Changeover Poll

[Imaro]

Something can't "not exist no longer" just because you do not like the edition. Things just do not work that way. Now you are like Tetsubo who says that 3.5 was the last edition of D&D. Again, things do not work like that.
No matter how much you hate 4e and Dragon and Dungeon as they are now, they are still there, they are still Dragon and Dungeon, providing us with fluff and crunch and all the other stuff for our weekly game, and hey, wouldn't you know, they are still D&D.

Eh, I can see both PoV... It's sort of like water and ice. I mean you can have your ice cube and it is ice... or you can have your water/melted ice. Sorta like you can have your magazines...Paper, physical, collectible... and you can have your PDF's... which lack some of the fundamental characteristics of a paper magazine, but have new characteristics.

Really it's all in how you look at it. For me some of those characteristics the paper magazine had, defined Dragon and Dungeon (My ice)... thus for me, and many others, the new PDF's are more akin to water or melted ice than actual ice...Now I can say the ice doesn't exist and be perfectly right, while you can claim the ice exists, just in a different form and be correct as well. It all depends on whether you view the "solid" form as being a definitive feature of ice or not.

 

[BryonD]

So, assuming there was a way to really know the actual percent changeover of all D&D players, and not just the subset of one forum or another, what would be an acceptable conversion rate, and how could WotC have met that, since plainly in your opinion 4e has failed to do so?

I'll first point out that I didn't say this represented all players. I said that the other poll was being used as a counter-point and I consider that very telling. The "good news" poll is still pretty bad news.

But yes, in my opinion (and it is just that, my opinion) it has failed to do so.

I think wotc could have done better by showing more respect for the conventions that had worked well for the game in the past and showing more respect for the level of complexity that the bulk of gamers embrace and find rewarding. If you woudl like more detail on these items, I'd refer you to hundreds, if not thousands, of other threads over the past 18 months. It isn't like the issues are a secret.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

...and yet there's a show on called "Knight Rider." (Providing, incidentally, yet more proof against the existence of a benevolent God.)

Edena, are you paying attention? Now that is humor.

Well struck, Sir Wilder. Well struck.

WP

 

[Jack99]

Eh, I can see both PoV... It's sort of like water and ice. I mean you can have your ice cube and it is ice... or you can have your water/melted ice. Sorta like you can have your magazines...Paper, physical, collectible... and you can have your PDF's... which lack some of the fundamental characteristics of a paper magazine, but have new characteristics.

Really it's all in how you look at it. For me some of those characteristics the paper magazine had, defined Dragon and Dungeon (My ice)... thus for me, and many others, the new PDF's are more akin to water or melted ice than actual ice...Now I can say the ice doesn't exist and be perfectly right, while you can claim the ice exists, just in a different form and be correct as well. It all depends on whether you view the "solid" form as being a definitive feature of ice or not.

Thanks for the hyperbole, but it really only proves like nothing. Being made of dead tree is NOT the defining characteristic of Dragon or Dungeon.

 

[Imaro]

Thanks for the hyperbole, but it really only proves like nothing. Being made of dead tree is NOT the defining characteristic of Dragon or Dungeon.

Hyperbole? What hyperbole?

Honestly, no snark intended, but why is whatever you feel defines Dungeon and Dragon magazine any more valid than what someone else does? There's alot more missing than just it being made of paper, but in the end what you choose as "defining" characteristics of the magazines PDF's is no more or less valid (in an objective sense) than what characteristics anyone else decides define the mags for themselves.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Thanks for the hyperbole, but it really only proves like nothing. Being made of dead tree is NOT the defining characteristic of Dragon or Dungeon.

Not of the brand names dragon and Dungeon maybe. But for many of us dead trees is a defining characteristic of Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine.

 

[garyh]

I'll first point out that I didn't say this represented all players. I said that the other poll was being used as a counter-point and I consider that very telling. The "good news" poll is still pretty bad news.

But yes, in my opinion (and it is just that, my opinion) it has failed to do so.

I think wotc could have done better by showing more respect for the conventions that had worked well for the game in the past and showing more respect for the level of complexity that the bulk of gamers embrace and find rewarding. If you woudl like more detail on these items, I'd refer you to hundreds, if not thousands, of other threads over the past 18 months. It isn't like the issues are a secret.

Yes, obviously we've had countless 4e vs 3e threads over the last year. But that's not what I'm getting at. I'm asking what a successful percent changeover WOULD be, and how WotC could have gotten there.

Really, what I'm probably getting at is that anything short of 100% conversion would likely be looked at as "failure" by detractors (of course, if 100% converted, there'd be no detractors ), and highlighting the essential unwinnable situation WotC is in with regards to converting those strongly attached to in previous editions.

The person who loved 3.x and owned thousands in 3.x product and felt it did everything they needed? They weren't ever going to convert to a new edition. There are a lot of those people on EN World, certainly a higher percentage than the general gaming population.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Yes, obviously we've had countless 4e vs 3e threads over the last year. But that's not what I'm getting at. I'm asking what a successful percent changeover WOULD be, and how WotC could have gotten there.

Really, what I'm probably getting at is that anything short of 100% conversion would likely be looked at as "failure" by detractors (of course, if 100% converted, there'd be no detractors ), and highlighting the essential unwinnable situation WotC is in with regards to converting those strongly attached to in previous editions.

The person who loved 3.x and owned thousands in 3.x product and felt it did everything they needed? They weren't ever going to convert to a new edition. There are a lot of those people on EN World, certainly a higher percentage than the general gaming population.

There is no successful changeover number. The successful release is that more people buy the new books than were buying the old. This can be done even with 100% loss of old players if they get 101% back in new players.

 

[garyh]

There is no successful changeover number. The successful release is that more people buy the new books than were buying the old. This can be done even with 100% loss of old players if they get 101% back in new players.

Good point, and one I happen to agree with.

I just see a lot of 4e detractors claiming that the game must be a bad game / a commercial failure / not really D&D / etc. because X% / my group / the people at my FLGS / etc. haven't switched, and it bothers me.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

There is no successful changeover number. The successful release is that more people buy the new books than were buying the old. This can be done even with 100% loss of old players if they get 101% back in new players.

Bingo - assuming the new players buy the books at a rate equal to or greater than the previous customer base. (In other words, the newbies better have a couple DaveMage types in their group. )

That's the question on the success of 4e from a business side: Did it, will it, has it attracted enough new gamers to make the loss of a segment of existing players be inconsequential?

I don't know.

And, for what it's worth, I don't like that marketing decision (if indeed it was one). I think there would have been a way to have your cake and eat it too. For example: (1) remove the accounting issues stemming from overly complex subsystems and (2) retain the core paradigm (Great Wheel, half-orcs, druids, etc.) that had been established. Greatly simplified, I know, but hopefully you get the gist.

I see a number of posts from folks who aren't playing 4e - not because of the game - but because it's so different as to make conversion of their homebrew campaigns (from 1e/2e/3e -< 4e) a chore to convert. That's a shame.

'Pen