-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
avin
First Post
It has nothing to do with setting.
Lots of 3.5 fans were pissed with initial 4E PR "3.5 is bad and wrong". Wotc fault.
And 4E killed a lot of disbelief suspension, changed classical lore, etc etc etc.
Like or not I think most people think lack of a setting wasn't what keep some people away from it.
Lots of 3.5 fans were pissed with initial 4E PR "3.5 is bad and wrong". Wotc fault.
And 4E killed a lot of disbelief suspension, changed classical lore, etc etc etc.
Like or not I think most people think lack of a setting wasn't what keep some people away from it.
Steel_Wind
Legend
I've mentioned it. Often.
Most of the fans of Paizo's Adventure Paths have mentioned it too.
Lack of a robust third party support (and that is very much a part of the adventure/setting material) is frequently mentioned in threads of this kind. It's lumped in and is a subset of the "OGL vs GSL" discussion.
Usually, you move to a new edition for fear of the prior edition being marooned and no longer supported.
Near as I can discern, the prior edition of the game is currently better supported than its sequel.
That's a distinction with a difference.
Dannager
First Post
I think people are looking for rational business explanations where none exist. If 4e is not as popular as it could have been (and, really, who is to say how popular it could have been?), I wager it's because they changed some stuff, some people didn't like those changes, and pretty soon it became sort of internet cool for those "in the know" to bash WotC. It's easy to hate on the big guy, but then again, it merely serves as continued evidence that the big guy is in fact still the big guy. 
Aberzanzorax
Hero
Agreed (again).
I know when Necromancer Games was a strident supporter of 4e I was looking forward to it. I love their stuff.
When they, and almost every other 3pp supporter, bailed due to WotC's mismanagement of the GSL in a timely manner and lack of what they saw as reasonable terms for publishing...well, I wasn't very excited for opportunites to play.
Add that to everything you mentioned (and throw in shoddy quality of the emags, especially at the beginning and "greasy gamer hands" smudging their low quality ink) and basically, the whole launch was a disaster.
I like how you point out that it's not about the GAME of 4e. So often, people tend to assume that 4e and WotC are the same. I remember when 4e launched that I was moderately interested, and was a potential customer. But all the behaviors mentioned (and there are more) basically drove me away from WotC moreso than the actual edition.
Hell, I own more 4e products from 3pps than I do from WotC. That's not by accident.
Aberzanzorax
Hero
I think people are looking for rational business explanations where none exist. If 4e is not as popular as it could have been (and, really, who is to say how popular it could have been?), I wager it's because they changed some stuff, some people didn't like those changes, and pretty soon it became sort of internet cool for those "in the know" to bash WotC. It's easy to hate on the big guy, but then again, it merely serves as continued evidence that the big guy is in fact still the big guy.
Or you could hate the big guy because he turned from the cool guy that got along with everyone into a giant bully.
I think it's a combination of many, many things. You can't break it down to just one major contributing factor.
They sacrificed a lot of sacred cows. And really, I think the tree of D&D gaming needed to be watered in the blood of a few of those cows. I like 4E, and don't know if I would have if they had changed it less. But there were a lot of abrupt changes that were probably jarring for some other longtime fans or players.
Yes, the default setting is less of a setting and more a default collection of themed ideas. Which is good for the basic game, but then they carried that default collection of ideas over to all of the versions of other settings for this edition of the game. I understand not wanting to do the same thing they did last time for, say, Forgotten Realms but they basically gave it the points of light treatment of the default game. So all of the settings have a certain sameness to them. Dark Sun is different in that it takes "points of light" to the extreme, which is probably why it's so well regarded for this edition. But even there they just took the default collection of themed ideas and carried them over to a certain degree.
Those two things together would be bad enough for an established brand.
But really, I don't know about the rest of you, but the way that they present and "sell" the game grates on me sometimes. WotC relies a lot on their game developers to market the game, new products, and changes to the line.
Which is fine to a point, because gamers like to talk about games with gamers. They trust the opinion of someone who understands, plays, and genuinely likes the game rather than a stuffed suit. But there's a reason why these people didn't just become salespeople, marketing gurus in some other field, or even customer service people. They just don't seem to think about how things sound sometimes, or about how what they say is going to be parsed bit by bit and come back to haunt them. Or perhaps they're not as adept about thinking in those terms. Or perhaps it's that they are proud of their work, or utterly convinced that their direction is the best one, and so there's a degree of arrogance in what they say that turns some people off.
For some reason WotC line developers for D&D seem to me like they get stuck in this weird place between "director of marketing" and "game-developing gamer" that looks a lot like someone stuffing both feet in their mouth at the same time while inviting random people to walk up and kick them in the kidneys. I think the responsibility for promoting the game needs to be in better hands, and in other hands, rather than in the hands of the same person who is responsible for the changes the company is trying to sell. Really, for D&D, WotC handles marketing and communication like a mom-and-pop operation. The "owner/operator" of the game line is handling all of the hype and explanation of the product.
Now, combine this with my first two points, about sacred cows and not having a default setting but a default set of assumptions exported to all settings, and it's an uphill battle they're fighting. Things can very easily take a turn for the worse with these problems.
They sacrificed a lot of sacred cows. And really, I think the tree of D&D gaming needed to be watered in the blood of a few of those cows. I like 4E, and don't know if I would have if they had changed it less. But there were a lot of abrupt changes that were probably jarring for some other longtime fans or players.
Yes, the default setting is less of a setting and more a default collection of themed ideas. Which is good for the basic game, but then they carried that default collection of ideas over to all of the versions of other settings for this edition of the game. I understand not wanting to do the same thing they did last time for, say, Forgotten Realms but they basically gave it the points of light treatment of the default game. So all of the settings have a certain sameness to them. Dark Sun is different in that it takes "points of light" to the extreme, which is probably why it's so well regarded for this edition. But even there they just took the default collection of themed ideas and carried them over to a certain degree.
Those two things together would be bad enough for an established brand.
But really, I don't know about the rest of you, but the way that they present and "sell" the game grates on me sometimes. WotC relies a lot on their game developers to market the game, new products, and changes to the line.
Which is fine to a point, because gamers like to talk about games with gamers. They trust the opinion of someone who understands, plays, and genuinely likes the game rather than a stuffed suit. But there's a reason why these people didn't just become salespeople, marketing gurus in some other field, or even customer service people. They just don't seem to think about how things sound sometimes, or about how what they say is going to be parsed bit by bit and come back to haunt them. Or perhaps they're not as adept about thinking in those terms. Or perhaps it's that they are proud of their work, or utterly convinced that their direction is the best one, and so there's a degree of arrogance in what they say that turns some people off.
For some reason WotC line developers for D&D seem to me like they get stuck in this weird place between "director of marketing" and "game-developing gamer" that looks a lot like someone stuffing both feet in their mouth at the same time while inviting random people to walk up and kick them in the kidneys. I think the responsibility for promoting the game needs to be in better hands, and in other hands, rather than in the hands of the same person who is responsible for the changes the company is trying to sell. Really, for D&D, WotC handles marketing and communication like a mom-and-pop operation. The "owner/operator" of the game line is handling all of the hype and explanation of the product.
Now, combine this with my first two points, about sacred cows and not having a default setting but a default set of assumptions exported to all settings, and it's an uphill battle they're fighting. Things can very easily take a turn for the worse with these problems.
ShinHakkaider
Adventurer
I am NOT a setting person. Well that's not true, I liked Greyhawk but that was about it. I liked FR when it was a series of Elminster articles in Dragon Magazine and the first grey box. One of the reasons that I'm invested in Golarion is that I got in on the ground floor so to speak. The other reason is that the world is defined / fleshed out via the AP's more than anything.
I tend to read the complete AP's over and over again in preparation for running them and the Paizo crew really does give you a very good feel of whatever part of the world the AP's are taking place in. There's a lot of good background stuff there that yes, some of which the PC's may never know or find out about. But a good DM will make the material his own and find a way to disseminate that info so that it's relevant to your players. Not all of your players will retain this stuff, but for the ones that do? You have something with which to feed their curiosity and interest in the world.
Best part it's not stuff that I had to write myself, so I'm only so vested in it. If the players dont give a crap about the details I dont feel like I've wasted my time developing something that no one really gives a crap about.
That's what I love about Golarion. And I'm not a big settings guy at all.
Ahnehnois
First Post
A large percentage of gamers use homebrewed settings or rule-free setting books.
With regards to Pathfinder, I'm sure it's a good quality setting, but Golarion is of no use to me and seeing references to it in rpg products is a mild turnoff. For the broader market, I think it does make some difference however, given the fairly common reports of people converting PF material to 4e rules (who's doing the opposite?).
When you get down to it, 3e didn't have a real strong setting either. (How many people played in Grayhawk? How many books for it specifically were released? Not big numbers on either count). Some rpgs might be strongly tied to their setting, but D&D has so many successful settings in its history that it has transcended any one fantasy world. I doubt creating better settings would have changed things. The success or failure of an rpg is more tied to the substance of its rules than the style of its settings, and it will succeed or fail on the merits of those rules (and other business factors; marketing, price, et cetera).
With regards to Pathfinder, I'm sure it's a good quality setting, but Golarion is of no use to me and seeing references to it in rpg products is a mild turnoff. For the broader market, I think it does make some difference however, given the fairly common reports of people converting PF material to 4e rules (who's doing the opposite?).
When you get down to it, 3e didn't have a real strong setting either. (How many people played in Grayhawk? How many books for it specifically were released? Not big numbers on either count). Some rpgs might be strongly tied to their setting, but D&D has so many successful settings in its history that it has transcended any one fantasy world. I doubt creating better settings would have changed things. The success or failure of an rpg is more tied to the substance of its rules than the style of its settings, and it will succeed or fail on the merits of those rules (and other business factors; marketing, price, et cetera).
I do believe that the lack of setting support is a problem getting new players into D&D. It is made a much worse problem by the lack of good adventures.
I doubt that many starting players are players coming into an established game/group. Alot of them are going to be someone who wants to try out something new (to them) so they pick up D&D. Giving a good starter world to use as a framework, and a couple good dungeons to hack things up in will give the DM time to learn to run the game.
There is also the ability of a campaign world to be a source of ideas for a new DM or player. Good art, good stories, and good descriptions can all be catalysts for creating a character or an adventure, or even be the core of an entirely new world. One of the biggest parts of a D&D campaign setting is the example it provides as to what a DM can do.
The Nentir Vale was a good example of this. It had a fairly well detailed out town to base out of and to build up, and it had a wide open area with alot of little campaign hooks to make dozens of adventures out of. That could have, should have, been made into dozens of good adventures. It wasnt, and isnt going to be.
My personal opinion is that anything that makes it easier to DM is something that gets players into the game and adds to the total numbers of players. People who try out D&D and have a bad experience will not come back. That is why I have been saying that D&D needs a 'good how to make an adventure' guide and a 'how to make a campaign world' guide far far more than it needs plant-people and crystal-people. Wilden dont get people into D&D, DMs who's group goes 'That was fun, when are we playing again!' do.
I doubt that many starting players are players coming into an established game/group. Alot of them are going to be someone who wants to try out something new (to them) so they pick up D&D. Giving a good starter world to use as a framework, and a couple good dungeons to hack things up in will give the DM time to learn to run the game.
There is also the ability of a campaign world to be a source of ideas for a new DM or player. Good art, good stories, and good descriptions can all be catalysts for creating a character or an adventure, or even be the core of an entirely new world. One of the biggest parts of a D&D campaign setting is the example it provides as to what a DM can do.
The Nentir Vale was a good example of this. It had a fairly well detailed out town to base out of and to build up, and it had a wide open area with alot of little campaign hooks to make dozens of adventures out of. That could have, should have, been made into dozens of good adventures. It wasnt, and isnt going to be.
My personal opinion is that anything that makes it easier to DM is something that gets players into the game and adds to the total numbers of players. People who try out D&D and have a bad experience will not come back. That is why I have been saying that D&D needs a 'good how to make an adventure' guide and a 'how to make a campaign world' guide far far more than it needs plant-people and crystal-people. Wilden dont get people into D&D, DMs who's group goes 'That was fun, when are we playing again!' do.
Similar Threads
