete their online tools (particularly the in-house virtual tabletop), hardcore botching the presentation, and going for unwise (in hindsight and probably should've been foresight to boot) marketing strategies? All of those contributed to D&D being discontinued, without it needing to be a "failure."

Perhaps a different metric: Consider the Hulk and Superman movie franchises. You had Hulk in 2003, which established a backstory, then The Incredible Hulk in 2008, rebooting the franchise (as part of the new, interlinked Marvel movie franchise). But both movies earned approximately the same net income; if you subtract out the budgets, the two earned $108 million and $113 million respectively, nearly identical returns. Calling the first movie a "failure" because it was "replaced" only 5 years later seems rather strange, given the substantial success (over 75% return-on-investment--that is, regaining the full investment, plus at least an additional 75%--for both films).

Then consider Superman Returns and Man of Steel, a very similar situation. A gap of 7 years instead of 5, and earning slightly under 200% profit (that is, money earned *above* the investment cost) for the later film, as opposed to just under 100% profit for the former. It would be strictly wrong to call the former movie a "failure," yet its story and structure were abandoned in order to tell a new Superman story.

Now consider things like Harry Potter and other long-running book series. Is the line a "failure" because JK Rowling hasn't decided to write any more books of the same general type as the HP series? (I'm not really counting the Beedle the Bard book as an "HP-type" book even if it's set in the same universe.) I can't imagine someone actually thinking HP "failed" because it ended. Alternatively, you can have book series with a more "open-ended" nature--ones that aren't bound to individual plotlines or character arcs. Consider the relationship Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had with Sherlock Holmes. He came to hate writing for the character, so he chose to end the line. Does that make Sherlock Holmes a failure? If so, how do we explain the significant popularity he retained, such that Doyle could make profit off the stories when he started writing new ones again?

Now, of course, films and books and games are all different beasts, so the process and logic cannot map perfectly. But I hope this illustrates how something can be discontinued without being a "failure." By the measures of literally any other company (including Paizo, who freely recognize the runaway nature of their success), 4e is among the best-selling RPGs of all time--and certainly among the most talked about, for good or for ill ("...for there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about," after all.) If the line had "failed" by the standards of the industry, there probably wouldn't be a 5e at all; Hasbro likely would have shuttered the TTRPG branch of WotC entirely, or put them to work making actual board games (which are undergoing something of a renaissance right now, as I understand it), and sat on the D&D IP for a decade or two until it looked ripe for revival.

So, by that standard, we can see the existence of 5e as a sort of double-edged sword, with regard to 4e and its legacy. On the one hand, if 4e had truly "failed," I think it's unlikely that Hasbro would have bought the idea that a new edition could turn a profit. On the other hand, if 4e had met all expectations (which I do not consider synonymous with "success"--correlated, to be sure, but not synonymous), it's doubtful that anyone would have wanted to "try again" except to gild the lilly, as it were--and you'd think that would wait until the fire "died down," so to speak.

4e proved that TTRPGs could make substantial profit, but not enough profit. Calling "not enough profit" "failure" is going to leave a bunch of people skeptical. Calling it "success" is probably also going to leave a bunch of people skeptical. Framing it in simple black-and-white terms just leaves out way too much fundamentally important information.

 

[billd91]

I think you're running into a problem with your analysis. Movies don't really "replace" each other in the way a game's edition replaces another. They're works of art that tell stories devised by the screenwriters and directors. If one movie covers the same general subject (the Hulk) but are different and come in a short period of time, that means different people wanted to tell different stories - not that one was a failure and one wasn't. Although, if a studio wanted to generate a franchise based on a Hulk movie, better bet is on the 2008 version since a much larger proportion of the audience (as polled via rottentomatoes.com) appear to have liked it. Out of over 400,000 ratings, less than 30% liked the Ang Lee-directed version, and that looks pretty fail-ish to me if one of your goals is to produced a well-liked movie rather than just a profitable one. It's not always just about short term profit.

But game editions do replace each other in the sense that one goes out of print and generally out of publisher support while the other one enters print and support. A successful follow-up edition should be able to maintain its market or grow it. It certainly shouldn't lead to a substantial drop. Failure to maintain that position, regardless of raw profit, indicates failure at some level, possibly damage to the brand or brand loyalty of the customers. Again, it's not always just about short term profit.

 

[pemerton]

I think you're running into a problem with your analysis. Movies don't really "replace" each other in the way a game's edition replaces another.

<snip>

But game editions do replace each other in the sense that one goes out of print and generally out of publisher support while the other one enters print and support.

I think your own analysis brings out some points of resemblance. The only unequivocal way in which game editions replace one another is from the commercial perspective of the publisher, distributors and retailers, and in this sense films get replaced also: for instance, films do replace one another in the cinema, in the high-promotion locations in DVD shops, etc. One ceases to be supported (= marketed) and the other takes its place.

Of course, a person who wants to track down a non-promoted film (eg ordering it from Amazon, keeping an eye on the program for the local revival cinema, etc) will be able to do so; but then the same is true of RPGs - many "non-supported" RPGs continue to be played (I imagine that AD&D is far-and-away the biggest of these, and was so even before the OSR led to boutique offerings of support).

Someone upthread mentioned hundreds of people still playing 4e. Given the number of books sold bewteen 2008 and 2012, and the fact that DDI is still operating, I'd imagine the number is in the thousands.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Well, neither.
4e was (is!) the best edition of D&D so far. Unfortunately, it strayed too far from previous editions for the tastes of most D&D players. Its 'demise' wasn't caused by the brand, but because of the brand it won't be continued, since it's now been superseded by a new edition.

It would have been cool if a different company had been interested in and allowed to continue releasing 'official' material for 4e.

 

[Wicht]

I think you're running into a problem with your analysis. Movies don't really "replace" each other in the way a game's edition replaces another. They're works of art that tell stories devised by the screenwriters and directors. If one movie covers the same general subject (the Hulk) but are different and come in a short period of time, that means different people wanted to tell different stories - not that one was a failure and one wasn't. Although, if a studio wanted to generate a franchise based on a Hulk movie, better bet is on the 2008 version since a much larger proportion of the audience (as polled via rottentomatoes.com) appear to have liked it. Out of over 400,000 ratings, less than 30% liked the Ang Lee-directed version, and that looks pretty fail-ish to me if one of your goals is to produced a well-liked movie rather than just a profitable one. It's not always just about short term profit.

But game editions do replace each other in the sense that one goes out of print and generally out of publisher support while the other one enters print and support. A successful follow-up edition should be able to maintain its market or grow it. It certainly shouldn't lead to a substantial drop. Failure to maintain that position, regardless of raw profit, indicates failure at some level, possibly damage to the brand or brand loyalty of the customers. Again, it's not always just about short term profit.

Part of the problem here is in defining terms of success.

The Hulk movies are actually a great example. If anybody thinks that Ang Lee's Hulk was a success, then they are probably going to be in a rather small pool. Sure, it turned a profit; Many of us paid good money to watch it, but hardly anybody actually enjoyed the movie all that much. There was no clamor for a second Ang Lee venture into the franchise, and when they rebooted the franchise they did so in a way that could allow the first movie to be accepted or ignored as ever having happened. Profit is only one measure of success, and while it is never completely unimportant, there are other things to consider. In realms of entertainment, success can also be measured by popularity, how entertained people felt, and how much more of something do they want. In terms of books and movies, how often does the vehicle in question get reuses is one aspect to consider (ie., how often do you reread a book, or rewatch a movie). There is also, how likely are you to proselytize for the piece, talking others into reading or watching it, thus making it more popular. In franchises, the question must be asked, how eager are people for more installments? After both of the last Superman movies, you don't really hear people asking for another. After Guardians of the Galaxy, I know that many left the theater dying for the next Marvel installment. These things matter.

 

[Umbran]

4e had to face the expectations of Hasbro's core brand requirements ($50 million in sales) and the expectations of being the heavily dominant RPG.

I am not sure this is true, and I'd like to see a citation that someone on the business end actually expected 4e to put D&D in the "core brand" space.

I think there is also some misunderstanding of Hasbro's core brand strategy - some time ago, Hasbro realized that it was allowing some of its IP to languish. Their strategy became to make sure that the core of the company's products all get attention. And it isn't all about hitting a specific dollar mark in sales - Hasbro allowed the Batman license to slip (and Mattel picked it up), because Batman isn't one of their core brands, for which they own the IP. They felt they could get more bang for their buck off properties they owned outright. It seems the strategy wasn't so much "cut anything that doesn't meet this mark" as it was, "make sure anything that hits this mark gets proper consideration".

Thus, I am not sure that our perception on the matter is quite accurate.

 

[jayoungr]

It is D&D, though. It would have to lose all of that, besides just the title obviously, which makes it D&D and then maybe not so many would have liked it.

Is it D&D in ways that aren't covered by the OGL, though? I mean, in the hypothetical case where a company other than WOTC developed 4E, what would they have had to lose in order to avoid legal problems?

 

[SirAntoine]

Is it D&D in ways that aren't covered by the OGL, though? I mean, in the hypothetical case where a company other than WOTC developed 4E, what would they have had to lose in order to avoid legal problems?

There would be a long list of things, I have no doubt. D&D owns these IP's now, though. They are part of D&D now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am not sure this is true, and I'd like to see a citation that someone on the business end actually expected 4e to put D&D in the "core brand" space.

I thought that happened, right here, years ago?

I think there is also some misunderstanding of Hasbro's core brand strategy

Isn't it moot at this point, anyway, as they're no longer using the same strategy? D&D doesn't have to worry about hitting unrealistic sales goals anymore. It just has to worry about getting enough funding to keep putting out a few books a year...

 

[Raith5]

From my point of view it wash' that 4E advanced the mechanics and I was afraid or unwilling to try (good lord did I try to play that game), it just kept mucking with how I liked to play. The new mechanics kept getting in the way for me. There are other games out there that do all kinds of new and interesting things that don't create that problem for me. In the end it was a confluence of different factors (didn't feel like D&D to me, the mechanics interfered with my approach to the game, the mechanics produced a kind of play I didn't enjoy---at least in terms of combat, etc). If others liked the system that is cool. I think it had some nice qualities and I do think it would have worked for a supers or wuxia style game....it just didn't feel right for the kind of fantasy I expect in D&D for me. If others were able to fit it to their desired fantasy campaign, again that is totally fine, I am not going to tell them they are wrong. I think when folks reduce those of us who didn't like 4E to "they couldn't think outside the box" or "they were just being nostalgic", it is a bit insulting and basically saying our tastes in games are incorrect.

I know where you are coming from - I like both gritty and high powered D&D - but likewise one does have to make 4e gaming synonymous with a supers or wuxia style game. It has always struck me as strange (but I dont mean "incorrect") that people can imagine a fireball racing from a wizards hand but cannot believe a person can be revived by the inspirational shout from a grizzled warlord. So I agree there are significantly different cultures of imagination at play that get supported or ignored by the rules and mechanics. The new mechanics in 4e were something I really liked and saw as the logical extension of tropes long built into D&D rather than something that got in the way. So I quite liked the fact that 4e shook the traditionally narrow conception of imagination in D&D rules/mechanics and added something new to the lineage of D&D.