4e split the game community, but only in the sense that it destroyed the illusion of unity that existed before
(...snip...)
The legitimacy that fans of cinematic 4e style play have now gotten is perceived as a threat to old school gamers who fear that somehow their preferred style is going to fade away. I see it as a subtle undercurrent to every thread contrasting 4e and Pathfinder. Its not enough for Pathfinder to succeed. 4e HAS to FAIL. It has to fail, so that old school play is vindicated as the only true D&D. Otherwise, there is a fear that the new paradigm that 4e introduced might start to creep into Pathfinder or other games.
Conversely, 4e fans feel the need to passionately defend a play style they have desperately desired for so long and are scared to death of losing if WotC doesn't succeed or if 5e takes a step backward towards a game style that they felt suffocated them for so long.
Before responding, understand that though I infinitely prefer Pathfinder to 4e, currently I'm much more invested in trying out other systems than I am in perpetuating Pathfinder as-is. So take what I'm about to say with a grain (or twenty grains) of salt. Just to get that out of the way.
Some say that getting players--especially new players--to try any edition of D&D is a first step to getting them to play in your group, regardless of game. I don't know if I believe that.
As GMs, we're generally not fighting over the pool of "hardcore" players. I think all of us by now recognize that the "hardcore" will generally play anything as long as it's interesting. There are exceptions, of course.
But lots and lots of RPG groups have to fill out its ranks with those who are more casual in their play. To me, it's a much easier sell to get a player to switch groups if it's a game they already know and enjoy--or miracle of miracles, you're bringing a fresh, new player to the ranks of the initiated.
Now to a certain extent, is this all a moot point? Yeah, probably. People like what they like, and it's rare to convince someone otherwise. If I bring in a "casual" player into my group who was brought up in the 4e tradition of the game, he/she is either going to "grok" my group's style, or he/she isn't. And if they don't, it probably wasn't a good fit to begin with.
I don't think we'll ever put edition wars to rest, because it involves doing what people have been incapable of doing for thousands of years, tolerate the beliefs of others without fear of change.
I'm perfectly willing to tolerate those who prefer 4e over Pathfinder. They're absolutely welcome to play their preferred ruleset and playstyle. Doesn't mean I'm not going to attempt to persuade them to try something else if I think it's worthwhile. Or stand up for the types of games and playstyles
I like to play. Or voice my opinion that the company that publishes 5e, and 6e, and 7e should at least consider my desires and imperatives as an RPG player, and that those imperatives have a valid place in the game they create.
I just don't see that wanting to increase my opportunities to get the most enjoyment out of the game(s) I love is somehow based out of fear. Along those same lines, I also don't think the idea that "I want to play the gamestyle I like, or I'd rather not play" is a negative either. Our time as gamers is finite. I'm looooooooong past the point where I'd rather "tolerate" sub-par RPG-ing than not play at all. If I'm going to play in an RPG group, it's because
I'm getting what I want out of it.
And yes, I know, everyone says that "Ruleset doesn't matter, it's all about your group!" Frankly, in my experience, that's only partially true. People choose rulesets because they
like the style of gameplay it naturally promotes. If I knew a group really, really liked 4e, and wanted to keep playing it for the foreseeable future, and they invited me to play, I'd be a lot more hesitant to join than if they were playing, well, really anything else, D&D or otherwise.
Why? Because at its core, the base assumptions about the style and focus of gameplay in 4e are polar opposites of how I generally get the most enjoyment out of my RPG experiences.
Mostly what I'm saying is, let's stop being disingenuous about what we want. Let's just be blunt--we all have something invested in the success of the games we like. Can there be two (or more) wildly successful companies in this market space? Maybe. But let's also be honest--there's definitely a risk involved, and the risk is that our game/company is the one that ends up marginalized in the future.
Additionally, even though half the market is PF and half is 4e, now that the split is out in the open there is no going back. 4e fans will no longer tolerate an edition of the game that doesn't serve their needs, and its now demonstrated that both camps are probably equal in size. Its not just a niche minority of D&D players. Meaning 50% of the market is going to look for an alternative if 5e doesn't build on the foundation 4e started. That seems like a powerful incentive for any company positioned to take advantage of it.
True. But ~50% of the market still looks at 3.x/Pathfinder as at least somewhat of a continuation of the "traditional" game they've been playing for 30+ years now.
The problem those who like 4e have now is that it appears that WotC is seriously wondering whether their 50% (maybe less) of the remaining market is really worth investing time and money into it anymore.
Ultimately, the real bottom line behind 5e and future editions is this: I think all of us still think/hope that there's a "better D&D" still out there that will better serve all of us, and re-unite the community. I know that's what I'm still hoping for.
