Changeover Poll

[Duskblade]

Well, I can't answer any of the above. My GM has decided that he doesn't even care for the whole of 4E enough to try to run a one-shot of it with our group.

We are upgrading to Pathfinder next week and will be incorporating some 4E elements.

 

[merelycompetent]

I wish to venture an opinion...

My sincerest apologies if this is a threadjack. I think that your opinion holds great value and understanding of my particular situation with D&D 4E. I gather from reading various posts that my situation is not uncommon.

For me, it is not a matter of what edition is best. It is a matter of what edition's mechanics best support the game/setting that I and the players enjoy.

I think 4E is a great game to introduce new players to D&D. Possibly the best edition for introducing new players to D&D since 1E. I don't know for certain because I am not currently recruiting "new" players. My game is currently on hiatus due to Real Life issues.

We were having fun. We're starting back up in March of this year. The players are all but threatening me bodily harm to start the campaign back up sooner. I am fortunate that my players encourage trying new stuff -- especially considering how I'm houseruling 3.5E so that I don't go insane with handling all the rules and high-level/epic-level adventures.

It seems that, by the current definitions of EnWorld, I'm a grognard, thought I hate and refuse that description, since (to me) "grognard" deescibes a dedicated wargamer. I'm not a wargamer. I'm a gamer, specifically a role-playing gamer. Don't call me a grognard - it's wrong, and almost insulting. I'm a gamer. It just happens that 4E mechanics, rulebooks, and splatbooks don't support the game I'm currently running. Call me old school. You won't be wrong, so long as you understand that I'm perfectly willing to try new stuff. Heck, I'm back-porting some pretty cool ideas from 4E to 3.5E, and still working on a new magic system for 3.5E (mainly because I'm bored with that aggravating Vancian memorize-and-forget annoyance, partly because I want a tool to help me define how powerful a spell is *before* I add it to the campaign, and partly because it generates some really cool ideas for new spells.)

I've been playing this game since before Basic D&D. I actually became a gamer right at the point where the Basic and Expert boxed sets were available at the hobby shop, the 1E PHB was in its 2nd or 3rd printing, and you could still mail order the Eldritch Wizardry supplement (which I am deeply privileged to have, along with a few other relics and artifacts). I am concerned about the changes brought in with 4E. I expect that, barring unexpected disasters of the TPK kind, the current campaign will take PCs to 30-40th level, have them facing Elder Gods, Ancient Evils, and Horrors from Beyond before the campaign ends. 4E supports an equivalent. 4E -- It, especially the mechanics and lack of conversion, just doesn't support my current game setting. The lack of GSL hurts, too. I've pulled a lot of ideas from other posters on EnWorld, and from purchases from 3rd party publishers (I'm looking at you, Necromancer, FatDragon, Paizo, Upper Krust, and others). 4E is a significant change from all previous editions. Perhaps too much change. That seriously bothers me. There is no convenient way to get from point C (3.5E) to point M (4E).

The extremity of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 to 4.0 bothers me even more. I don't want to see WotC fail in any manner whatsoever. There are too many talented and skilled people involved, including 3PP, who are generating intriguing ideas - treasure worth its weight in platinum. But for now, 4E is not a game system I DM a campaign for. The rules mechanics make DMing a lot easier (thank you, WotC - 3.0 and 3.5 have been a nightmare of mechanics, especially after level 13-15), but the other changes - races, classes, cosmology, magic system, go too far. My current campaigns aren't done. I'm left high and dry by 4E, as a DM with a living, breathing, flourishing campaign setting. It is not a pleasant sensation. It also doesn't mean that I won't try 4E to see what it has to offer. It just changed too much, so what I was currently running couldn't change with it. The last ten plus years of campaign setting, supported by convertable mechanics, are no longer convertable in the details. And the devil, along with versimilitude and continuity, is in the details.

I no longer have the time in my blue/white collar life to devote to re-writing a campaign setting to a new paradigm. Maybe this change is necessary so that the hobby can gain new blood and continue to grow and evolve. Certainly, the work by the current designers is credible and admirable. Maybe this is a difficult or damaging, hopefully not fatal, step in the evolution of the hobby.

But for me, unless something unexpected happens, I won't be recruiting new players to 4E for the foreseeable future. That's an average of 1-2 new customers per year, since I've "retired" from open games at the local university and game store. But it's been *my* campaign, *my* playstyle, that's been recruiting new gamers - gamers who haven't played D&D (in any incarnation) before. The newest, latest, edition only offers me ideas. The mechanics kill my campaign. I don't want to pay $25 per splatbook/6 months DDI subscription to get the mechanics for core classes like druids and barbarians so my campaign can convert to 4E.

I don't know what impact my particular "class" of customer will have on 4E. WotC strikes me as being populated with very smart people. People who may very well look on me as a "fringe customer". There is nothing wrong with that. I still get to run my campaign the way I - and the players - enjoy, and WotC still gets to publish an immensely popular game. That is a win-win situation - the best kind. Five game sessions from now, I may have TPK, or the players may decide they want to scrap their current game for a brand new 4E one. I'm OK with that so long as I still get to have fun. I would hate to see a campaign setting with years of background get relegated to a pool of ideas. That happens, and it's OK. Evolve or die. Considering the players, and the campaign, I don't expect that to happen. But I am worried, at this time, by the fact that all the long-time DM's I personally know (please note that I'm excluding players - the view is even more dismal there), are *not* using, or buying, 4E products. I can account for a small percentage of the market, in a very remote market region. But the company that *is* my hobby no longer suports the game I play. This is cause for concern.

I hope that I am an isolated statistical point. But I worry that this poll indicates that I am not.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

If we fail to reach 1,000 votes, that could be a negative sign, yes. It might, or might not, denote a decrease in interest in things (whether here, just on ENWorld, or elsewhere, I couldn't say.)

But we are up to 710 votes, and the vote count is still rising. The first poll received 986 votes, so we are slowly and steadily closing in on that number. If we do, the question becomes moot. If we exceed it, then we could speculate that there is more interest in things (which I would call a good thing)

Why do I think about my own poll the way I do?
I have said, above. It is a long story, really. Let me try for it another day. (It has nothing to do with ENWorld, ENWorld posters, ENWorld in any way, or any board associated with ENWorld such as Circvs Maximvs. It has, instead, everything to do with Hasbro.)

 

[Samurai]

Well said, Merelycompetent.

I just want to point you and everyone else to a new thread and poll I forked off this thread... What would it take to win you (and other old-timers) over to 4E, if anything?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-old-guard-forked-thread-changeover-poll.html

 

[merelycompetent]

Why do I think about my own poll the way I do? I have said, above. It is a long story, really. Let me try for it another day. (It has nothing to do with ENWorld, ENWorld posters, ENWorld in any way, or any board associated with ENWorld such as Circvs Maximvs. It has, instead, everything to do with Hasbro.)

Now I am curious, and actively watching a thread in a way I haven't for years.

Have you spotted something that the rest of us have missed, or developed a theory?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

My sincerest apologies if this is a threadjack. I think that your opinion holds great value and understanding of my particular situation with D&D 4E. I gather from reading various posts that my situation is not uncommon.

Thank you for the compliment, sir. Thanks much.
And now you are chiming in with your opinion, and I will have a look here.

For me, it is not a matter of what edition is best. It is a matter of what edition's mechanics best support the game/setting that I and the players enjoy.

I agree with that thinking. Just me, of course.
Then again, *my* idea of the ideal D&D is different from most ideal games of most posters on ENWorld, so there you are.
We are all different in our outlooks, no?

I think 4E is a great game to introduce new players to D&D. Possibly the best edition for introducing new players to D&D since 1E. I don't know for certain because I am not currently recruiting "new" players. My game is currently on hiatus due to Real Life issues.

I must wonder if it is relevant anymore?
In the 1960s, a completely different situation existed, culturally, technologically, economically, and socially, than the current one.
The Young of today have YouTube (a program that continues to astound me) and video games, and computer games, and internet games, and card games, and ... well ... remember that back in those days, Face-to-Face Gaming was all we could *do.*
We couldn't play any of the games mentioned above. They did not exist yet. And other competitors in the rping area itself had not yet emerged.

*Any* edition of D&D, were it released now, would - I believe - have a really hard time making it, compared to the time OD&D had in the more friendly atmospherics of that older time.
4E? It is up against all of these things. These are not small hurdles for the game.

We were having fun. We're starting back up in March of this year. The players are all but threatening me bodily harm to start the campaign back up sooner. I am fortunate that my players encourage trying new stuff -- especially considering how I'm houseruling 3.5E so that I don't go insane with handling all the rules and high-level/epic-level adventures.

LOL. I can see you have some eager players. Cheers!
Houseruling 3.5? You have no choice! Hehe. That is built into the system, as it were. (not easy to be a 3.5 DM, is it?)

It seems that, by the current definitions of EnWorld, I'm a grognard, thought I hate and refuse that description, since (to me) "grognard" deescibes a dedicated wargamer. I'm not a wargamer. I'm a gamer, specifically a role-playing gamer. Don't call me a grognard - it's wrong, and almost insulting. I'm a gamer.

I *NEVER* use that term. It was meant to be an insultive term, so I refuse to use it. Ever.
Incidentally, I believe it meant, in a derogatory way, Old-Timer, not wargamer. Could be wrong. But no matter what it means, it was meant as a put-down, and I will not use the term.
Yes, Gamer. Now, THAT'S a term I like. We are Gamers. : )

It just happens that 4E mechanics, rulebooks, and splatbooks don't support the game I'm currently running. Call me old school. You won't be wrong, so long as you understand that I'm perfectly willing to try new stuff. Heck, I'm back-porting some pretty cool ideas from 4E to 3.5E, and still working on a new magic system for 3.5E (mainly because I'm bored with that aggravating Vancian memorize-and-forget annoyance, partly because I want a tool to help me define how powerful a spell is *before* I add it to the campaign, and partly because it generates some really cool ideas for new spells.)

I loved the Vancian system, but hey ... each to their own (and as a DM, I would have enabled wizards to have a lot more spells than they had, and Rings of Wizardry were always useful, no?)
4E? It was designed not to be backward compatible. That was quite deliberate. I suppose you can make it so anyways, but they didn't make it easy. (At least, my take. Of all the D&D editions I know of, 4E is the hardest to hybridize. At least, just my experience.)

I've been playing this game since before Basic D&D. I actually became a gamer right at the point where the Basic and Expert boxed sets were available at the hobby shop, the 1E PHB was in its 2nd or 3rd printing, and you could still mail order the Eldritch Wizardry supplement (which I am deeply privileged to have, along with a few other relics and artifacts).

Myself also. I went over to Dragonsfoot, and felt quite at home. (Although whether they would welcome me, I do not know.) I also sorta feel ... old. (sighs) Time robs us all.

I am concerned about the changes brought in with 4E. I expect that, barring unexpected disasters of the TPK kind, the current campaign will take PCs to 30-40th level, have them facing Elder Gods, Ancient Evils, and Horrors from Beyond before the campaign ends. 4E supports an equivalent.
4E -- It, especially the mechanics and lack of conversion, just doesn't support my current game setting. The lack of GSL hurts, too. I've pulled a lot of ideas from other posters on EnWorld, and from purchases from 3rd party publishers (I'm looking at you, Necromancer, FatDragon, Paizo, Upper Krust, and others). 4E is a significant change from all previous editions. Perhaps too much change. That seriously bothers me. There is no convenient way to get from point C (3.5E) to point M (4E).

(helpless look) What can I say?

I would say ... try to create an enjoyable game, using whatever mechanics (or edition) that works for you and your players. If it is fun, that's the point. If it is not fun, what is the point?
Enjoy the game. Use any edition you want. Heck, it is *your* game, and *your* time spent, your money, your house, your work, your ... everything. And most of all, these are your friends. Cherish it all!
Simplistic? Maybe. But it works. It worked for me and my friends, Way Back When. It still works today. So, just ... to be simplistic ... just have fun!
What more could I say?

The extremity of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 to 4.0 bothers me even more. I don't want to see WotC fail in any manner whatsoever. There are too many talented and skilled people involved, including 3PP, who are generating intriguing ideas - treasure worth its weight in platinum. But for now, 4E is not a game system I DM a campaign for. The rules mechanics make DMing a lot easier (thank you, WotC - 3.0 and 3.5 have been a nightmare of mechanics, especially after level 13-15), but the other changes - races, classes, cosmology, magic system, go too far. My current campaigns aren't done. I'm left high and dry by 4E, as a DM with a living, breathing, flourishing campaign setting. It is not a pleasant sensation. It also doesn't mean that I won't try 4E to see what it has to offer. It just changed too much, so what I was currently running couldn't change with it. The last ten plus years of campaign setting, supported by convertable mechanics, are no longer convertable in the details. And the devil, along with versimilitude and continuity, is in the details.

(helpless look)

I do not know why 2E was abandoned. But I thought 3.0 was pretty neat.
I thought 3.0 was very time consuming, and a compromise was needed to lessen the time requirements. The compromise? Play (and even run) the game as if we were Beginners. In short, have a lot of Confused and Puzzled Fun, while trying to understand what we already had *and* while buying (or others buying and bringing in) dozens or even hundreds of nifty supplements.
Remember the wonder of OD&D, when you were a player, didn't understand the rules, but you just Went Along With The Flow, and learned as you went? Sorta my idea of how to handle 3.0. (It worked, too, for me and my friends.)

3.5?
Remember that Hasbro had bought WOTC by then, and they were calling the shots.
3.5 had some good things in it (I thought Gestalt was really neat, and the Prismatic Mage, and a whole bunch of other stuff.) Didn't like some things (the change in the Druid.)
What to do?
Houserule.
And play the game different ways, to satisfy different players.

4th Edition?
4th Edition has been a shock to me, as it has been to you, and most others. But then, it would be, no? It is very different from 3.5.
I'm still trying to adapt to it. (I voted Partial Changeover for myself in my own poll, here.) Trying to see if I can get some enjoyment out of it. That's what it's all about.
I wouldn't want to be in your situation, though, I will admit. Converting an entire campaign, an entire world, and all the characters, from 3.5 to 4th? Ack. A lot of work, there. I guess it's up to you, to decide if it's worth it. I can't make that call. (I would never presume to try, either.)

I no longer have the time in my blue/white collar life to devote to re-writing a campaign setting to a new paradigm. Maybe this change is necessary so that the hobby can gain new blood and continue to grow and evolve. Certainly, the work by the current designers is credible and admirable. Maybe this is a difficult or damaging, hopefully not fatal, step in the evolution of the hobby.

You are not alone. I think it is a truism when I say people have little time for gaming, especially adults in the working world. A truism. And what is more precious than time, in any case?
Again, it's your call. Do what you want. This is your game, your group, your hard work, and - especially - your shared activity with friends. Why do it any other way, than Your Way?

But for me, unless something unexpected happens, I won't be recruiting new players to 4E for the foreseeable future. That's an average of 1-2 new customers per year, since I've "retired" from open games at the local university and game store. But it's been *my* campaign, *my* playstyle, that's been recruiting new gamers - gamers who haven't played D&D (in any incarnation) before.

You are a popular DM? You have brought a lot of fun to people? (solemn look) My salutations. Cheers to you, merelycompetent.

The newest, latest, edition only offers me ideas. The mechanics kill my campaign. I don't want to pay $25 per splatbook/6 months DDI subscription to get the mechanics for core classes like druids and barbarians so my campaign can convert to 4E.

Again, from my POV, it's your party. And I say, if it's your party, then it's *your* party (why can't anyone remember this with the Nutcracker Ballet, which is invariably boring because they forget that it's Clara's party, not the Party of a bunch of other people?)
If it's *your* party, then I urge you to do it *your way.* That's the right way, your way, as long as you are having fun.
If 4E helps, more power to it! If 4E doesn't help, don't use it. But don't let others tell you what should or shouldn't be used, or what is right or wrong! This is *your* game!

I don't know what impact my particular "class" of customer will have on 4E. WotC strikes me as being populated with very smart people. People who may very well look on me as a "fringe customer".

I wouldn't call someone who is a well known DM who has brought fun to a lot of people, who has run a major campaign (and done the colossal amount of required work to create that campaign), who is extremely familiar with the various editions of D&D, and who talks like you do, a 'fringe customer.'
I don't think WOTC thinks of you that way, either.
If Hasbro (the owners of WOTC) think of you this way, it is their loss, not yours.

There is nothing wrong with that. I still get to run my campaign the way I - and the players - enjoy, and WotC still gets to publish an immensely popular game. That is a win-win situation - the best kind. Five game sessions from now, I may have TPK, or the players may decide they want to scrap their current game for a brand new 4E one. I'm OK with that so long as I still get to have fun.

I could not image anyone arguing with this! It's just ... well, if I had to coin a phrase, call it D&D Common Sense?
Win/Win, indeed.

I would hate to see a campaign setting with years of background get relegated to a pool of ideas. That happens, and it's OK. Evolve or die.

I myself am too Old World to agree with that. I cherish the past (I'm even a Collector of TSR material.)
So, I say, if one wants an older version of a setting, that's a reasonable idea. Not everything must change.
If that sounds ridiculous, consider how much *we* are changing, as we grow older. Can we stop that? No. We can't. All we can do is try to preserve what is good, and change what isn't, no? Make things better than should be better, but keep what we believe is good. What is wrong with that?

Considering the players, and the campaign, I don't expect that to happen. But I am worried, at this time, by the fact that all the long-time DM's I personally know (please note that I'm excluding players - the view is even more dismal there), are *not* using, or buying, 4E products. I can account for a small percentage of the market, in a very remote market region. But the company that *is* my hobby no longer suports the game I play. This is cause for concern.

Well, ok, and here is my poll, and it's showing only 31% Changeover, so it and you would be in agreement.
But I cannot account for the whether 4E is healthy or not. That is up for others to debate, not me. I merely observe here.

That *last* statement is another matter.
That ... the attitude of Hasbro ... I could be wrong here ... seems to have caused a very great tragedy, a part of which you are referring to, but the scope of which is greater than even that (which is saying something, considering the enormity of what you said.)
We saw, what became of Dragon. Dungeon. A number of popular campaign settings. And so on. We saw ... well, we saw an attitude which led to the Edition Wars Flamewar, which got so bad Morrus had to call a halt to it for 2 months. We've seen the widespread resignation and despair since then, which replaced the Edition Wars.
You know what? I do not approve of how Hasbro has handled this, and would say so. I do not blame WOTC, which has to do as they are told. I do not blame other posters or players. Heck, I do not even blame most of the people at Hasbro. Merely the CEOs, whose primary interest was and is - if what I have read is to be believed - on Pokemon, not D&D (not even the card game, Magic the Gathering.)
I most certainly do not point the finger at anyone on ENWorld, for the Battle of Unnumbered Tears level catastrophe I've witnessed happen over the last 4 years. Not their fault, not your fault, not WOTC's fault, not the fault of really anyone I could point a finger at. (It's almost scary, the way I cannot point a finger at anyone ... the nebulous workings of a large company and the thinking of it's various top officers, is byzantine and sometimes at cross purposes, the world is competitive and encroaches on the hobby, and the situation becomes so confused that nobody can figure out the actual reality.)

I hope that I am an isolated statistical point. But I worry that this poll indicates that I am not.

I just hope they do not withdraw the copyrights to D&D, shut down the game, and thus put an end to Dungeons and Dragons, as they did Dragon Magazine.
If they do that, we still have Pathfinder, and C&C, and ... the Successor Games, as it were.
But ... I would like to see the original stick around (and our flagship magazine, Dragon, come back.) Just me ...

Edena_of_Neith

 

[merelycompetent]

Well said, Merelycompetent.

I just want to point you and everyone else to a new thread and poll I forked off this thread... What would it take to win you (and other old-timers) over to 4E, if anything?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-old-guard-forked-thread-changeover-poll.html

Thank you for the compliment.

Point me towards, show, or give me a way of converting the 3.5 characters, NPCs, classes, and cosmology to 4E, such that I don't have to re-write 1/3 to 1/2 my current homebrew campaign. I'd even leap on a DDI subscription that had such a gem in it, provided that it gave *really helpful, less work for the DM* advice.

For example: I have NPCs who have received magic items from PCs, who undertook quests to retrieve said items for said NPCs. Such magic items have powers usable 1/day (think Teleport, or Heal - both extremely useful power from 1E - 3.5E). With 4E, the NPC can only use one magic item power with a 1/day power, even if he, she, or it, has 5 such items. According to the 4E rules (as I understand them), my 7th level NPC could only use one such power per day, in spite of having 5 magical devices each with a 1/day power. That is a good way of balancing magical items with the rest of the 4E mechanics. But a player whose character went on a quest to retrieve one of these items for that NPC is rightly going to question why should he have bothered. Then why would the NPC go to the trouble of gathering these (mostly) useless items for himself? Versimilitude, setting, and NPC/campaign motivation killed by a game mechanic. This is a fundamental balance issue for 4E - 1/day magical items can only be used a limited number of times, no matter how many 1/day items the character possesses.

Given a conversion method, that preserves enough *semblance* of the expected fundamental sacred cows, that I (as DM) don't have to spend a month typing in mechanics changes (that *require* setting changes) to my campaign, and I would gladly start persuading my 3.5E players to convert wholesale to 4E.

I expect that this is impossible: The fundamental sacred cows are likely to be different for every homebrew campaign, and on even the third read-through of the Core Rules, the mechanics look like they specifically exclude fundamentals of previous editions. Yet it is the long-running (3+ years) homebrew campaigns that are the primary building blocks of the solid, reliable gamers who are also repeat customers for WotC. For me, Druids as a class, and Elves being mainly arcane-type spellcasters are some of those fundamental issues. For another DM/player on EnWorld, it is likely something different. I may very well be wrong about this. Ryan Dancey (sp? - sorry, it's 5am where I'm at) certainly changed the gaming world with the OGL and related matters.

Then there is the matter of missing "core" classes - such as Druids. For me, any class that can alter the amount of food crops producable in a growing season would have considerable political, magical, and military influence. Where did they go? Online subscription only? My veins are starting to cramp up after the $80+ for the Core Rules books.

A splatbook (more money) or a web entry (subscription = more money) and neither were available to me as of December 1, 2008... making it difficult (OK, impossible) for me to start working on a conversion. I'd rather play or DM a game session than spend 4-6 hours working on converting from 3.5E to 4E. Life's too short to spend it converting rules mechanics.

And don't get me started on the whole Eladrin/Elves issues. Talk about screwing up campaign world politics: Half to 3/4 of my former Elves would be residents of another plane since they prefer being spellcasters to rangers! That alone irks me considerably, since I'd have to play mix-'n'-match with racial abilities to get back to the various subraces of Elves that have been preserved (more or less) intact from 1E Unearthed Arcana! The game mechanics *must* make the DM's (or GM's, or referee's) work *easier*. If it makes it harder, then something is seriously wrong.

My limited, 8-5 working day, free time would be better spent houseruling 3.5E than trying to retcon 4E core mechanics. But I might be wrong. I hope that someone else has the imagination or vision beyond mine to see a way out!

I must get some sleep, now. I hope that the above is useful to you and others.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Now I am curious, and actively watching a thread in a way I haven't for years.

Have you spotted something that the rest of us have missed, or developed a theory?

Insight? Nothing special.

I honestly believe our game suffers undeserved blame. It has been demonized for a situation it did not create.
What is the situation? How does the situation devolve into trouble and blame?
The mechanics of this are simple and easy to follow, and they involve the darker aspects of ourselves:

- I like this game!
- Well, I like it too!
- Let's play it!
- Yes, let's play it!

(A lot of time passes, a lot of fun is had)

(The players, and DM, due to problems (sighs ... inevitable problems ...) totally unrelated to the game, slowly become antagonistic towards each other. This antagonism spills into the game, creating a downward spiral.)

- I like this rule.
- Well, I do not like this rule.

- I really dislike this rule.

- I think it is stupid to use this rule.

- I think it is idiotic to use this rule.

- I think it is ok to use this rule.
- * I think there is something wrong with anyone who uses this rule. *

- I think there is something wrong with you.
- I share the reverse sentiment.

- I do not like you.
- I do not like you, either.

- I really do not like you.
- Likewise.

- I think we shall part ways now.
- I concur. Today, we part ways ... forever.

This Death Spiral is made all the more easy by the fact D&D must have open ended rules, but it is started by friction from non-gaming sources ... but it is the *D&D game* which gets blamed, not the other source. Which is profoundly unfair to the game.
D&D did not invent the Real World and it's problems. D&D did not invent people and their problems. D&D did not invent all the difficulties faced by people. Or it's various competitors (such as the internet and everything on it.) Or the social changes. Or, a lot of other stuff I can't go into on ENWorld.
But D&D gets blamed for it. And those who design and market it. And vendors. And a lot of other people who are not at fault, but who are caught up in the melee.

Even in chess, with it's hard and set rules, they have their problems getting along. And heck, they don't even TALK during the game (it isn't allowed!) It isn't a Social Interaction game at all, not at least during the game itself.
D&D is, and if someone is having trouble from non-gaming sources (meaning ... *ALL* of us, altogether, all the time, but sometimes we can supress those problems long enough to have fun ... or, at least, get it our best shot! ...) then the problem comes crashing into the game.
If someone else is having a problem, this can be like shaking a bottle of nitroglycerin, and the results are as bad.

In the end, what is to blame? Well, the blame goes to a lot of things, and the personal fallacies of human beings (who amongst us is perfect? Who never makes mistakes??)
But it is not D&D which is to blame. D&D, was the instrument through which people tried to have fun, the instrument to enable some fun.

Yet time and again, what gets most or all of the blame? The D&D game.

A different edition, whether that edition is a good one or a bad one, will not fix this problem. Nor will people start being perfect and stop having problems.
All we can do is wage a constant battle for the purpose of ... having fun.

 

[CapnZapp]

Once I tried 4E, I realized that whatever its warts, I would never go back to 3E.

The complexity and number-crunching of 3E simply sucked out all the fun out of high-level play.

 

[Darrin Drader]

D&D has already failed once, and because of that failure, it was bought out and went on to one of its most successful eras since the beginning of the game. It is my belief that if it fails again, the market will move on and choose one or more successors. Pathfinder is likely to be one, C&C could potentially be another, and then we might see a resurgence in non-d20 based systems like Savage Worlds and d6 (which is poised to make a comeback right about now).

I'm not saying that I want 4E to fail, but I am saying that I don't believe that if that happens, it would be as bleak as many people predict it would be. People would simply move on and either stick with what they already have, or find another system to support. I predict that WotC would rather shelve the D&D brand than lose its licensing potential, so we would likely see it continue to exist in the form of alternate media, like video games, comic books, and maybe the occasional weak attempt at a board game or reissue RPG. But despite the fate of the D&D brand, the game would continue to live on thanks to the OGL.