Every Edition is a Failure

[Sunseeker]

I agree with Hussar's point, I've said it myself before.

But this thread is useless and should be closed.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

WOTC has to make a decision to include this mechanic or not. If they do, they will have to build the game around it. It cannot be replaced/modded out/Modularized/whatever.

I got that. And sometimes, discretion being the better part of valor, you don't go into the troubled area at all. What I'm saying, is that if you do that enough, and especially if you are seen to let it drive your decision making, then you will get a ton of people yelling to try to get their way. And it won't even work, because having gotten their way by yelling, they will simply move onto the next thing to yell about.

Instead, they want to use the yelling as a signal to look at something--full stop. Then they look at it on its own merits. It either works for a large number of people, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, what are the better alternatives? Then if you find a better one, you go with that. This would have been equally true had there been no yelling, and someone had thought to investigate. The fact of the yelling means nothing rational in this analysis, except that you should go look. To base critical decisions on yells is to give in to the mob.

 

[TheFindus]

but you have to account for preferences and tastes when talking about the funcitonality of mechanics. And if 4e's mechanics recieved negative responses we have to examine that. Because this negative reaction eventually translated into the system not being embraced as widely as 3e, I think the failure of 4e is a valid point of discussion.

Not in a modular system you don't.
Let me put it this way: 50.000 (or 60.000?) people subscribe to DDI. This could be an argument for every 4E mechanic. But it is not. Because if you talk about specific mechanics and how they work, it does not matter how many people actually pay money for 4E. From a design point of view, what matters is if that mechanic is reaching a certain design goal on a mechanical level. Otherwise, why bother thinking about very old mechanics from way back when that most young people do not know and probably do not use anymore? If these "old" mechnics factor into the design goal "unique DnD experience" they are important though. And they can be solid mechanics that can be reused in a new edition. Especially if there are supposed to be lots of modules with different gameing styles that people can choose from.

So your point of view is a sales point of view, not a view on mechanics. And the number of DDI subscribers alone put a spin on the word "failure" in my opinion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not in a modular system you don't.
Let me put it this way: 50.000 (or 60.000?) people subscribe to DDI. This could be an argument for every 4E mechanic. But it is not. Because if you talk about specific mechanics and how they work, it does not matter how many people actually pay money for 4E. From a design point of view, what matters is if that mechanic is reaching a certain design goal on a mechanical level. Otherwise, why bother thinking about very old mechanics from way back when that most young people do not know and probably do not use anymore? If these "old" mechnics factor into the design goal "unique DnD experience" they are important though. And they can be solid mechanics that can be reused in a new edition. Especially if there are supposed to be lots of modules with different gameing styles that people can choose from.



So your point of view is a sales point of view, not a view on mechanics. And the number of DDI subscribers alone put a spin on the word "failure" in my opinion.

It isn't just about design goals. It is also about how negatively or positively people react to the mechanics themselves. That is a critical consideration that will impact 5e's success.

You seem to be arguing that sales shouldn't be a factor. Sales indicate popularity. Sales alone aren't enough. You need context. The failure of 4e is visible in how much market share it appears to have lost. Looks like they are being overtaken by pathfinder and this is supported by their desire to "inite the base"--win back the old fans. The whole reason for the current design goal appears to be long term sales.

I am not arguing that surges and powers shouldn't be made into optional modules. I am saying they shouldn't be in the core systwm because they are the reason people left when 4e came out.

 

[Glade Riven]

Seems to me that the biggest threat to the industry is how persnikity it seems many people are getting over the tinyist of details. Then again, I'm an inclusivist, and if I see something in one system that I can use in another, I'll rip it off the way the English language steals words from other languages.


Pretty much, this is what I'm reading:
"Healing surge mechanic is probably optional because some people actually like it"
"We will never play this game!"
"But you don't have to use it"
"Rabble rabble rabble rabble!"

Honestly? I think Wizards of the Coast should ignore forum nerd rage. If critisism isn't constructive, it's best left ignored. From the looks of things, 5e will encourage "house-rules with guidelines" style of play. Then again, what do I know? I'm playing it wrong.

 

[Kzach]

On top of all of that, the measure by which 'failure' is determined is very much subjective and peculiar to the company controlling the brand. Hasbro's measure of failure is, "Anything less than $50 million per annum."

I would love to see some accounting of the various iterations of D&D compared and adjusted for the inflation of the dollar value within which currency success or failure (ie. the US dollar) is measured. Profit, loss, expenditure, etc. for each edition.

I'm going to bet that, when viewed in this manner, 4e exceeded the penetration and distribution and sales and profits of all other editions. It's simply that in Hasbro's eyes, this is still a 'failure'.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm going to bet that, when viewed in this manner, 4e exceeded the penetration and distribution and sales and profits of all other editions. It's simply that in Hasbro's eyes, this is still a 'failure'.

Does anyone really believe 4e is the most succesful edition at this point? I can't prove it isn't because i dont have any of the sales figures, but everything we have seen really puts the weight on it being a flop that lost half the D&D customers.

 

[Glade Riven]

Guessing what's going on in Big Daddy Hasbro's head is an exercise in futility.

Honestly? I see the brand going in other directions other than just RPGs, and the board games are a good example of a strong Win for what started as a side project. Wouldn't surprise me if there was a Forgotten Realms TV cartoon show and toy line in early development. Action adventure cartoons are pretty popular right now.

 

[Yora]

On top of all of that, the measure by which 'failure' is determined is very much subjective and peculiar to the company controlling the brand. Hasbro's measure of failure is, "Anything less than $50 million per annum."

Repeating a false rumor does not make it real. I've heard that the 50 million per year is the benchmark by which it is decided what brands are treated as flagship products and get additional marketing resources. The company only makes about 650 million per year, and they have a lot more than 13 brands.

 

[Umbran]

On top of all of that, the measure by which 'failure' is determined is very much subjective and peculiar to the company controlling the brand. Hasbro's measure of failure is, "Anything less than $50 million per annum."

No, $50 million is what Hasbro requires to make a thing a "flagship" brand. Not being a flagship doesn't make it a "failure".

I would love to see some accounting of the various iterations of D&D compared and adjusted for the inflation of the dollar value within which currency success or failure (ie. the US dollar) is measured. Profit, loss, expenditure, etc. for each edition.

If wishes were fishes. Unfortunately, that information not only isn't available to us - my understanding is that it has been completely lost.