D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[Neonchameleon]

Well, ok I think you have framed it in terms no one can dispute. I think the vast majority of people care about system, but yeah, it just needs to be "good enough". To a whole lot of people 4E was not "good enough".

Likewise oD&D, B/X, 1E, 2E, 3.0, 3.5. To me the core difference is Paizo and Lisa Stevens being amazing at what she does. (2E in particular was a horrible era for D&D with almost all the new blood flowing White Wolf's way). What 4E does, it does superbly. And it does a lot more than it appears to.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You posted a very long piece and yet again elected to avoid providing a single reason why anyone not playing 4E would do so.

Because the 'perfect storm' theory does not depend on anyone doing so.

But, if you want reasons people might have for playing a game that's not exactly your favorite: because your friends are, because you can't find enough people to play your first choice, because you're bored with the old game for want of any new stuff coming out for it, and, of course, because you finally set aside your confirmation bias and gave it a fair shot.

But, seriously, I can't prove a negative, it's up to you to prove your alternative hypothesis: if you have the data to show that 4e was played by vastly fewer folks than another edition, or even that it's revenue dropped off much more rapidly than is typical of supplements vs core books, and that such was due solely to the content of the game, then by all means, post it.


Otherwise, you're working with the same facts I am: that 4e was discontinued early in spite of selling well initially like every other new ed, that Pathfinder pulled ahead after 4e releases slowed to a crawl with Essentials, that an insider revealed 4e was pitched as able to deliver outlandish MMO-like revenue, that 3pps rejected the GSL in favor of the OGL, and that DDI development was derailed by the death of the developer.

Frankly, even /if/ there had been no OGL and hold-outs had (improbably) unanimously relented before 2010, the revenue difference wouldn't have been enough to meet the 'core brand' targets and they'd still have had to downgrade to Essentials. There'd've just been no Pathfinder to pull ahead of it's abysmal sales.

 

[Lalato]

And so the war begins anew...

 

[BryonD]

Likewise oD&D, B/X, 1E, 2E, 3.0, 3.5.

If that is your opinion, no dispute.
The market as a whole disagrees.

To me the core difference is Paizo and Lisa Stevens being amazing at what she does. (2E in particular was a horrible era for D&D with almost all the new blood flowing White Wolf's way).

If the demand had not been there, Paizo would have never put their eggs in that basket.

What 4E does, it does superbly. And it does a lot more than it appears to.

I agree with you. Obviously there is a subset of the market who love it. I've said EXACTLY this several times. 4E is an outstanding success at doing what it set out to do.
Doing what it set out to do turned out to be a very bad market strategy because it was a turn off to far to many of the very small TTRPG fanbase.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If that is your opinion, no dispute.
The market as a whole disagrees.

Really? You mean none of those games were ever challenged by others?

I agree with you. Obviously there is a subset of the market who love it. I've said EXACTLY this several times. 4E is an outstanding success at doing what it set out to do.
Doing what it set out to do turned out to be a very bad market strategy because it was a turn off to far to many of the very small TTRPG fanbase.

The deeply ironic thing is that 4E is better for running Paizo-style adventure paths than Pathfinder is.

 

[BryonD]

But, seriously, I can't prove a negative, it's up to you to prove your alternative hypothesis:

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove the positive you are proclaiming. Hell, I'm not even askign for proof. I'm just askign for a shred of evidence.

You are claiming that the fanbase for 4E to be just as successful is there. But you can't show them to me.

if you have the data to show that 4e was played by vastly fewer folks than another edition, or even that it's revenue dropped off much more rapidly than is typical of supplements vs core books, and that such was due solely to the content of the game, then by all means, post it.


Otherwise, you're working with the same facts I am: that 4e was discontinued early in spite of selling well initially like every other new ed, that Pathfinder pulled ahead after 4e releases slowed to a crawl with Essentials, that an insider revealed 4e was pitched as able to deliver outlandish MMO-like revenue, that 3pps rejected the GSL in favor of the OGL, and that DDI development was derailed by the death of the developer.

Frankly, even /if/ there had been no OGL and hold-outs had (improbably) unanimously relented before 2010, the revenue difference wouldn't have been enough to meet the 'core brand' targets and they'd still have had to downgrade to Essentials. There'd've just been no Pathfinder to pull ahead of it's abysmal sales.

So now you are saying even without the "perfect storm" 4E would have still be abysmal?

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

And so the war begins anew...

This is the war that never ends!
It goes on and on my friends!
Some people started arguing without knowing what it was
And it will go on forever just because...

This is the war that never ends!

 

[Neonchameleon]

You are claiming that the fanbase for 4E to be just as successful is there. But you can't show them to me.

The fanbase for 4E is still giving WoTC just under $500,000 per month from DDI alone - we have a minimum value for the current number of D&D Insiders who are still paying their monthly subs.

So now you are saying even without the "perfect storm" 4E would have still be abysmal?

1: 4E wasn't abysmal.
2: The sales were never going to meet the target of $50 million/year. That's 80s-fad-game level.

 

[BryonD]

Really? You mean none of those games were ever challenged by others?

I already clearly said that 2E was dying.
But I was specifically referencing 4E.

The deeply ironic thing is that 4E is better for running Paizo-style adventure paths than Pathfinder is.

The deeply ironic thing is that you can't grasp that the truth of this statement inside your own mind as 4E fan is tied directly to you *being a 4E fan*.
It is a lack of respect for the honest opinions and tastes of others, resulting in an inability to see the big picture fairly.

I am CERTAIN this is true *for you*.

Can you accept that, to me, that statement couldn't be further from the truth?

 

[BryonD]

The fanbase for 4E is still giving WoTC just under $500,000 per month from DDI alone - we have a minimum value for the current number of D&D Insiders who are still paying their monthly subs.



1: 4E wasn't abysmal.
2: The sales were never going to meet the target of $50 million/year. That's 80s-fad-game level.

Please note that you are not arguing with my statements. You are arguing with Tony's.

I will, for the record, state that I'm pretty convinced that there is a serious flaw in the way "we" are assessing the "current number". I've seen the conversations and justifications. But, in the end, you really don't know and the numbers floated around don't sync with anything else.