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

[Crazy Jerome]

I think this is a tangent. The suitability of any specific rule is a different question of whether 3e allows a believable world.

Agree with the second sentence, but not the first. It is a tangent for "allows" a believable world. It is not a tangent for "lets the GM easily and naturally construct" a believable world.

Some people want a modicum of crafting rules. If they are substandard, no big deal. Deal with the problems as they arise, tweak it, or any number of things. They whole thing is rather an aside. Not me. I want good crafting rules or no crafting rules. Because bad crafting rules sit there and nag at me all out of proportion to their effect on the world. Even if we never use them, it drains energy out of my world crafting that could be better spent elsewhere. (Of course, with 20/20 hindsight, I could now run 3E more successfully by simply house ruling that the craft and profession rules, skills, and feats did not exist. Would have been a lot less draining than trying to make them better.)

I think this is because I already know something about how medieval crafting functioned in real life, and I have an idea of how magic would change it. So a crafting system tossed in almost as an afterthought doesn't help me the same way that it might someone who wants a place, any place, to start.

It is exactly the same dynamic with having a plot in a pre-written adventure. I'm pretty good with plots. If there is a substandard plot in an adventure, that is more work for me to untangle it, fix it, excise it. I'm not so good with NPC names and mannerisms. If you give me a great plot and ask me to wing the NPC, I'll be irritated. Someone else may thrive. Leave out the plot and give me interesting NPCs, it will flip.

 

[shadzar]

independent of the game system itself

But it really isnt. If one is looking for a type of game, and the system offers you nothing for that, even if it lets you add everything in the world; then some people will view that system as missing that since it was not offered with it.

If I am wanting a hamburger I have choices. I can get the materials and equipment required and make it myself, or I can go someone that has them already made.

Lots of factors play into that choice. Depending on those factors for each individual if they are common enough to lead people to the same choice of which to chose "make you own" or "premade", then that choice will be the popular one.

Many people don't want to assemble or paint minis for D&D they would buy the prepainted ones, others will "make their own".

4th edition, any other games, will be preferred by certain DM styles and player styles as it will offer what they seek. Other DM and player styles can find 4th edition missing something for them.

 

[qstor]

I don't think a setting has anything to do with why many 3.5 fans failed to embrace 4E.

I agree 100%

Mike

 

[BryonD]

You always seem to find fault with my posts.

I find no fault in this statement.

It's like you can't discern the context in which I'm writing. Maybe I'm the one not being clear.

No. It is more like you make statements that are not true and then try to change them when you get called on it.

Then I'll try to restate my answer to the topic at hand:

1) At the time of previous edition changes older editions were not as well supported by companies with a reputation for good material.

Were they supported at all?

2) Some players who didn't like previous edition changes kept playing an older edition, some found other games, and some just quit playing. The majority seemed to move on to the next edition as it was the only edition of D&D where they could get new material, IMO.

From 1E to 2E there was not that big a difference, so the move isn't that meaningful. Yes, there was a negligible exception. But overall the move was so simple that it doesn't really show anything relevant to later changes.

From 2E to 3E the change was massively in favor of 3E. Yes, there were hold-outs. But the D20 boom happened for a reason. So trying to say that people moved on because they had little choice does not stand up to inspection. By and large people jumped at 3E eagerly. So, again, lack of support for 2E doesn't really show a strong meaningful conclusion.

For 4E, a lot of people were VERY hesitant. And Paizo RESPONDED to that.
You have not shown your theory really had any meaningful role in prior transitions. You have simply shown that A and B existed and then you wave your hands and declare that since they both existed A caused B. And then you declare that proof of 4E's problems.

It ends up being a wet streets cause rain kind of argument in the case of Pathfinder. The clear market reality that a ton of people were not interested in 4E was one (of several) key piece in the fact that Pathfinder exists now. Did Pathfinder then compound the problem? Probably. But the serious damage as already done.

3) The gaming industry has changed dramatically since the previous editions changes. For those players who wanted to play a supported edition of D&D, they were not "forced" into switching to the new edition. Many great companies, larger ones like Paizo and smaller ones like Necromancer, still provide new material for the previous edition. There has even been a rise in support for older editions.

These were the observations I was trying to share. Do people find themselves playing a game that they don't like as well as another edition? Yes. I have at least two people at my weekly 4E game who prefer 3E over 4E. Why do they keep playing? Because they value the time we spend together as friends. They enjoy the game I offer despite their issues with the system. And they don't have a desire to run a 3E campaign (which I would play in despite liking 4E more than 3E).

The question of the thread dealt with popularity, not like/dislike. And much like the "feel" issue that came up before, the two are not directly linked, IMO.

Ok, that is your opinion. Your opinion flies in the face of the fact that a huge chunk of people for whom 4e is not popular, it is because they dislike it. And to be clear, "dislike" is your word. I guess I dislike 4E. There are certainly some things in it that I have real issues with. If I had never heard of RPGs before I'd probably think 4E was the most awesome game ever when I first saw it. And then I'd find better games and move on. "Dislike", in the case, is very relative.

I don't doubt for one second that people play in second choice games because there friends don't play their first choice. But step back and use some logic on that. Let's assume that 90% of the people like game A and 10% like Game B. How often are you going to find game A fans with all their friends being game B fans? How often are you going to find the reverse. To some statistical level it will cut both ways. But if one game is more popular than another, that game will leverage that popularity and game even more of your "second choice" examples. The math does not work for the more popular game to lose fan base this way.

In the end 4E's one big issue is: a lot of people who liked prior editions, don't care for it.

 

[BryonD]

I see people pointing to the same rule and saying "this rule ruins my world" and "no it doesn't" at the same time. What's the difference?

Have you seen people saying "the rule ruins my world"? That seems to be a very popular revision of the situation.

I am frequently very vocal about how much better I find 3E for building my world. But "A is much better than B, therefore I choose A" is not at all the same as "B ruins".

 

[Bluenose]

I think it clearly simulates day-to-day wage-earning being an unimportant part of the 3e game.

Be careful who you say that around. Plenty of people aren't happy that Profession isn't a skill in 4th edition.

You are incorrect about the standard of living; common laborers earn 1 sp a day, far less than someone with the Profession skill, which does seem particularly medieval to me. Every published setting of which I am aware does indeed assume that common laborers make 1 sp per day and that adventurers and important NPCs typically make several times that much.

So do cooks. Who are also called out as an example in the Profession skill description. Simple mathematics tells you how much someone with Profession (Cook) +1 can earn by practising that skill, and it's a lot more than 1sp/day. Consistency in this regard would be desirable.

I think this is a tangent. The suitability of any specific rule is a different question of whether 3e allows a believable world. Few campaigns are going to collapse because of inobvious math issues with the coinage. Picking at the details is no more relevant than claiming a driving simulator is unrealistic and unsuitable because there's no cupholder.

I tend to the belief that the economy is one of the more significant factors when it comes to world-building. And I'm easily annoyed by rules that are an obvious afterthought or that are inconsistent from place to place. Although it's probably right that a functioning economy is a detail when it comes to a game about hunting monsters in dungeons, not every game is like that.

 

[billd91]

Be careful who you say that around. Plenty of people aren't happy that Profession isn't a skill in 4th edition.

No need to be careful. The amount of cash you get from a week's work is probably not what people find important in having a Profession skill. Rather, they want a point of distinction between their character and others that they pin mechanical tests to. For example: ninja character in an OA game I ran years ago spent at least half of his proficiency slots in the cooking proficiency. He was pretty good at it and used it to get into the confidence of the people he was sent to spy on. Another example: in the Shackled City campaign, a rival adventuring group is made up of well-heeled kids of local nobles. The half-ogre barbarian fry cook managed to get himself into a bake off with the chef of one of those noble's houses. Though he lost the contest, his impressive performance (thanks to good investment in his skills) won him and his friends accolades from the public in contrast to their rivals.

Neither of these uses involved worrying about how much money the character makes over the course of a week, just the quality of the stuff they could make.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It amuses me that the response to "This magic and these rules destroy my ability to worldbuild" is to ban it or abstract it.

In other words, when confronted with issues in worldbuilding in 3.x, the response is to make it more like 4e

 

[BryonD]

Hmmm, debate by way of making up crap out of thin air.

Enjoy.

Mod Edit:Folks, being rude and crude to dismiss people is not acceptable. If you don't like what someone else is saying, walking away is an acceptable solution. Being a jerk about it is not. ~Umbran

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

No. It is more like you make statements that are not true and then try to change them when you get called on it.

No. I express my opinions. You are the one reading (in)factual context into them.

Were they supported at all?

Pretty much my point.

From 1E to 2E there was not that big a difference, so the move isn't that meaningful. Yes, there was a negligible exception. But overall the move was so simple that it doesn't really show anything relevant to later changes.

I agree with you about the small difference between 1E and 2E. But watch out when you meet a 1E grognard with that attitude. I've sat through a lecture on the long list of changes that were made to the game between editions. I liked all of the changes as they reflected the way I was playing the game, that might have blurred my vision on them being actual changes.

From 2E to 3E the change was massively in favor of 3E. Yes, there were hold-outs. But the D20 boom happened for a reason. So trying to say that people moved on because they had little choice does not stand up to inspection. By and large people jumped at 3E eagerly. So, again, lack of support for 2E doesn't really show a strong meaningful conclusion.

Rose-colored glasses. These same edition wars raged then as they do now.

For 4E, a lot of people were VERY hesitant. And Paizo RESPONDED to that.

"Alot" is subjective, at best.

You have not shown your theory really had any meaningful role in prior transitions. You have simply shown that A and B existed and then you wave your hands and declare that since they both existed A caused B. And then you declare that proof of 4E's problems.

It ends up being a wet streets cause rain kind of argument in the case of Pathfinder. The clear market reality that a ton of people were not interested in 4E was one (of several) key piece in the fact that Pathfinder exists now. Did Pathfinder then compound the problem? Probably. But the serious damage as already done.

I remember completely different comments coming from Erik Mona at the time. Obviously over two years time he and the others at Paizo have time to inspect the game and make commetary on the likes and dislikes. But as a company they had a decision point that effected the health of their company. If you think they based the health of their company on the speculation that message-board pundits disliked what 4E might be, you're crazy. They made the decison based on the GSL issues. If the GSL had been ironed out in time I suspect they would have gone down the 4E path and kept the momentum going. I never said this was 4E's ONLY problem, but the change in the gaming landscape sure seems like the major factor to me.

Ok, that is your opinion. Your opinion flies in the face of the fact that a huge chunk of people for whom 4e is not popular, it is because they dislike it. And to be clear, "dislike" is your word. I guess I dislike 4E. There are certainly some things in it that I have real issues with. If I had never heard of RPGs before I'd probably think 4E was the most awesome game ever when I first saw it. And then I'd find better games and move on. "Dislike", in the case, is very relative.

Popularity is not subjective. A game system cannot be popular to one person and not popular to another. Popularity is based, in game system terms, on frequency of use. The most popular game is the most played game. And, if we are to believe what we read online, that is still 4E. It could have been more popular at this point is factors surrounding it were different.

I don't doubt for one second that people play in second choice games because there friends don't play their first choice. But step back and use some logic on that. Let's assume that 90% of the people like game A and 10% like Game B. How often are you going to find game A fans with all their friends being game B fans? How often are you going to find the reverse. To some statistical level it will cut both ways. But if one game is more popular than another, that game will leverage that popularity and game even more of your "second choice" examples. The math does not work for the more popular game to lose fan base this way.

Which is my premise, glad to see you agree with me. Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you.

In the end 4E's one big issue is: a lot of people who liked prior editions, don't care for it.

I can agree that is a factor, but I still do not believe it is the biggest one amongst casual gamers. And I still believe casual gamers make up the greatest population of overall gamers.