Ryan Dancey - D&D in a Death Spiral

[Michael Morris]

Yeah probably not true. I probably should have said same league. In any case I think Paizo will grow with the fractured D&D market. Paizo certainly has talent hired that is as good as when WOTC started taking over TSR.

That's because, for the most part, it is the talent WOTC hired when they took over TSR. Most of the 4e writers are new blood. New blood with absolutely no respect whatsoever for the traditions of the game IMO. But that's another thread.

 

[Jack99]

Rumor has it they already have pushed 5e back due to current situations. At least that's what I've heard with the rumor being they were going to announce it in two more years.

Huh, what, where? Seriously, your local FLGS owner who hates 4e has no insider knowledge. Whatever he told you is a lie and wishful thinking. Of course, I could be totally wrong and your source could be B.S. (see what I just did there?) himself. So, lets hear it, who is your source?

 

[Gothmog]

D&D isn't dying. It's already dead. Killed off by WotC with their abomination 4E.

3.5 is the last edition of D&D.

We get it, you're the edition warrior. You've beat this drum a million times before. People aren't falling for the nerdrage trolling anymore. So either contribute something meaningful that furthers the discussion, or don't visit these threads.

 

[BryonD]

Personally, I disliked 3.0 and 3.5, but I knew a lot of people enjoyed it, and I didn't wish for its demise like some people do for 4e today.

I think the kernel of the animosity is in this statement.
There are certainly people who like both games, but the back and forth is between people who like one and dislike the other.

Peter likes 3E and points out something that supports his game of choice.
Peter is more likely to notice things positive of 3E and is less likely to question them.

Paul likes 4E and points out something that supports his game of choice.
Peter is more likely to notice things positive of 4E and is less likely to question them.

Peter reads Paul's post.
Paul reads Peter's post.

Peter gets mad at Paul and complains that at least he isn't trying to destroy 4E the way Paul is trying to destroy 3E.

Paul gets mad at Peter and complains that at least he isn't trying to destroy 3E the way Paul is trying to destroy 4E.

Actual conversation never starts in the first place.


Clearly, I'm on the 3E side. I think the straight jacket comment up thread is in the ballpark of a good summary of how 4E services what I want from a game. But I still want 4E to be as much of a success as it can. The better 4E does the more money and energy there will be for 5E and my hopes that it will swing back to what I want. Or even without 5E that someone else will make the next "better mousetrap" for me.

But, it just so happens that everything is not one dimensional. It is possible for me to want 4E to do well, and at the same time have a biased perception of its performance, and at the same time also set aside that bias and make reasonably objective assessments of what is actually happening.

Now, maybe Dancey is biased here. But he has put together a detailed argument. If that argument is totally bogus and based purely on biased and agenda-laden fiction, then it will be a terribly fragile argument. Deconstruct it. Tear it apart and show it for its absurdity.

Saying "Of course this guy would say that" and not addressing the argument itself, seems to be a weak attempt to change the subject.

A week or so ago Mearls threw out a very short post that basically said 4E is doing great. (don't recall word for word) A lot of people replied more or less "There is a guy that would know. End of discussion". And a lot of people thought "of course a wotc guy would say that". Neither of those responses actually make the claim stronger or weaker.

But in this case at least there is a reasoning to speak to.

Personally, I think there can be some truth to all of the above. I still think 4E is new and hot. And I still think it has much less depth of buying market and a shorter ultimate lifespan. I have chuckled at the praise of PHB2 sales not because I question them, but because if that particular title isn't doing well just 9 months after the game came out, then things are bad indeed.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

We get it, you're the edition warrior. So either contribute something meaningful that furthers the discussion, or don't visit these threads.

I agree-- it's extremely annoying and I can't understand why it is allowed to continue.

 

[Erekose]

. . . Now, maybe Dancey is biased here. But he has put together a detailed argument. If that argument is totally bogus and based purely on biased and agenda-laden fiction, then it will be a terribly fragile argument. Deconstruct it. Tear it apart and show it for its absurdity.

Saying "Of course this guy would say that" and not addressing the argument itself, seems to be a weak attempt to change the subject . . .

I can't believe it's taken this long in the thread for someone to post this I was just about to say something similar . . .

 

[Bacris]

I have to admit, I was on the fence about 4E, from the build-up, the transcripts / recordings at the cons, the previews - I saw stuff I liked, and stuff I didn't.

Then it arrived and my DM got rid of all of 3.x sourcebooks and made the decision to migrate fully to 4E permanently.

Since then, our gaming group hasn't had more than 4 game sessions... The DM has tried (and succeeded in a couple instances) to get other gaming groups going, but 4E hasn't really grabbed us the way 3E has.

I don't know if it's resistance to the new edition, the actual rules, or what, but I have bought exactly one book for 4E. Compare this to the dozens of books I bought for 3.x and the fact that I also have dozens of books for 2nd Edition... and... well... I dunno, I thought I was the exception to the trend, rather than the rule...

But as a third party publisher, I've seen 3.x products continue to sell - and in some cases, sell well, while 4E products (admittedly, we only have two and one is an unusual publishing style) are rather luke-warm. I'm not inclined to disagree with Ryan, despite his affiliations or past deeds.

Personally... 4E's fracturing of the market, lack of psionic support, my DM's firm stance of only playing 4E, and overall feel has somewhat put me off from RPGs. I've tried other gaming groups and enjoy it less than my DM's 4E games (which aren't bad from a DM perspective, mind you...)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I agree-- it's extremely annoying and I can't understand why it is allowed to continue.

You do know that was way too subtle, right?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You do know that was way too subtle, right?

So subtle even I missed it.

I was serious. I have no problem with nerd-rage on either side, but Tetsubo never has anything to say other than "4e killed D&D!"

You can't engage with that.

 

[Puggins]

You've refuted nothing. You've taken a single data point and extrapolated an unverifiable conclusion.

My hypothesis is that your assertion is wrong, not that 4e is doing well.

What time of year was it released? Seasonal variations are pretty noticeable. Complete Warrior was an early December release; that might have meant increased sales (if people were buying it to give for Christmas), it might have deflated sales (people had less disposable income to spend on themselves), or it might have delayed sales (spending your Borders gift certificate you got from grandma).

An excellent point- one that I implied by asking you or anyone else to point out ANY supplement for D&D that managed to make the XXX WSJ top 15, regardless of other factors like time of year.

EDIT- Wulf has pointed out that I linked to the wrong archive. I can't locate an archive for the WSJ, so I can't verify the success of the 35e supplements. Something tells me that we would've heard about them making the top 15 if they had, but that's hardly firm ground. Of course, Rodrigo's case isn't exactly watertight.

In other words, making any sort of assertion about the health of 4e based on a blip on a list is an exercise in wish-fullfilment.

You, sir, are tilting against a straw man in order to look righteously above the fray. I didn't make ANY assertion about the health of 4e in this thread. My assertion is that you are wrong about the significance of the XXX WSJ bestseller list. Show me ANY 3.5e supplement that made this list, if you please.