D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

[Imaro]

Then why was the Rouse saying this a couple of years ago?

It seems to me that above and beyond the absolutely borked financial expectations that Hasbro had, there was a failure to provide a sufficiently "D&Desque" experience to engage the majority of the gaming audience (obviously it engaged quite a large proportion, to such an extent that for many gamers 4E is the pinnacle of D&D design/play, but quite clearly it failed to engage enough of said audience, and through any number of SNAFUs {GSL, Gleemax, etc} as well as design decisions even "succeeded" in alienating a sufficiently high number of previous D&D players that the well was effectively poisoned).

That's just my interpretation of course, and everyone is free to put their own spin on it

Cheers,
Colin

Sssshhhh... we wouldn't want any actual proof from an actual insider interfering with the story being told in this thread about what "really" happened with 4e from those with no insider knowledge whatsoever and a clear bias towards 4e... now would we?

 

[Rygar]

Sssshhhh... we wouldn't want any actual proof from an actual insider interfering with the story being told in this thread about what "really" happened with 4e from those with no insider knowledge whatsoever and a clear bias towards 4e... now would we?

Um...he just confirmed what most people have been saying. 4th edition failed to "engage the majority of the gaming audience".

 

[Siberys]

Hate to break it to you Imaro, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what Tony, Pemerton, or I have been saying throughout this thread. That was a post made the day 5e was announced about community trust issues with Wizards, not a reveal of the motives behind the choice to move to a new edition. Scott Rouse had been off the team for a while by then. He imparted no insider information we didn't already cover, except that when he was on the team they expected an 8-10 year run. Hardly astonishing.

To reiterate; I believe that the information we /do/ have about 4e's cancellation has nothing to do with its popularity. Claiming otherwise is essentially just speculation, and presenting it otherwise is at the very least misleading. That info we do have paints a picture that would be horribly bleak for 4e even without all of the community issues surrounding it, and it's entirely possible those community issues didn't even factor into the decision to drop it at all.
[MENTION=16979]13garth13[/MENTION] - Suffice to say I don't buy the "D&Desque"/alienation argument as a reason for why 4e was dropped. Why someone may dislike 4e? Sure, that's reasonable. But if community splintering were really a big reason behind the jump to another edition, adding another "faction," so to speak, seems like it'd be a major gamble. They'd have to make up for lost 4e players, bring back a bunch of fans of other games like PF, and get a sizable number of new and lapsed players.

If we're comparing gut feelings, it seems much more likely to me that 5e is just meant to ride out the time while D&D doesn't have a big corporate monkey riding its back. Having a system that "doesn't rock the boat," to call back to an earlier point in the discussion, seems like it may be in support of that. But like I said, gut feeling.

 

[pemerton]

To make it clear what I think:

* I think it is too early to confidently predict that 5e will enjoy enduring commercial success of the sort that [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] has described upthread (ie a steady stream of supplements sold to a large base).

* Furthermore, I think that Mearls has as much as said that that is not their goal for D&D.

* I think that explaining 4e's commercial problems by reference to "it was a radical departure from D&D" is post-hoc. It is simply a reiteration of the fact that 4e experienced commercial difficulties. It doesn't tell us anything about what was or was not appealing about 4e.

To give a concrete example of the 3rd point: edition warriors often complain about healing surges and extended rests; but those features of 4e carry on into 5e (though without the integration of surges into the broader framework of the combat and magic mechanics). Hence we can infer that healing surges and extended rests were not too radical a departure from D&D.

The only real way to work out what aspects of 4e were widely unpopular is to examine 5e closely to see what bits of 4e do or do not carry through. And even then, I'm not confident about numbers. For instance, if playtesting shows that 70% of people don't care about X, 10% really want it and 20% really hate it, then WotC has an incentive to expunge it from the game even though it wasn't really unpopular at all.

Furthermore, and this relates to Scott Rouse's post linked above, we don't know all the circumstances around Essentials. It was obvious at the time, and I was not the only person saying it, that Essentials was a publishing fiasco from the point of view of existing 4e production - because it is a combination of supplements, feat errata and monster errata masquerading as a reboot. It also baffles me that anyone thought it would help new players, given how needlessly wordy it is (though 5e continues this trend - maybe I just don't know what new players are looking for). Was Essentials a last gasp to try and reach unrealistic sale? In which case, it's failure to do then left the existing 4e market in a pretty disastrous shape largely independently of how that market might otherwise have been travelling.

Finally, I continue to hold that if the absence of edition warring is a mark of success, then the market is too small to make a "golden era" possible - because in a golden era, no one cares what a handful of hardcore fans are saying one way or the other, and their voices are irrelevant to overall market performance.

 

[Steely Dan]

Sssshhhh... we wouldn't want any actual proof from an actual insider interfering with the story being told in this thread about what "really" happened with 4e from those with no insider knowledge whatsoever and a clear bias towards 4e... now would we?

4th Ed is clearly a failure, the runt of the litter, the New Coke of D&D, and not due to the weather or whatever else people want to excuse/justify it's failure for.

A good game, and so is DDM, 4th Ed grew out of DDM, both are superficially related to D&D.

Mod Note: Please see my post below. ~Umbran

 

[Imaro]

Um...he just confirmed what most people have been saying. 4th edition failed to "engage the majority of the gaming audience".

Well @Tony Vargas and I believe @Siberys (though I could be mistaken) have been making the assertion that the only evidence we have points to 4e being put out to pasture because it couldn't make Hasbro's revenue requirements... and most/all of the other reasons put forth by various posters are just edition warring nonsense...

 

[Imaro]

Hate to break it to you Imaro, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what Tony, Pemerton, or I have been saying throughout this thread. That was a post made the day 5e was announced about community trust issues with Wizards, not a reveal of the motives behind the choice to move to a new edition. Scott Rouse had been off the team for a while by then. He imparted no insider information we didn't already cover, except that when he was on the team they expected an 8-10 year run. Hardly astonishing.

I'm confused about how this post has nothing to do with the claims you and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] have been making... I don't think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has claimed to know why 4e was pulled after such as short run... so no, I don't think it applies to what he has been discussing in this thread.

To reiterate; I believe that the information we /do/ have about 4e's cancellation has nothing to do with its popularity. Claiming otherwise is essentially just speculation, and presenting it otherwise is at the very least misleading. That info we do have paints a picture that would be horribly bleak for 4e even without all of the community issues surrounding it, and it's entirely possible those community issues didn't even factor into the decision to drop it at all.

Did you read the post that was linked to?? Or are you purposefully ignoring it?

@13garth13 - Suffice to say I don't buy the "D&Desque"/alienation argument as a reason for why 4e was dropped. Why someone may dislike 4e? Sure, that's reasonable. But if community splintering were really a big reason behind the jump to another edition, adding another "faction," so to speak, seems like it'd be a major gamble. They'd have to make up for lost 4e players, bring back a bunch of fans of other games like PF, and get a sizable number of new and lapsed players.

Okay so you are purposefully ignoring information that doesn't support your position because you "don't buy it"... fair enough I guess but then I guess that means providing any furhtr evidence would be pointless.

I think WotC has taken a gamble that has, from marketing to public play test to rules design, IMO been subtle but well thought out and pretty well executed (especially compared to the roll out of the previous edition), contrary to what you and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] have been claimed

If we're comparing gut feelings, it seems much more likely to me that 5e is just meant to ride out the time while D&D doesn't have a big corporate monkey riding its back. Having a system that "doesn't rock the boat," to call back to an earlier point in the discussion, seems like it may be in support of that. But like I said, gut feeling.

Eh, for those who really like 5e... it is "rocking the boat"... for those who didn't like 4e and like 5e it's rocking the boat even more but in a positive as opposed to negative direction. I think you're letting personal bias for how you feel about 5e cloud your view of what's really happening here (which is ironic since I get the impression that's what you're claiming others are doing when it comes to the ending of 4e). Just because it's a more subdued roll out without all the flash-bang of the previous edition (which many felt backfired for WotC) doesn't mean there aren't aggressive goals for the game or innovations being made. One innovation I don't see being discussed much yet is the Morningstar/Dungeonscape tools which WotC has invested in and so far seem to be better planned out and implemented from a software development and utility perspective than DDI was(of course instead of declaring in their books when the tool will be ready and failing like they did last edition, WotC has learned like many companies to play their cards close until it's ready)...

 

[Imaro]

Double Post

 

[Sadras]

* I think that explaining 4e's commercial problems by reference to "it was a radical departure from D&D" is post-hoc. It is simply a reiteration of the fact that 4e experienced commercial difficulties. It doesn't tell us anything about what was or was not appealing about 4e.

To give a concrete example of the 3rd point: edition warriors often complain about healing surges and extended rests; but those features of 4e carry on into 5e (though without the integration of surges into the broader framework of the combat and magic mechanics). Hence we can infer that healing surges and extended rests were not too radical a departure from D&D.

Do not agree. If one does not like the 5e HD healing mechanic one simply removes it, the same cannot be said for 4e Surges. That is the nature of 5e that if you don't like a certain mechanic you simply remove it and you don't disrupt the strands of the system's web. 4e you could certainly do it with a lot more effort, but it had further reaching implications throughout the system. It wasn't the case of a simple house-rule.

I feel the problem with 4e, as someone who has played 4e for over 4 years, was the fact that it was not a versatile system, at least not easily enough, to cater for all playstyles, whereas 5e has that versatility straight out the gate. And IMO, its because of this lack of versatility that it got as much hate which allowed for Paizo's Pathfinder to flourish, which led to Essentials and eventually to the conception of 5e (an all inclusive edition - that just says it right there).
To some balance is of primary importance, for others it's versatility and the list I'm sure is not limited to those two RPG facets alone.

So I am comfortable to put my head on the block and predict a more successful run with 5e than the immediate previous edition, based solely on the fact that it is more versatile and should appeal to more playgroups. I would also stipulate that 5e has been around in whatever form for minimum a year already (discounted the 2 year playtest run).

 

[Umbran]

4th Ed is clearly a failure, the runt of the litter, the New Coke of D&D, and not due to the weather or whatever else people want to excuse/justify it's failure for.

A good game, and so is DDM, 4th Ed grew out of DDM, both are superficially related to D&D.

Aaand... we now have very clear edition warring! Excellent!

While there's "a good game" stuck in there that the poster might try to hide behind, we also see the classic negative descriptive phrases ("New Coke" and "runt of the litter"), and the ever popular claiming it isn't really D&D with the "superficially.." line. All combined with a complete lack of actual critical content - there's nothing in this post to *discuss*, just a bunch of negativity.

Maybe you thought all the moderators were away at GenCon, and not watching?

Mr. Dan here is earning himself a few days off. Let's hope everyone from here on out notes this, and maybe the thread can go smoothly from this point on...