• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

Mercurius

Legend
A thought came to me a couple days ago that I was planning on posting about, but got distracted by Snowpocalypse. A common question and ongoing point of debate is why 4E hasn't been as popular as it should/could have been, what the root causes are, etc. I don't want to re-hash this endless debate except to bring forth a possibility that I have not seen discussed. To put it another way, this is another factor among a few core ones that I think has crippled 4E from early on.

4E doesn't have an ongoing, supported setting. It has the default Nentir Vale setting that is touched upon in various products; it has three settings that have received minor support in the form of three books each; it also has a kind of default vibe or atmosphere, a "meta-setting" that includes the new planar structure and the mythology that's been presented in the "theme" books (e.g. Underdark, Plane Above, etc). But it doesn't have a setting that is supported in an ongoing way, that is being explored and developed through supplements.

I know, I know, this has been proven to be financially lacking - setting books are just too specific; you have a diehard core that will buy most of everything for a given setting (setting junkies and DMs using that setting), but the vast majority of players don't buy anything. But I was thinking about how businesses often have products on huge sales that they don't make a profit on but serve the purpose of bringing customers in. Think of the Best Buy "Black Friday" sales - they always have a few items on sale for dirt cheap that you know they aren't making anything on, but what they are doing is bringing people in, softening them up with a good deal, and potentially selling them other items that aren't on sale. Obviously settings don't work quite that way, but my point is that every product that a game company produces doesn't have to generate the same profit margin to serve a larger purpose.

It is my opinion--or rather more like a hypothesis--that a setting that is provided with ongoing support generates secondary and tertiary sales that aren't easy to track. It brings the game alive and provides a kind of exemplar of what the game looks like from those that produce it. 4E has the Nentir Vale but it doesn't go far enough. IMO, they should have produced a short gazetteer in 2008 that gives the bare bones of the setting, then come out with a hardcover (or box set) the following year, with ongoing supplements and adventures equating to as many as roughly one product per month.

I would argue that part of the success of Pathfinder is its support of Golarion. I have no idea how many copies the Chronicles books sell, and they are probably much less than, say, the Advanced Player's Guide or the Bestiary I or II. But it isn't about raw sales, it is about bringing the game world alive and keeping it alive. I also think that Paizo has proven the old adage wrong, that producing setting material and adventures is not profitable. They have struck gold with their subscription model and backed it up with quality products, and quality - if it is marketed well - always does well.

Wizards of the Coast has teased us with Nentir Vale, most recently with the vanishing of the Nentir Vale Gazetteer. I don't even think Nentir Vale is that great of a setting - I like it, it is fine, but for one we simply don't have enough to go on to compare it to Golarion or Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun. It hasn't really come alive yet.

The Neverwinter Campaign Guide may be a step in the right direction. Why? Because one of the biggest mistakes WotC made with their 4E treatment of the Forgotten Realms, imo, was not to explicate it much. They came out with a few books and had some ongoing Dragon articles, but they didn't really show us why this new Realms was a good idea, what potential it had as a D&D setting. They have us a brief sketch with some crunch, and essentially said, "Here's the new Realms, like it or not this is what we're giving you this time around, no more or less." My sense is that if they had been willing to develop it a bit, maybe even just a supplement once a quarter, it would have done better and potentially generated more secondary and tertiary sales.

Maybe it isn't too late. Maybe Neverwinter can bring the new Realms alive, and maybe WotC pulled the Nentir Vale Gazetteer because they've got something larger planned for later this year or next (can we hope for a box set?). As with most things WotC these days, I'm not counting on it but one can hope...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Moleculo

First Post
4E isn't as popular as it could have been because it doesn't smell like D&D. I'm not sure if that's really the fault of the lack of setting, though the absence of a touchstone certainly could contribute to its sterility.
 
Last edited:

Nagol

Unimportant
Regarding Neverwinter, the campaign guide is tied to two other cross media projects: a boardgame and a MMO.

I wouldn't expect more from that campaign supplement than any other provided by WotC. In fact, I'd expect less future development as the tie-ins might suffer.
 


I'm not sure why people continue to post these types of threads other than a sick fascination with watching the edition wars start all over again. People just start to flame on the editions, which leads to people flaming on each other, which leads to the threads being closed.

I personally like all editions of D&D, they are all fun to me and each has it's own flavor. Role playing is role playing to me and the edition is just about different mechanics. I won't say anything disparaging about anyone here nor will I say anything disparaging about various editions.
 

Dice4Hire

First Post
4E isn't as popular as it could have been because it doesn't smell like D&D.

Thanks for the drive-by post.


On topic:

I think there is something for this. 4E, adventure wise, is a really mixed bag. An AP, three campaign worlds, the Chaos Scar, Nentir Vale (a pseudo campaign setting, but getting better) but none of them is really really done, to the level previous editions have done them. Now I am the first to say I don't want to see an old campaign world redone again, I am pretty happy with how much has been put out for the three campaign settings.

What 4E needs is a new campaign setting, one that uses more 4E stuff. FR works in 4E, and I guess Eberron does to(really don't follow it at all) and Dark Sun is very god with the new cosmology. Really really good, but I would like to see a campaign setting made up of 10-12 books including a DM guide, Player's guide (with Themes!!!!!), 1-2 monster books, and then a few books focusing n different areas.

WOTC has great designers, and I would like to see what they can do.

Also, I said and mean BOOKS, not just DDI stuff. Putting stuff like this on DDI only is like selling to the choir.
 

1Mac

First Post
I'm not sure why people continue to post these types of threads other than a sick fascination with watching the edition wars start all over again.
If this thread denigrates into a river of flame, it's not the OP's fault. It's an interesting observation, and I don't see it as a criticism of 4E itself.
What 4E needs is a new campaign setting, one that uses more 4E stuff.
I remember this line from when 4E Forgotten Realms was announced. It's seemingly not a bad idea, and I wonder why we haven't heard of a new setting.
 

NewJeffCT

First Post
I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and have never really been wedded to any setting in particular, and most of the groups I have gamed with have been that way as well (though, one ongoing campaign in one group was set in the Forgotten Realms) So, I don't know if setting is it.

While I am currently DMing a 4E game and love that it is much easier on the DM than 3E/3.5, I also don't like that they sacrificed a lot of the sacred cows from 30 years of prior editions - alignment, Vancian magic, etc - and, also made some monster abilities less immediately deadly (i.e., the Medusa is you get hit and you're slowed; first failed save you're immobilized, then finally on the second failed save, you're petrified...) I'm also not sure how much I like the concept of X number of healing surges per day, or healing surges in general.

So, I agree with Moleculo above - it doesn't smell like D&D to an old timer like me.
 
Last edited:

I'd agree somewhat with the OP, but with a slant.

1.
I don't think 4e needs a setting, but I do think it needs to be written to feel as though it's for a setting. Too often, and mostly by WotC (3pps are much better about this) 4e seems to be treated as a set of rules and not as elements of storytelling and roleplaying.

I'm not saying the sytem itself is gamist/simulationist/narrativist here, but I'm saying that the books FEEL like it's written to be a game, rather than rules to describe a magical world.

2.
I do think that good adventures make for good gaming, and poor adventures the opposite (if your group uses adventures). Because of the way they released 4e (and the whole GSL debacle), 3pps were highly discouraged and inhibited from releasing adventures from the start. WotC released Keep on the Shadowfell, generally regarded by many as not a stellar adventure.

I think that there were very few good adventures early on in 4e's lifecycle, and I think that bad experiences turned a lot of people away.
 

pawsplay

Hero
I don't think it's a lack of a supported setting. I play Pathfinder and I don't even support the Golarion setting, after all. I would identify:

- Lack of Gygaxian Naturalism
- Competing with a recently published, successful version of the game rather than the degenerate, overpublished gasps of a game in its waning years
- Monomaniacal focus on combat and skill set pieces instead of continuity
- Indigestible rules bulk even at 1st level
 

Remove ads

Top