Every Edition is a Failure

[Steely_Dan]

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.

I think D&D's heyday has come and gone quite a while ago (early/mid-80s), there was a cartoon, video games (Intellivision), toys (I still have my Warduke, Elkhorn, the Barbarian and titan), that dreadful movie with Tom Hanks (Mazes & Monsters).

So I would say 1st Ed was the most popular (would be interesting to see actual sales figures et).

As for different editions, what constitutes a different edition etc, I do not count Essentials as a new edition, just an option for 4th Ed; I also don't really think 3.5 justifies an entirely new edition, I played in a campaign with a 3.0 rogue and a 3.5 monk just fine; even 1st and 2nd Ed, you could toss a 1st Ed Ranger or Monk in a 2nd Ed campaign just fine.

You could even juggle some 3rd Ed and 1st/2nd Ed stuff (some even without conversions); but 4th Ed really is the most drastically new edition to date, some of it good (I dig 4th Ed monsters, the conditions, bursts, blasts), and some I'm not so keen on (powers, pre-Essentials classes, healing surges).

The one thing I would most like to see embraced in the next edition is non-mini/gird reliance.

 

[Siberys]

Fact of the matter is, though, if Paizo were beholden to Hasbro like Wizards is, things wouldn't seem so peachy keen. Paizo's standards for success (and, for that matter, Wizard's) are probably way different than Hasbro's. As a result, if Wizards says 4e isn't selling enough, and Paizo says PF is selling great... so? 4e could be selling more than PF, and the previous statements would /still/ be true by their respective metrics.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that arguing that 4e is being replaced, and must therefore be unsuccsessful, is a pointless argument. For /our/ purposes, it could be perfect, but it's Hasbro's standards that've pegged it unsuccessful.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

"flop", "failure", congratulations on not even reading the OP. Of course, I doubt you really care. This topic has become nothing more than an excuse for 4e haters to dump all over the edition.

The road to edition wars are paved with good intentions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"flop", "failure", congratulations on not even reading the OP. Of course, I doubt you really care. This topic has become nothing more than an excuse for 4e haters to dump all over the edition.

The road to edition wars are paved with good intentions.

I read the OP but was responding to a post within the discussion.

I am not a 4E hater. But people are reacting because they are being told 4e was the best thing since sliced bread, the biggest seller/most popular edition ever and that their criticisms of 4E are a product of ignorance, hate or a failure to understand how great 4e really is. I am sorry if my posts come across as attacks against your prefered style of play or edition. If you enjoyed 4E, that is great. It clearly works for some. But a lot of us had a strong reaction against it and we hope the new edition goes in a different direction.

 

[nogray]

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.

You know, I've heard that rumor before. Then again ...

Repeating a false rumor does not make it real.

 

[Sunseeker]

I read the OP but was responding to a post within the discussion.

I am not a 4E hater. But people are reacting because they are being told 4e was the best thing since sliced bread, the biggest seller/most popular edition ever and that their criticisms of 4E are a product of ignorance, hate or a failure to understand how great 4e really is. I am sorry if my posts come across as attacks against your prefered style of play or edition. If you enjoyed 4E, that is great. It clearly works for some. But a lot of us had a strong reaction against it and we hope the new edition goes in a different direction.

I prefer a lot of things. What I'm fairly pissed over is the fact that the OP started this whole stupid thread over the idea that calling a game a failure is not constructive, and it seems like nearly every post since page one has been calling certain editions a failure.

You know what's a failure? This topic. People's refusal to listen. That's the failure here.

And yeah, I would wager most anti-4e arguments are from ignorance. A day does not go by here that someone slams 4e and then turns around and mentions they've never played it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You know, I've heard that rumor before. Then again ...

Sure, but we are not writing for a news report or academic journal. We are allowed to give our impressions and use common sense to form conclusions. Besides this has been born out in what I see locally and online. I used to be someone who argued 4E, even though I disliked it, was clearly a success. It seemed to be so. But as I talked to more and more store owners in my state and across the country, as I saw more and more pathfinder games supplant 4e games, as I saw more people drop 4e for other things, I came to a different conclusion. When they fired people associated most strongly with 4e's development, brought in monte cook (associated with 3e) and announced a plan to re-unite the fanbase, I became even more convinced.

 

[Griego]

I read the OP but was responding to a post within the discussion.

I am not a 4E hater. But people are reacting because they are being told 4e was the best thing since sliced bread, the biggest seller/most popular edition ever and that their criticisms of 4E are a product of ignorance, hate or a failure to understand how great 4e really is. I am sorry if my posts come across as attacks against your prefered style of play or edition. If you enjoyed 4E, that is great. It clearly works for some. But a lot of us had a strong reaction against it and we hope the new edition goes in a different direction.

[Citation needed]

 

[Bedrockgames]

I prefer a lot of things. What I'm fairly pissed over is the fact that the OP started this whole stupid thread over the idea that calling a game a failure is not constructive, and it seems like nearly every post since page one has been calling certain editions a failure.

You know what's a failure? This topic. People's refusal to listen. That's the failure here.

We are not refusing to listen, many of us just disagree with the OP's points. Nothing wrong with people taking the opposing view or raising related issues. The OP maybnot find discussing the failure of 4e as constructive, I would think it could be highly instructive to the next version of D&D.

And yeah, I would wager most anti-4e arguments are from ignorance. A day does not go by here that someone slams 4e and then turns around and mentions they've never played it.

there are always going to be peoplle who base their opinions on reading the rules or what they heard. Those people do not appear to be the majorityl many of us have played 4e and read the rules. We still don't like it. I would wager there are just as many informed opinions against 4e as there are informed opinions against 3e.

 

[Bedrockgames]

[Citation needed]

What do you need a citation of?