When did WotC D&D "Jump the Shark"?

[Aus_Snow]

But I'm wondering is this: at what point did things really begin to go down hill?

When 3.5 was announced.

I suppose, after that, when it was stated that there would be no 4.5, followed in more recent times by... well, call it what you will. I have my own perspective on it, but I know there are those who would disagree. And fair enough too. What the OP is asking, seems to me to be more to do with impressions and the like. So that is what I've posted.

Oh, and it didn't help that 3.5 was later revealed to be have been planned from the get go. Which might make one wonder about 4.5 as well...

3.5 and 4.5, for my money. So to speak.

 

[Fifth Element]

But if you are trying to paint a picture of one big happy family, then that is just funny.

I'm doing no such thing. The picture I'm painting is grey and fuzzy, and we can't really see any detail in it.

You have painted a clear picture of a "deep split" in the market. That may very well be the case. But we don't know whether or not it's the case.

But again, that is all tangent because the point is whether or not we even agree that PF is in the ballpark of 4E.

If you make the ballpark big enough, then clearly PF is in it. The question of exactly how big the ballpark needs to be before we can get PF in it, however, is an open question and we have little to no evidence to go on.

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually, that has been the case historically as well more generally in RPGs.

Runequest 2e threatened AD&D's popularity for a short period and was poised to take lead just before the sale to Avalon Hill in the early '80's. oWoD systems from White Wolf hit t least 2nd in popularity in the '90s.

Indeed. I'm working on the assumption that when BryonD says "market" he means "D&D market", not "RPG market" or even "fantasy RPG market".

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm doing no such thing. The picture I'm painting is grey and fuzzy, and we can't really see any detail in it.

This is an instance where I really must agree with Fifth Element.

There may be data out there, but our access to that data is so slim that no credible view is available, IMHO. Or, another way to put it is that all viewpoints are equally credible/non-credible.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

There may be data out there, but our access to that data is so slim that no credible view is available, IMHO. Or, another way to put it is that all viewpoints are equally credible/non-credible.

Precisely. I'm sure the data does exist, but we don't have access to it. Probably no one person has access to all of it.

I'm not arguing for a specific viewpoint, I'm arguing that specific viewpoints are not supportable due to the paucity of available evidence.

I can't prove that the majority of PF players also play 4E. But I'm not saying that they do; I'm saying that such an assertion has as much weight behind it as the assertion that there is a deep divide between the two groups, which is to say very little.

 

[Mercurius]

My view is more towards Bryon's in that while I agree that anecdotes aren't proof and we don't have "the data", we do have our own experiences to draw from and the viewpoints of those that we encounter. In the internet era this can be substantial.

Now of course the internet and the anecdotes that we encounter doesn't prove anything beyond that some people are upset, that there is some division in the community. The question is to what degree, and for that all we can do is conjecture.

(As an aside, I would suggest we stop the argument as to what constitutes proof because it really won't go anywhere. I would also suggest that there is nothing wrong with discussing our impressions; but as soon as it devolves into "but you can't prove that" then the conversation dies. It is similar to the idea that "That's just your personal opinion, which you are stating as fact." No kidding, but let's move on, shall we? Sometimes I feel like I'm stuck in some nightmarish latter-day version of a college class from the early 90s, Postmodernism 101. ;-))

Back to the topic at hand. Again, I think it is clear that there is some division, perhaps even a fair amount. I would also suggest that, as Bryon implied, the amount of dissatisfaction with 4E is somewhat more (probably significantly so) than 3E. I don't remember as many "defectors" during that era; sure, there were some, but there was no mass exodus back to 2E, no 2E Pathfinder.

Anecdotal? Sure. But that doesn't make the discussion not worth having.

One more thing. Given that my preferred version of D&D is actually 4E, I take issue with a frequent implication that saying something is rotten in Renton means that one is a "H4TER". I like the game quite a bit, and more than 3.5 or Pathfinder or any other edition. I don't think it is perfect, in fact I think it has significant flaws, but my hope is that 5E is an attempt to fix those flaws rather than turn back the clock to sometime before 2008, or to scrap the game and start again. In other words, criticizing WotC does not make one a H4TER.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My view is more towards Bryon's in that while I agree that anecdotes aren't proof and we don't have "the data", we do have our own experiences to draw from and the viewpoints of those that we encounter. In the internet era this can be substantial.

Sure. Everyone is allowed to set the bar where they become convinced wherever they think makes sense. That doesn't mean others will accept that bar, or what has met that bar as consisting of actual evidence.

In other words, criticizing WotC does not make one a H4TER.

I agree with this absolutely!




RC

 

[nedjer]

Seems they didn't so much jump the shark as goose the killer whale?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My view is more towards Bryon's in that while I agree that anecdotes aren't proof and we don't have "the data", we do have our own experiences to draw from and the viewpoints of those that we encounter. In the internet era this can be substantial.

Now of course the internet and the anecdotes that we encounter doesn't prove anything beyond that some people are upset, that there is some division in the community. The question is to what degree, and for that all we can do is conjecture.

(As an aside, I would suggest we stop the argument as to what constitutes proof because it really won't go anywhere. I would also suggest that there is nothing wrong with discussing our impressions; but as soon as it devolves into "but you can't prove that" then the conversation dies. It is similar to the idea that "That's just your personal opinion, which you are stating as fact." No kidding, but let's move on, shall we? Sometimes I feel like I'm stuck in some nightmarish latter-day version of a college class from the early 90s, Postmodernism 101. ;-))

Back to the topic at hand. Again, I think it is clear that there is some division, perhaps even a fair amount. I would also suggest that, as Bryon implied, the amount of dissatisfaction with 4E is somewhat more (probably significantly so) than 3E. I don't remember as many "defectors" during that era; sure, there were some, but there was no mass exodus back to 2E, no 2E Pathfinder.

Anecdotal? Sure. But that doesn't make the discussion not worth having.

One more thing. Given that my preferred version of D&D is actually 4E, I take issue with a frequent implication that saying something is rotten in Renton means that one is a "H4TER". I like the game quite a bit, and more than 3.5 or Pathfinder or any other edition. I don't think it is perfect, in fact I think it has significant flaws, but my hope is that 5E is an attempt to fix those flaws rather than turn back the clock to sometime before 2008, or to scrap the game and start again. In other words, criticizing WotC does not make one a H4TER.

Right, I mostly agree, maybe not on every detail, but I think mostly we're all on the same page.

I think my issue is simply with BryonD. First of all he seems to me to be determined to interpret any doubt as to his opinion on things as meaning that we believe that PF is insignificant, nothing in 2011 is any different than it was in 2008, etc etc etc. That is a significant misinterpretation of what at least I (and I am gathering from other poster's responses I'm not alone) have been saying.

The world goes on. 2011 is NOT 2008. Every edition of D&D exists within some unique time frame with its own unique market forces, competitors, business dealings, etc etc etc.

There is no doubt that PF is a popular FRPG. None at all. Just as with any other game there will be people who love it and 'hate' the competition. You can go to many forums or gaming groups or stores and find people that 'hate' one of 4e or PF. Still, the vast majority of people that play D&D that I run into fall far more in the middle. They might prefer one game over the other, but they do play or have played both.

Honestly the strongest trend I personally have seen with 4e is old AD&D players picking it up. I'd count myself in that category. IME a lot of those people really don't care that much for 3.5/PF. How big is that factor? I'd have no idea, but BryonD's view of things where 4e apparently is hated by armies of gamers is at best far from the whole story.

There are definitely 2 popular forms of D&D on the market. There are some people that like one or the other, and some that like both or don't care etc. That's about all you can say BryonD, sorry. That sure is different than 2008, but really do I even care? I don't have time, energy, and money to dump into 2 systems. I picked the one I like. It is well supported and fun. The other choice? Got nothing against it. Might have picked that in a different situation I suppose. I'm good with both of them thriving. Competition is always good.

 

[BryonD]

Why does it seem that way? You want other people to give you reasons for your own perceptions?

No, what is my perception is that this is a common perception. If it is not a common perception then I stand corrected. But I think it is. But if you think I'm asking other people to justify something that purely I see, then that was simply a poor job of expressing the idea on my part.

Maybe it seems that way because it is, in fact, more popular. Or maybe it is because the available information is biased, or maybe because you are subject to certain forms of confirmation bias. The potential reasons why it seems to be one way or another are many and varied, and we can only guess at which ones apply to you, or any other particular person.

It is vastly harder to compare the popularity of a game now to the popularity of a game 4 to 5 years ago. No doubt and I don't claim anything to the contrary.

As I have said many times before, when they announced 4E, I was a supporter Day 1, when the most common reaction was "money grubbers want me to buy the rules again...." Because to me it was clear that 3E had lived its life and was on the down slope.

With PF it seems that they have really breathed an amazing vitality back into it, and by "it" I guess I mean both the game system itself and the fan base as well.

Maybe with the time between the two I'm simply confusing direction of motion with relative position. Could be. But I'm under the impression that a lot of other people see it this way as well. And it is at least interesting to note whatever level it was at, that level motivated WotC to move on. And yet now that game that wasn't doing well enough for for WotC is now in the ballpark of neck and neck with WotC's new game. So either PF is doing somewhat better than 3E was in the end, or 4E is already doing no better than 3E was in the end.