3E & 4E Love and Hate Polls - What does it mean?

[haakon1]

I'm currently running a Pathfinder game, and while the system pushes things toward super-ness, it's possible to keep it to a mortal level.

I'm still running 3.5e (and thus, buying virtually no new gaming materials -- my latest purchases were old issues of Dragon and the Paizo version of the Monster Manual). I'm not ANTI-Pathfinder, but I don't want to make my players buy new books, and at present I have so much old 3/3.5 that the idea of converting, even slightly, from new stuff doesn't sound worth my time.

I'm not sure how much trouble it is to convert from Pathfinder to 3.5. Anybody know?

I'd run a poll, but it would probably tell us that 99% of 4E players started with OD&D.

I'm done with polls for a while. I was thinking it might be fun to have a poll on "which do you hate more" with the choices of 4e or people who hack polls. But that's probably not appropriate.

 

[BryonD]

We like Dungeons and Dragons. 4e feels like it was designed for us. I have to say I reject your "4e was designed for people who don't like Dungeons and Dragons" principle.

Clearly 1E and 2E were distinctly similar. But of all flavors of D&D, I'd say that 3E is the outlier. 4E is almost certainly second place. But 3E was the furthest removed. Yes, 3E still had Vancian magic and magic missiles that automatically hit, but the play experience has a lot in common.

Obviously my personal opinion is that it was the very things made 3E an outlier that made it so much better. 4E, to me, is a huge step backward. I loved 1E and dove into 2E when it came out. Then I found better games and never looked back.

But at the end of the day the name "Dungeons and Dragons" carries a ton of weight. 4E is huge. Easily bigger than everything else combined. But there are lots of really good games out there. If the exact 4E game mechanics had been released by as "Age of Heroes" by some other publisher, it would not have a fraction of the success. (Same statement applies to 3E nine years ago) And pick some other reasonably decent fantasy RPG from the past couple years and imagine an alternate universe where it was called "Dungeons & Dragons 4E" and you probably increase its initial sales run by a couple orders of magnitude.

So the question: "Is 4E popular?" is not really the right one. Of course it is popular. The question is, does it really reach the level it could?

I think it fell far short. Sure, a lot of people bought the core. *I* bought the core. So what?

I'm a huge 3E fan. And in the end of the 3E era I really wasn't buying much because I already had everything. It was done. And I was also really ready for some new innovation. When 4E was announced, there was the typical rush of denouncements as "another edition money grab". I was front and center saying "Bring it on!! I'm ready!!" It didn't take long at all before I realized they were going way in the wrong direction for me. (And by the way, to all of you who insisted before the release that I was rushing to judgment and making assessments without the full context of the game, you stand very corrected. "Full context" exposed was exactly as expected.)

But the point is, I was eager with money burning a hole in my pocket. And, the initial core three aside, not one further dime has gone WotC's way. If I was rare, then so what. But I'm not. Yeah, 4E is still the monster and remains bigger than everything else combined. But it still lost a whole lot of its ready and waiting audience. It could have been a lot bigger.

It is funny how the spin goes back and forth. You'll get one thread proclaiming how 4E brought in players that didn't like 3E. And then you'll get another thread explaining that 3E does better in acceptance polls because such a great majority of 4E players used to play 3E. The validity of the polls is not relevant here, it is just the spin of interpretation I'm talking about.

A year and a half in to 4E and the shine is off the apple. Of course they are huge fans out there. I don't question in the least the absolute sincerity of that, much less the legitimacy of it. But I'm constantly hearing, "we tried it for a session...", "we tried it for six months...", "we tried it for a year...", "... and we decided it wasn't for us".

And I remain convinced that the great majority of "new blood", was really new blood so much as "latest fad-ers" And they quietly move on to the next fad. Exceptions not withstanding....

4E has tons and tons of fans. But it could have had many many more. And when taken in large groups, the most long term loyal and the most consistent buyers are very much disproportionately represented by the "wasn't for us" segment.

I do have to give them credit for the DDI though. It is a great business model. Sign up to have your account automatically billed once a month. That is a great, reliable revenue stream and doesn't require a consumer taking the initiative to lay their money on the counter over and over and say "I'll buy that new book". I'm sure it certainly off-sets a chunk of the financial implications of the problems.

But, yes, I agree with you that 4E is not remotely against people who like D&D.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The PCs are vastly superior to the norm whether you like it or not.

That depends entirely on how often the DM uses minions. 4e's non-minion kobolds are deadlier to a 1st level PC than those of any other edition. Same is true for all the other humanoids.

If the DM does use lots of minions then I'd say the PCs feel more like Conan, or Gimli and Legolas at the Battle of Helms Deep, than a superhero. They can kill hordes of screaming spear-carriers but they don't have the tremendous movement, sensory or environment-altering capabilities of a superhero.

 

[keterys]

In a 14th level game, my barbarian knocked a Roc prone when it passed by the top of the forty foot wall he was standing by - then jumped down to finish it off. In the next adventure, I jumped down a fifty foot hole to smash a titan which then exploded as I killed it.

Sometimes it can get pretty superheroic.

 

[Barastrondo]

It is funny how the spin goes back and forth. You'll get one thread proclaiming how 4E brought in players that didn't like 3E. And then you'll get another thread explaining that 3E does better in acceptance polls because such a great majority of 4E players used to play 3E. The validity of the polls is not relevant here, it is just the spin of interpretation I'm talking about.

Where you see spin, I see two things that are both (except for the "great majority" rider) true. There are players who didn't like 3e who don't like 4e and there 4e players who didn't play 3e. And also, 4e brought in players who didn't like 3e and there are a lot of 4e players who used to play 3e. There are even folks who went from "love it" to "hate it" with 3e — which can be a bitter topic of conversation if you still love it.

The only spin I think you can take from these situations is by trying to apply something like poll results on a site like this as if they were market research. The only truly objective statements I think I've seen regarding these polls are "these aren't really representative of anything beyond the specific few hundred people voting in them."

And I remain convinced that the great majority of "new blood", was really new blood so much as "latest fad-ers" And they quietly move on to the next fad. Exceptions not withstanding....

This is something I'd be interested in if it's true, but I'm not sure there's anything but the anecdotal to back it up. Where were these "latest fad-ers" when 3e was born? Did they stay loyal to it during the time? Do they try games other than D&D at all, and if so, what else have they been looking at? What is the "latest fad"? If this is true I know several marketing folks who would give their eyeteeth to be able to track it with any accuracy.

4E has tons and tons of fans. But it could have had many many more. And when taken in large groups, the most long term loyal and the most consistent buyers are very much disproportionately represented by the "wasn't for us" segment.

I'm curious about that. Is there a good way to separate out, say, the people who "came back to D&D with 3e" from the "most long-term loyal," for instance? Clearly they weren't the most consistent buyers if they weren't picking up much 2e stuff. Would they be "lastest fad-ers"?

I do have to give them credit for the DDI though. It is a great business model. Sign up to have your account automatically billed once a month. That is a great, reliable revenue stream and doesn't require a consumer taking the initiative to lay their money on the counter over and over and say "I'll buy that new book". I'm sure it certainly off-sets a chunk of the financial implications of the problems.

It's more interesting than just that. You can game the system, so to speak, by purchasing a month here and there but cancelling thereafter. When you do so, you get insane amounts of content — pretty much all the rules that have been published since your last dip into the system — and you get to keep it when you're not subscribed. The character builder works just fine offline; you only update it every month if you're into that. And tools like the monster builder are outright competition against the Monster Manuals themselves.

It's not just a "sign up and have your card charged monthly" deal. Once they got it running, it really became a whole new model for doing business. There's still the books for people who prefer them, but people who are growing up with "patch day" and "microtransactions" have an RPG that is evolving with regular downloads. Speaking as someone in the business, I'm really impressed at how it not only works, but is commonly (and I would say rightly) perceived as a bargain even if you don't game it and just subscribe.

It's pretty telling that one of the biggest obstacles to creating third-party 4e products at present, even if you're fine with the GSL, is that there's so much more indifference from the player base because third-party products don't get fed into the Compendium. You could publish a brilliant necromancer class tomorrow, and it would be tepidly received because it doesn't have the added value of the character builder.

This is a situation that has never occurred before in tabletop RPG publishing: the e-tools are cannot-be-ignored significant. This is a big thing.

But, yes, I agree with you that 4E is not remotely against people who like D&D.

Pretty much. The real dividing point is how people define D&D in their heads, which is always tied to key experiences. The circumstances surrounding your most memorable experiences with save-or-die, for instance, have a lot to do with whether you think the loss of save-or-die is a bug or a feature.

It's just kind of tragic, though. At the end of the day, all game preferences should amount to is "I like playing X game in Y fashion." Unfortunately, somewhere along the line comes "I don't like playing X game in Z fashion and I'll tell you why in aggressive terms," and then that's one step to reading it as "and if you like playing it in Z fashion you are wrong," and look, it's the Internet.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

An observation from a friend of mine who works at the local Borders:
They are getting in more 4e stuff than they did for 3.5e, but selling less. (Entire cases being returned after sales did not match supply.) It is important, however, to note that it is the local Borders, and that I do not have any way of knowing what is happening on the national level.

Also, while I did not ask, I suspect that sales may be lower than they were for 3.5 at its peak, but almost certainly higher than they were in the last year or so of 3.5, even discounting those who held off, waiting for 4e. Also, the local Borders got in a lot fewer copies of the 3.5 material, which meant that the stock that they did get in did not hang around, taking up shelf space.

A good deal of his disgruntlement is that the home office is sending far more 4e material than the local store is selling, and I suspect that this is biasing his opinion. 4e is taking up space that he would prefer to devote to something else entirely. And he is reminded of this every time he passes by the shelf.

And, for whatever it is worth, he does not play either 3.X or 4e - he plays WoD and Exalted....

The D&D minis seem to be selling slightly better with the new packaging, where you get to see the one big monster, even though packages are now a bit more expensive..

What does all this mean? Damned if I know... I am just passing it along, and adding my own perceptions.

The Auld Grump

 

[N0Man]

The moral of this story:

You emphasize a few words and ignore everything else? The point was that the the switch to the new formula wasn't the disaster that was portrayed, but the whole controversy gave so much attention to Coke in general that bringing the old flavor back made them even more popular than if they hadn't switched in the first place.

"Switch" was a poor word choice anyway, as they didn't cut out the new stuff as much as bring the old formula back and the new formula just slowly diminished on its own.

However, I guarantee this wouldn't work in D&D... The "formula" for 3E is already out there and accessible. Unlike Coke, our books don't go away when we use them. There's no point in bringing 3E back, and resurrecting many of the sacred cows would turn around and alienate many of the players who truly think that what was done in 4E was progressive, and don't want the old cows back.

 

[MoxieFu]

You emphasize a few words and ignore everything else? The point was that the the switch to the new formula wasn't the disaster that was portrayed, but the whole controversy gave so much attention to Coke in general that bringing the old flavor back made them even more popular than if they hadn't switched in the first place.

"Switch" was a poor word choice anyway, as they didn't cut out the new stuff as much as bring the old formula back and the new formula just slowly diminished on its own.

However, I guarantee this wouldn't work in D&D... The "formula" for 3E is already out there and accessible. Unlike Coke, our books don't go away when we use them. There's no point in bringing 3E back, and resurrecting many of the sacred cows would turn around and alienate many of the players who truly think that what was done in 4E was progressive, and don't want the old cows back.

If the switch wasn't the disaster as you claim then why is Classic Coke the defacto standard that it is today? Why doesn't New Coke outsell it? The company took away the version of Coke that customers enjoyed and forced a new product on them. People don't mind being given new choices but they sure HATE having choice taken away!

You claim that:

'The "formula" for 3E is already out there and Accessible. Unlike Coke, our books don't go away when we use them'

But our ability to buy new products has been taken away. We can no longer buy PDF's of D&D material in ANY form. If WotC could rescind the OGL they would so to cut off the last source of possible new or existing 3rd party material. Every action WotC has taken since announcing 4e has been to create a monopoly for D&D so that anyone who buys D&D MUST buy 4E. The only other choice is to go to a different game altogether.

I think it would be wonderful if WotC would sell ALL versions of D&D. They could bring back the PDF's and actually print small runs of the core books of all editions. That way customers could buy whatever version of D&D THEY want to play. Then we could see if more people prefer New D&D or D&D Classic.

 

[billd91]

I think it would be wonderful if WotC would sell ALL versions of D&D. They could bring back the PDF's and actually print small runs of the core books of all editions. That way customers could buy whatever version of D&D THEY want to play. Then we could see if more people prefer New D&D or D&D Classic.

It might be nice, but even the big soda giants don't do that too much. Notice that New Coke really is pretty much gone. Coca Cola also has to be careful about introducing new varieties. They run the risk of splitting their own market into segments and undermining their flagship products. Sure, the corporation still may benefit to some extent, but they lose the status of having the single biggest product in the market. And that's with a consumable, static product. This problem gets worse if the product is durable or something that requires ongoing R&D like an RPG.

It may seem like all win if WotC sells old, out of print products. And in some formats, like PDFs, it may be. But they want the current products to be generating enough revenue to sustain development of that line. And making the old products too attractive may undermine sales of the new line. That should pretty much preclude quality reprints and collectors editions that would compete with the new product directly. So I can understand the impulse a company has to not split their market too much or sell products that are not compatible with or compete directly with their current product line. I don't agree with it in all situations. But I do understand it.

 

[MoxieFu]

I understand how TSR split the markets back before they were bought out, but that is hardly the situation we have today. Using myself and my friends as an example, none of us are buying anything from WotC now. WotC has totally discarded us as customers, they don't want our business because we aren't 4e players.

I don't think anyone can deny that the market now is fragmented. WotC has decided that they are only going to work on one fragment. It may be the biggest fragment, but the other fragments will add up.

To use another analogy similar to the New Coke comparison I think of IBM. Back in the mid 80's other companies like Compaq were producing products similar to IBM and gaining market share. Since IBM wanted 100% of the market they produced a new line of computers with a new, incompatible architecture called MicroChannel in order to force customers to buy their products. Compaq decided to create a new architecture that was an estension of the old one and ensure it was as compatible with the old architecture as they could possible make it. Also they decided to let other companies use it as well.

Customers already had an installed base of computers and wanted to buy new machines that would work with what they already had. When a customer has invested significant money into a durable product, they don't want to just throw it all away and get something new that won't work with what they have unless it's something like a car, or a house. In the case of those two items they sell or trade in their installed base for money to apply to the cost of the new purchase.

I don't know many gamers that trade in everything they own in a previous edition or sell it in order to buy the new edition. Maybe they will do this with books dealing primarily with crunch, but not the flavor material. (Sorry I can't stand calling it fluff - makes it sound unnecesary)

IBM chose to force customers to buy only from them and the market responded. The customers chose David over Goliath.