D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[Oofta]

--nm--

 

[Oofta]

However, maybe not as dramatically different as you expect. You may have just ended up with a more polished version of 4e.

We'll never know. But considering how many people rejected 4E after discussing and looking at the rules, I doubt it.

 

[Aldarc]

We'll never know. But considering how many people rejected 4E after discussing and looking at the rules, I doubt it.

The fun of playtesting is that you aren't just discussing and looking at rules, but actually using them in play. You are right that many people only did as you described. Public playtesting of 4e without being rushed from above probably would have given the game a much better launch.

 

[Oofta]

The fun of playtesting is that you aren't just discussing and looking at rules, but actually using them in play. You are right that many people only did as you described. Public playtesting of 4e without being rushed from above probably would have given the game a much better launch.

I played 4E for the duration, but a lot of people I had been playing 3.5 with just didn't like the fundamentals of how the game worked. Since PF was a viable alternative they jumped to that if they didn't continue playing 3.5. Maybe starting out with support for something other than the AEDU structure like they did with essentials would have changed things, maybe not.

Innovation and fundamental changes don't always sell no matter how you introduce it. Just ask the people behind new Coke.

 

[Corinnguard]

Public playtesting of 4e without being rushed from above probably would have given the game a much better launch.

Or not. Public playtesting of 4e might have hastened the exodus to Pathfinder 1st Edition.

 

[Aldarc]

Or not. Public playtesting of 4e might have hastened the exodus to Pathfinder 1st Edition.

Or imagine if WotC kept Paizo on board for publishing for Dragon and Dungeon.

 

[Aldarc]

I played 4E for the duration, but a lot of people I had been playing 3.5 with just didn't like the fundamentals of how the game worked. Since PF was a viable alternative they jumped to that if they didn't continue playing 3.5. Maybe starting out with support for something other than the AEDU structure like they did with essentials would have changed things, maybe not.

Innovation and fundamental changes don't always sell no matter how you introduce it. Just ask the people behind new Coke.

And for many people, 3e was just as much “New Coke” as 4e was, which is why the OSR movement became what it did.

 

[Corinnguard]

And for many people, 3e was just as much “New Coke” as 4e was, which is why the OSR movement became what it did.

Good thing I am a Mountain Dew fan. How dew you dew?

Or imagine if WotC kept Paizo on board for publishing for Dragon and Dungeon.

If Paizo stayed with WoTC, they would have made 4e into a better iteration of 3.5 because they would have ignored whoever wanted D&D to be more like a computer game.

 

[TwoSix]

I played 4E for the duration, but a lot of people I had been playing 3.5 with just didn't like the fundamentals of how the game worked. Since PF was a viable alternative they jumped to that if they didn't continue playing 3.5. Maybe starting out with support for something other than the AEDU structure like they did with essentials would have changed things, maybe not.

Innovation and fundamental changes don't always sell no matter how you introduce it. Just ask the people behind new Coke.

These are my alt-4e speculations. They carry about as much weight as "What would 19th century US history look like if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated", i.e. no predictive weight at all. This is just idle thoughts.

1) I think if the 3.5 Vancian casting structure had been imported to casters (i.e. what Bo9s did), but casters had been left alone, the amount of concern around it would have been heavily muted.

2) I think releasing a 3rd core rulebook set in 8 years was a poor decision to allow for a positive reception, even if the economic need was urgent and pressing.

3) I think even if WotC had released the exact rules of Pathfinder as "4e", it would not have been successful because it was "too similar", and again, few people saw the need for a 3rd core rule book set in only 8 years.

4) I think there existed a sweet spot of changes between the "mostly the same" PF and "very experimental" 4e, that would have done better than either, if it has been released as "4e" in 2008. I don't what that exact sweet spot is, and I don't think it's identifiable now, but I think it definitely existed.

 

[Aldarc]

If Paizo stayed with WoTC, they would have made 4e into a better iteration of 3.5 because they would have ignored whoever wanted D&D to be more like a computer game.

Here's a small point of trivia for you. Did you know that if Paizo retained Dragon and Dungeon magazine, they would not have been in charge of making 4e? True story.