A road not taken: What if there had been no 4E

[AllisterH]

I think one of the things TSR did wrong was that they actually produced material that shouldn't have had a campaign logo and should've been generic.

For example, take Libris Mortis/Open Grave for 3e/4e. Reading these two fine books, I'm struck by how they're just a refinement of the Van Richten Guides and looking back, there's no reason why TSR shouldn't have marketed the Van Richten guides as "generic supplements".

Same goes for a lot of planescape material - Guide to the Astral/Ethereal plane I remember having little Sigil-focused material and thus, putting them under a generic logo might have been better.

 

[Mallus]

As far as my gaming group goes, without 4e, we'd be playing more of our converted-from-3.5e fantasy M&M2e campaign and probably something non-d20, like Spirit of the Century or ye olden school Traveller.

As for WotC, I'd assume they'd be selling a lot fewer D&D books.

 

[ggroy]

I have no idea what WotC would have done. I had already stopped buying 3.5 material - WotC or 3pp. I do know that had WotC not made 4e, I would have stopped playing D&D completely.

I was never really all that enamored with the 3E/3.5E ruleset, whether WotC or 3pp. If 4E had not been announced and released in 2007-2008, I probably would have eventually stopping playing D&D altogether too.

Previously I was DM'ing several high level 3.5E campaigns which I found really frustrating and slow when it came to preparation and actual gameplay. By the time it was 2007-2008, I was already burning out from DM'ing 3.5E.

 

[Beaviskhan]

Well I would have end up where I am now anyways with the new editon of Hackmaster a much better game then 3.x and the hell that is 4E

 

[pawsplay]

A few ideas:
- A revised, actually edited version of the Spell Compendium
- Dark Sun campaign setting
- Greyhawk setting
- Novels based in the D&D setting
- The current miniatures format, albeit with less goofy minis

And by 2009, they could release new versions of the PHB, DMG, and MM, incorporating errata, small changes, as well as select material that they were allowing in RPGA games.

Plenty to have kept them busy, without dipping from the bottom of the well. I don't see how it could be the case that 4e was driven primarily by a lack of products that could be sold. 4e was basically rushed in order to maintain a revenue stream at a rate similar to the 3e release, which of course is not very likely considering that 3e basically resurrected D&D. 4e was created to implement a particular design vision of the team and create a new model for revenue.

Presumably that means WotC was dissatisfied with the revenues they were getting, but I don't think the answer is to force obsolescence. Indeed, the so-called "Death spiral" seem in my experience to directly correlate with declining production values. Somehow, popular products sell, while unpopular ones are signs of the "Death spiral."

 

[Remathilis]

I could have seen them releasing a revised 3.5. That included Errata. This would have cleared some things up.

I'm assuming your talking an additional print run, not a new "3.55" edition. One that incorporates the polymorph errata, new righteous might, and cleans up the math in the monster stat-blocks, but doesn't change additional rules (like revising the ranger again or adding more monsters to the MM).

If so, I agree. But I don't think too many people would have bought another mini-edition.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I am curious, what estimates are you talking about when you mention 200k players worldwide towards the end of 3.5?

I really don't remember the exact location I saw it. Which is why I say I could really be making stuff up. But I've seen some posts basically stating that the peak of D&D players was near the beginning of 3e and that the number of players has steadily dropped off over time, dropping to its near minimum at about the end of 3.5e and then picking back up slightly when 4e came out, but going nowhere near the number that it was at near the beginning of 3e.

I really wish I could point at a particular thread as evidence. But I remember it being a combination of a WOTC employee, some random people, and someone who worked for or ran another RPG company guessing at numbers. As well as someone from WOTC's post a while back explaining why they were no longer producing adventures and FR books anymore(during 3e).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, doing a DDI, and a Pathfinder-style reboot would have been totally styles. They might've been able to get away with more than PF could, even.

They could've "updated" the edition without making it a mini-edition by making it something of an "optional" edition.

"Everything you used so far will still be compatible. Everything we use in the future will look a little different. When you need a new PHB, by the new print run."

Selling 3.5 as a "You're gonna need the PHB/DMG/MM all over again!" was a problem that didn't have to exist.

 

[CleverNickName]

Wizards didn't lose me when they released 4E. They lost me when they stopped releasing anything else.

We were cheerfully playing 3.5 Edition when WotC announced the new edition. But even though I tried to keep an open mind about it and introduce my table to the new edition, none of my players really cared for it. It was just too different from what we were accustomed to playing, I guess. We stayed with three-five.

I know and understand that 4th Edition had to happen. But with WotC no longer releasing 3.5 Edition stuff, with DDI and Dragon Magazine being exclusively 4E, and with WotC no longer allowing the sale of the out-of-print books in PDF format, I really didn't have a reason to do business with them anymore. Now I'm sure that WotC had to do this, whether for marketing or staffing or just plain good business...but it stung me a little. They seemed to be saying "either switch to 4E, or go away."

But I'll be honest, 3.5 was starting to get pretty dull. It was clear that something needed to change, but we didn't like any of the splatbooks and campaign settings coming out at the time. So we just houseruled the absolute crap out of the game until it felt "right."

When Paizo started doing their Alpha and Beta tests for Pathfinder, playtesting it just came natural for us. We were already accustomed to houseruling our game, and Paizo had much better houserules than the ones we could come up with.

Anyway, to answer your question...even if 4E hadn't been released, we would still be playing Pathfinder. It seemed like the next logical step for us.