Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 6072944" data-attributes="member: 4348">THE POINT OF THE MESSAGE AND IMPORTANT PART IS FARTHER BELOW MARKED AS "IMPORTANT PART", SKIP TO THAT IF YOU WANT TO tl;dr ON THIS FIRST PORTION.[parallel=Dannyalcatraz]I'll try to be as neutral in my language as possible:I like 3.X Ed as a FRPG, but not as D&D.  As I've said before, its kind of like New Coke: for all of its strengths and how it addressed the well-researched concerns many voiced online, it was too big a departure for many of the market's core from what came before to mesh with the product identity of prior editions.  We got a good foreshadowing of that from the developers' prerelease comments and information released on the internet and other locations in regards to 3.X, and they were not kidding.What this did, functionally, was turn off 20 million ex-D&D players from even trying it because it lacked that continuity. (though I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, they did sell over a million core books over the first year, I'll give the benefit of the doubt that they were able to get 5 million ex-D&D players, though it probably was lower then that and a LOT of those were new blood rather then ex-D&D players or even old D&D players coming back to the WotC game)I personally have the rare perspective of playing in a campaign that dates back to 1975, and has been converted through each edition of D&D up to and including the controversial 2ed.  But we couldn't do that with 3Ed- too much had changed.  Those few PCs we tried to convert played radically differently than they had over the prior decades.  Some PCs were not supported until later supplements- not surprising- and still others remain unsupported to this day.  In fact any Fighte/Magic User or other multiclass could not be adapted according to the official conversion book to be anywhere close to what they had been in the previous editions.The thing is, when I look at the marketing tools and market share that Hasbro/WotC had in 1999-2001, I really think 3.XEd could have succeeded as a distinct FRPG from WotC as opposed to the fate suffered by Everway.  I also think that it would have fared better as a distinct game without the encumbrance of trying to handle all those legacy issues & sacred cows like Vancian Casting or even being a class-based RPG.  Despite my love of many of D&D's sacred cows, I honestly think they weighed down 3.XEd's pretty good mechanical engine.In fact, case in point that it could have been successful without being called D&D is perfectly represented by an evolution of it's ruleset called Pathfinder today.Hell- stripped of classes, alignments, and other D&D legacy mechanics, it might have been perfect for the launch of a Diablo RPG...[/Parallel]Yes, I'm an old school gamer.Yes, I play Pathfinder....but all those people that whine that 4e is not D&D, IN MY OPINION are getting the payback they deserved when the older gamers complained that though 3e may be a great game...it wasn't D&D...and the 3.X gamers told everyone else to shut the heck up and quite their whining.4e up until PHB 3 actually had some items MORE IN COMMON with AD&D and traditional D&D than 3.X, inclusive of NOT having classes as skill packages and having them as actual archtypes, having monsters with static XP and static values along with the ability to quickly create opponents out of the MM rather then designing them with levels and everything else.So, overall 4e being called D&D no more bothered me than 3.X being called D&D.  3.X was a drastic change, so was 4e.  Neither was a real continuation of the AD&D or D&D mindset created in the 1970s.  Hence comments that 4e failed because it wasn't D&D really have no bearing on whether it suceeded or failed in my opinion.More apt is was the sense of decreasing returns.  If you believe the numbers that 25 million people had played D&D over the years...then we say only 5 million played 3.X...that's still a pretty big number.  It's only 1/5 of the total though.Now if we take only 1/5 of that to transfer to the next edition, 4e...that's only 1 million.  A LOT to be certain....best seller upon release...but no where near the 5 million of the previous edition.  Of course if that holds true...DDN is in BIG trouble...if it's a decreasing return which could indicate only 200,000 play DDN???IMPORTANT PARTI think some of the problems were the same that D&D has ALWAYS HAD when going to another edition.  This is represented by what I parodied.  It's represented by what I stated above.People dislike change.  When you change you invariably are going to lose a LOT of the people already using your product.  IN the change to 4e, that was a LOSS of MANY who were playing 3.X at the time.  It is easier to stick with what you know than to change.  You have to attract new blood in order to replace that loss.  As I see it, 4e didn't attract the new blood to replace the numbers that they lost.  I think with DDN they are trying not to lose as many, maybe even possibly bring back ex players...BUT the problem remains...if they lose more players than they can gain with new blood in the transition...they'll have a continuing problem and perhaps the same problems they have had previously.END IMPORTANT PART.I think 4e is a good game overall.  I think it suffers from trying to give too much to each class.  At first it's not too bad, but after 30 levels you have so many powers sometimes it's hard to keep track of them all.  In this case I ascribe simple is better.  I AM a Pathfinder fan, truthfully.  I think their classes give just as much as 4e...BUT they present it in an easier to track and simpler, more straightforward manner than Daily, Encounter, or Utility power formats.  I think the core 4e mechanics are extremely solid, but when tossing in the powers system it makes it more complex than many want to deal with at high levels.I think 4e would have been held in wonderful esteem if it had been a separate game...but I think that it still would have had problems selling eventually because of what I stated above, the power system can cause more deterrents than many feel like dealing with.  AS some would say...I play a fighter because all I want to do is hit things and kill it.  They don't want the complexity of having multiple daily, encounter, and utility powers to keep track of.3.X I think would have been successful if marketed correctly regardless...and I would use Pathfinder as an example.  It's actually been rising in popularity over the past year or so from what I can see, and that's with a name completely separate from D&D.The other problem that happened with 4e that didn't help it is obviously perception.  With 3e at least they tried to put up the illusion that they were appeasing old time fans, even to the extent of settling up with Gary and others.  4e it seemed they went out of their way to completely screw with fans.Forgotten Realms is a case in point.  I play 4e as well.  I DID buy the Campaign guide and the Players guide.  HOwever, they lost me with everything else.  I have no interest in the Realms they created for 4e.  I have no interest in Spell Plague or Abeir, or a world without Mystra (though in some ways they brought her back...).  They are now discussing the Sundering...we'll see if it patches things up to bring me back or not.However, that's a good example of something they did that had no real practical use.   Why upset fans for NO gain (at least from what I could see).  Made no sense. NOT WITHSTANDING...I still find 4e a good system overall.  I find that it's skill system allows for more roleplaying options overall (that's ROLEPLAYING as opposed to having to ROLL for Every skill under the umbrella of skills and others) and outside of combat it tends to have a more openness towards roleplaying.  It's dependent on DM's who push the roleplaying aspect though, I've seen plenty of combat only focused games.So 4e I think is a good system, but I'm not entirely convinced it would have been successful under a different name or on it's own without the legacy of D&D propping it up.</blockquote>

Verification