A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[1Mac]

The accessories (campaign settings, adventure paths, etc.), are only selling because of the popularity of the underlying ruleset; they are not a significant reason why the underlying ruleset fails or succeeds.

I wouldn't group setting materials in the same category as the adventure paths. APs (I believe) are where the money is for Paizo. The rules make Paizo money as well, but they also exist to perpetuate the adventure paths by making sure there are players.

If the OP is right, the setting materials do the same, but in a subtler way. They don't have as big an impact on the balance sheet, but they ultimately enhance the play experience, so that people enjoy playing Pathfinder games more, and in a hazy way make more people want to have that enjoyable experience. I think that's the OP's theory.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If only WotC had actually explained to readers of the rulebooks how the sort of game that the 4e mechanics support is played and GMed, maybe 4e would not have so easily fallen victim to the "dice rolling"/"minis game"/"WoW" critiques.

Nah.

Personally, 4Ed's Healing Surges reminded me of arcade combat games...and still do.

For some of the guys in my group, they were already familiar with parts of 4Ed's mechanics/terminology from the CRPGs they played and from working in the computer game programming biz.

It wasn't a lack of understanding, but rather a feel of intimate familiarity. And it was familiarity with things that simply didn't have the right "D&D" feel to us.

Besides, if you have to explain "how the sort of game that the 4e mechanics support is played and GMed", you have a problem.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And some of us weren't playing 3E or 3.5, and came back to D&D because of 4e. But, it seems, perhaps not enough of us.

I suspect, but have no real proof beyond personal experience, that more people came back to D&D because of 3e - I was one of them, and I know maybe another dozen or so old timers who did the same.

3e resonated with our tastes and added the support via skills and feats that was lacking from 2e. (I had quit by the time Powers and Powers showed up - not a negative comment about those books, I never played a game using them, they could have been awesome and I would not know.)

4e... not so much - I know more folks who stopped playing D&D completely than I do folks who switched to 4e. I know even more who either switched to Pathfinder or are still running their 3.X games with the tottering mountains of material they picked up before/just after 4e was announced. And I know two who are retro-converting Pathfinder adventures to 3.5.

I think that I know one person who converted to 4e, and he plays Pathfinder too.

Ages, for the most part, 35 plus.

The Auld Grump

 

[Lanefan]

I suspect, but have no real proof beyond personal experience, that more people came back to D&D because of 3e - I was one of them, and I know maybe another dozen or so old timers who did the same.

'Round here we noticed a significant upsurge in interest in the game shortly after 3e came out, but I don't think it was specifically because of the 3e ruleset. I say this purely from seeing the wave of players our 1e games took in around that time, after a severe fallow period in the late '90's.

It was because the game had become relevant again. WotC, in their marketing for 3e, had dragged the whole hobby out of the shadows it had been hiding in; and people saw it and either remembered it or wanted to try it and learn it. Regardless of edition.

4e... not so much - I know more folks who stopped playing D&D completely than I do folks who switched to 4e. I know even more who either switched to Pathfinder or are still running their 3.X games with the tottering mountains of material they picked up before/just after 4e was announced. And I know two who are retro-converting Pathfinder adventures to 3.5.

In our lot there's two - well, one-and-a-very-wobbly-half - 3.x campaigns, one of which is due to reboot using Pathfinder by year's end; and two 1e-variant campaigns. None of us have tried playing 4e, though I've got more than enough material to do so should I ever want to...which I don't.

I will say I'm extremely keen to see what they do with this projected 5e in terms of both design and marketing; particularly marketing, as if they can generate an upsurge in interest like what happened at 3e release that's good for everybody no matter what we're playing.

Lan-"some of the adventures I buy never get played mostly because it's only on reading them that I realize just how bad they are"-efan

 

[pawsplay]

My point was that I think this exaggerates the newbie friendliness of 3E, because in fact many of those underlying subystems in the 3E rules will produce mechanically sub-optimal results, which are likely to lead to the newbie having a less-than-satisfactory experience (at least in combat).

I just don't get that. "Both your attacks will take a huge minus to hit," for instance, is about as unambiguous as you can get. Suboptimal results happen. "I try to jump the chasm, how far is it?" "Ten feet. Roll your Jump skill." "What do I need to roll?" "You need a 15." "Oh."

I believe that the point made in the last paragraph stands regardless of whether or not 3E's systems are good simulations (you suggested that they are - I'm in no position to dispute you on that) and whether or not newbies like rules-lite. Furthermore, if a newbie is eager to learn the rules, than s/he will likely have no more trouble learning the mechanics that govern her low-level 4e PC than the mechanics that govern her low-level 3E PC.

There are some people that are naturally drawn to 4e's tropes. I believe most people, though, are put off right from the beginning from having to learn what funny little symbols mean just to use your abilities. Once you grasp what a "Daily" is, then you can activate it, but there isn't any clear guidance to a new person as to when you should do that. 4e has a semblance of simplicity, because most of its tactical resolution can be described as "I use X on Y," but that conceals a multitude of sub-systems that make 4e work. In actuality, 4e is quite complex. Not as complex as Rolemaster, but IMO probably moreso than 3e. 3e asks you to learn maybe twenty new words to make it through your first encounter; 4e requires double that, plus a familiarity with weird symbols. The notecard format of a power might say "push an opponent two squares" but that requires you know what pushing is and what a square means in tactical terms. Even though the information is compacted, it's the same level of detail 3e requires. But it's not as flexible. Way too often, 4e is going to say, "Sorry, we don't know how to do that."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm with you there, pawsplay: i was REALLY annoyed that the algebra of 4Ed powers wasn't explained right out of the gate. Yeah, after decades of gaming, I could suss out that [W] meant weapon, but that might not be immediately obvious to a new player.

 

[shadzar]

4th edition does have a setting, Points of Light, but the problem is nobody understand and/or likes it as much as something more...well designed.

All the angst towards Forgotten Realms, it had a large following.

Now sure what the setting of 3rd was, but previously Greyhawk pretty much worked for D&D as the main setting becaue it was based on Earth (Oerth) where we ourselves live and could accept the world that is human-centric with fantastic elements.

I really don't understand PoL, but it has no real focus. It tries to be all encompassing but at the same time offers nothing to explain itself. How can one related to that when you don't even know what it is.

4th edition's setting is like a plate of crackers, where just a few more ingredients you could have a cake instead.

It is there, just it is a generic and flavorless as can be so that all the elements of 4th edition could fit. The only real place you notice it is up front with dragonborn and tielfling as playable races while gnomes were a monster. But doesn't explain why these beasts are accept int he world and you now have a big nosed yellow kobold to fit.

Going back the the cracker and PoL, most of 4th edition is just as flavorless as they are.

It has simple concept to play as a gaming, but beyond the game, there is not much offered to new players to help them tell a story due to its lack of flavor in many forms.

So it strove to capture new gamers, but left out anything, as you feel a setting but I say flavor (mostly the same), to really inspire new players.

There is a lot of good stuff and ideas in it, but it isn't what many look for in an RPG, as they may have heard about RPGs from the past.

 

[pemerton]

3e resonated with our tastes and added the support via skills and feats that was lacking from 2e.

I was playing Rolemaster when 3E came out, and kept playing it. I paid attention to 3E - especially because of the Monte Cook authorship - but didn't feel that it offered anything to me that I wasn't getting out of Rolemaster.

I had quit by the time Powers and Powers showed up - not a negative comment about those books, I never played a game using them, they could have been awesome and I would not know.

Not awesome in my experience - rather, hideously unbalanced. But others might have found them different.

4e... not so much - I know more folks who stopped playing D&D completely than I do folks who switched to 4e.

I only know my own group - GM plus 2 players RM>4e, 2 players 3E>4e, and 1 player RM & 3E > 4e (we merged two groups as some personnel moved overseas at the end of 2008).

Ages, for the most part, 35 plus.

Ages in our group(s) 39-42(or maybe he's 43?).

None of the above is suggested as representative - apart from anything else, I think there aren't very many RM players left - just as another anecdote.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I'll say, speaking for myself, that the terminology of 4e (that Pemerton and ByronD) were discussing on the prior page was one of, if not THE biggest, one of the biggest turnoffs for me.

Had they released the exact same system but changed the wording quite a bit, I think that would have "felt" more like D&D to people that don't feel 4e is similar enough to prior editions.

Things like "push the target 2 squares" immediately pull me out of the roleplaying feel and put me in the "chess style" feel. I'm not saying you can't roleplayin 4e at all, but I am saying the wording of 4e pulls you out of a roleplaying style just how it was written.

I think, had it been written with "push the target 10 feet" (and numerous other examples I don't think we need to hash out) there would have been far fewer arguments about "4e isn't a roleplaying game" and "you can't roleplay in 4e".


But, honestly, I think there are perhaps half a dozen to a dozen things that could have made 4e more popular. It's not a single issue. Many of these reasons have nothing to do with the game itself, either. Several are drawn from poor marketing and poor publicity (like pulling pdfs) and others include the digital tools not being ready at launch (which I think, had they been, would have made 4e more popular as well).

 

[BryonD]

just as another anecdote.

Anecdotes are certainly just anecdotes.

But if you are claiming that the overall impact of 3E was not huge, then I think you are either in denial or just unaware.

"3E was truly a golden age of D&D, a revival of all that was great from the early years of the game. Its too bad that same feeling and fervor couldnt happen for 4E." - Clark Peterson

"Is 4E doing as well as 3E sales in 2001? Definitely not. That was the high point in a generation." - Joseph Goodman

And these quotes are from over a year ago. (nearly two years) The goalposts of the debate have moved a long way since then.

You can, of course, just declare these quotes equally meaningless. If you want to, knock yourself out. The quotes don't prove anything, common sense and open eyes do that in this case. But the quotes go much further than simple random gamer anecdotes.