Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I think in part it was misleading marketing before the game was released that did it in initially. To me, when they first advertised it, they made it seem lime a D&D version of the Saga Star Wars system.

When 4e finally came out, and it wasn't Saga edition... I was really disappointed.

 

[Jiggawatts]

There is another IP that Wizards owns and could have used to brand the game. The Magic: The Gathering tactical tabletop roleplaying game. They could have expunged all the sacred cows and D&Disms they wanted and no one would have batted an eye. But one thing is definitely correct, with any other name, it never would have gotten the overwhelming animosity it received.

 

[Audrik]

When 4e came out, I was the only person I knew who bought any books, and I bought them all for the first few months. My gaming circle didn't want anything to do with it because they had heard things they didn't like. It didn't sound like D&D to them, and they were fine with 3.5e. I finally convinced a few to give it a shot by saying "Don't think of it as D&D. Think of it as just another fantasy RPG." They enjoyed the game quite a bit when they didn't think of it as D&D, but they still preferred 3.5e (which I hated; always been a 2e man, myself).

 

[neobolts]

Without the brand, the game could have been successful, just not D&D successful. Maybe more on par with Savage Worlds or Cypher System.

In fact, if it has been specifically marketed as a RPG that emulates MMORPGs, that might have been a cool marketing angle. It does that very well, both in terms of being tactical positioning oriented and being bounded with similar feeling ability cooldowns. Making D&D more like an MMO isn't desirable, but on it's own merits an MMO style tabletop game is a pretty awesome concept.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But one thing is definitely correct, with any other name, it never would have gotten the overwhelming animosity it received.

That is probably pretty damn accurate.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

Without the brand, the game could have been successful, just not D&D successful. Maybe more on par with Savage Worlds or Cypher System.

In fact, if it has been specifically marketed as a RPG that emulates MMORPGs, that might have been a cool marketing angle. It does that very well, both in terms of being tactical positioning oriented and being bounded with similar feeling ability cooldowns. Making D&D more like an MMO isn't desirable, but on it's own merits an MMO style tabletop game is a pretty awesome concept.

I still think it plays more like a Final Fantasy Tactics style game with MMO elements.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Um, none of the above. (Sorry, I know poll makers hate that response) So I think that 1) 4E is a good game, and 2) 4e was too different from previous editions for me to accept. However, I don't think it would have succeeded at all without the attachment to the D&D brand.

Nod. There have been many games published that were much better than D&D - better than 4e, for that matter. Few of them have succeeded well enough to keep even a very small publisher afloat, most have vanished into obscurity. Only an equally-bad clone - Pathfinder - has successfully challenged D&D.

D&D just has that mainstream name recognition, so it's where most potential new RPGers start, and, if D&D isn't good enough, it's understandable that they'd just pass on the hobby, completely. Those who are left either prefer D&D for it's egregious flaws, develop a fondness for it in spite of them (I can't be the only one), or can tolerate it long enough to clue into other options.

For many years, I'm sure, there were those hoping that, if only D&D could get to be even halfway decent, that third category could become dominant and the hobby could expand and a good game could finally be successful. The edition war proved the futility of that hope.

The TTRPG hobby is dominated by D&D, and D&D is dominated by fans in that first category, who demand it remain a bad game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thank you for saying I have bad taste in RPGs.

 

[Evenglare]

The poll is fairly balanced so far. Unexpected. Interesting.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just a poll I wanted to make. I have a sneaking suspicion that the worst part about Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was that it was attached to the name. With that name came expectations which led to an early demise. We didn't even get a proper DM3 for epic level play which I'm still salty about.

Would it be "going strong?" I'm not really sure how to evaluate that. I mean Dungeon World is "going strong" at my table without the formal D&D brand or Hasbro coffers to elevate its popular culture status. It certainly has more than an indie "cult following." The Powered By the Apocalypse engine is extremely robust, easy-to-grok, rules-lite, and easy to customize/hack. It is driftable genre-wise such that you can play major high fantasy and hardcore dark/low fantasy. In every way possible I consider it a far superior game to every D&D iteration except 4e (of which I consider them equals in awesomeness and they share a lot of overlap in conception and genre conceits).

But "going strong"?