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

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Mercurius,

If 4e had a heavily popular setting that was continually supported, it would perhaps make it harder for those playing and DMing 4e to get off the train. I agree that if this was the case, it would have a minor effect but as the settings produced for 4e have little continuing support I think it hard to gauge what effect if any there is in reality. What works for Paizo would not necessarily work for WotC and vice versa I suppose.

The popularity of 4e. The title of the thread is where I had to stop and read closely the contents within the post. Where is the data that supports the popularity (or lack thereof) regarding the edition? What assumptions are being applied to start the conversation this way? I need solid metrics. Anything otherwise is a clear cheap shot at the organization and those who choose to support the game (via buying their products).

The OP had an idea and expressed it with care and consideration for people to ponder and discuss (even if almost everyone has disagreed with it). I think it is safe to say that any game could fit into the premise of "not as popular as it could have been", even if there is only a small gap between its popularity and it's possible popularity. And even then with the extreme difficulty of even measuring such a gap, are such metrics truly mandatory for discussion on EN World?

So anyway, I think it safe to put the OP's post into the "spitballing" category rather than the "clear cheap shot" variety that you seem to indicate. Do you think 4e is/was as popular as it could have been? What is your opinion? Or is the topic of discussion of no interest to you and thus not worth your while posting to?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

* Yes, even you.

Nope, not me.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think people are looking for rational business explanations where none exist. If 4e is not as popular as it could have been (and, really, who is to say how popular it could have been?), I wager it's because they changed some stuff, some people didn't like those changes, and pretty soon it became sort of internet cool for those "in the know" to bash WotC.

So the things that WotC did to upset some of their customer base (outlined thoroughly in Steel Wind's post) was irrelevant compared to looking cool on the interwebs by laying into WotC? Are you sure that this upset portion of their customer base was really that shallow?

It's easy to hate on the big guy, but then again, it merely serves as continued evidence that the big guy is in fact still the big guy.

Or it could be that they made a handful of marketing mistakes that they would be wise not to repeat in a couple of years time if they want D&D as a pen and paper RPG to have some measure of relevance.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Dannager]

Hello Mercurius,

If 4e had a heavily popular setting that was continually supported, it would perhaps make it harder for those playing and DMing 4e to get off the train. I agree that if this was the case, it would have a minor effect but as the settings produced for 4e have little continuing support I think it hard to gauge what effect if any there is in reality. What works for Paizo would not necessarily work for WotC and vice versa I suppose.

The OP had an idea and expressed it with care and consideration for people to ponder and discuss (even if almost everyone has disagreed with it). I think it is safe to say that any game could fit into the premise of "not as popular as it could have been", even if there is only a small gap between its popularity and it's possible popularity. And even then with the extreme difficulty of even measuring such a gap, are such metrics truly mandatory for discussion on EN World?

So anyway, I think it safe to put the OP's post into the "spitballing" category rather than the "clear cheap shot" variety that you seem to indicate. Do you think 4e is/was as popular as it could have been? What is your opinion? Or is the topic of discussion of no interest to you and thus not worth your while posting to?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I think it's a matter of language choice. Rather than something like "They should have done this for 4e!", which doesn't make any implication regarding the success of the venture, the topic title was "A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been."

I don't think it's difficult at all to see how this can be taken as a cheap shot at 4e, especially given the "To put it another way, this is another factor among a few core ones that I think has crippled 4E from early on" line, which goes a fair ways beyond implying. The OP clearly begins with the premise that 4e has somehow done poorly, but given that we know shy of nothing about the business success of any of the major tabletop gaming players right now, I think the only real trend is that people continue to assert that D&D is somehow in trouble despite a lack of evidence to that effect. I'm sure there would be just as many people talking about how they think D&D has done reasonably well for itself, if it weren't for the fact that a company performing as expected isn't really the sort of thing that gets people chatting on internet forums.

 

[MerricB]

Nope, not me.

Yes, even you!

(Sharktopuses do not have Immune: My Little Pony RPG).

Cheers!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sharktopuses eat Ponies as a topping on their Crunchy Co-Ed Surfer w/Snicker Puffs breakfast cereal. The RPG seems...pointless.

 

[Dannager]

So the things that WotC did to upset some of their customer base (outlined thoroughly in Steel Wind's post) was irrelevant compared to looking cool on the interwebs by laying into WotC?

Hardly. I think a handful of people might have had really solid reasons for wanting to dislike the decisions WotC was making. I think, past a certain point, they became drowned out by people who had latched onto anti-WotC "talking points" without really giving any serious consideration as to what they were railing against.

The inevitable result of this is, of course, what we see today: WotC can't announce or discuss any plans, really, without provoking an internet backlash based on nothing but speculation and worst-case-scenario crisis-mongering. Some of that backlash is grounded in genuine mistrust, certainly. A lot of it, however, is silliness.

Are you sure that this upset portion of their customer base was really that shallow?

There is an active thread on these very forums where members of the "upset portion of their customer base" have discussed, in entirely serious tones, the possibility of pursuing a lawsuit against WotC for producing and supporting 4e in the way they have.

Never again will I underestimate the potential for that "upset portion of their customer base" to display shallow behavior.

What's always intrigued me about the supposed division in the D&D community, though, is why are those people upset, and why are we not?

Or it could be that they made a handful of marketing mistakes that they would be wise not to repeat in a couple of years time if they want D&D as a pen and paper RPG to have some measure of relevance.

You know what is going to make WotC relevant as an RPG publisher in a couple of years' time? Their continued performance as an industry leader, and the innovation that they push for in that capacity. 4e's legacy will be DDI, the tight structure of its rules, and its focus on making the game accessible. These traits will carry forward into wherever D&D goes next, and those traits will keep it relevant. If you think that putting their entire rules database, character creation system, monster creation system and play tabletop online for subscription access doesn't trump the fact that we no longer have PDFs, you don't understand where this industry is going.

 

[pawsplay]

See, this is interesting. Someone tells you that they don't feel that your position is supportable, and you jump to playing the victim of an implicit accusation of either being stupid or delusional.

I'm not "playing the victim," I'm gently mocking you.

Why isn't your response something along the lines of, "And I disagree: here's why,"?

Why didn't you begin with, "I disagree: here's why?" instead of "I find your opinion unsupportable?" Not merely unsupported, but unsupportable. If you give someone no reason to assume good faith on your part, don't be surprised if they don't take you seriously.

Feel free to start over. I hold no grudge.

 

[Dannager]

I'm not "playing the victim," I'm gently mocking you.

Ahhhhhh, that makes a lot more sense.

 

[billd91]

The problem is, WotC made the decision to develop the GSL as they did from a business and legal standpoint. Their decision to create the OGL and push the 3rd-party inclusiveness of the d20 system unfortunately created their most significant competitor in quite some time. WotC did a good thing with the OGL - they made their system very open, very accessible. This good thing bit them in the rear.

Right now, I'm trying to figure out who this competitor could have been who convinced WotC to make the GSL so restrictive. When Paizo made the shift to competitor, it was because license was already a no-show and the writing on the wall wasn't favorable. Until then, I would have described Paizo as a very close ally.
Paizo may be one of WotC's biggest competitors now, but saying that Paizo's competition drove WotC to make the GSL so restrictive looks like putting the cart before the horse to me. I'd be more inclined to say that mishandling the GSL development and launch was a major factor in driving the wedge between WotC and Paizo's relationship.

Unless you're thinking of someone else...