FLGS and DnD?

[TheAuldGrump]

If 4e would have been called 3e and dropped in 1999, everyone (save perhaps the Gnarliest G'nards) would have loved it.

"Holy crap! I have *options* to choose from as my character advances? Wow!"

If 4e had dropped in 1999 I would have left D&D ten years sooner.

So if you equate 'would have despised the thing' as 'loved it' then, yeah, I would have loved it.... And consummated my love by leaving it on the store shelves.

Just because you love a game does not meant that anybody everybody else will.

The Auld Grump

 

[Niccodaemus]

I remember when 4e came out and read the DMG and PHB. Our first night playing 4e was hilarious! We laughed a lot while shaking our heads in disbelief. The first thing I did the next morning was to post negative criticism to WotC's board and to my amazement people actually didn't support my views. It took me a while to understand that there are actually people who defend that game. It was an eye-opening experience.

The lesson here is that don't disrespect any of the editions. They all actually have fans and fans don't need your disrespect. This was the first and last time I ever mingled with the edition war and I will never do it again.

There's a big difference between ragging on a game and offering critique. Looking to get back into playing after almost a decade away from the table, I wanted to understand what 4e was and wasn't, from the perspective of playing previous editions.

As I've mentioned, I've talked to people who don't like it and people who love it. But the consensus seems to be that it doesn't play like previous versions, and leans heavily towards tactical combat which relies on a battle grid and miniatures. That in itself is enough for me to look elsewhere for options.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Which is why I like CASTLE RAVENLOFT and WRATH OF ASHRALDOLON(?) as boardgames (They are kind fun) but I'm not a fan of 4E as an FRPG.

I will admit - those have tempted me more than 4e. Might be fun.

The Auld Grump

 

[billd91]

If 4e would have been called 3e and dropped in 1999, everyone (save perhaps the Gnarliest G'nards) would have loved it.

"Holy crap! I have *options* to choose from as my character advances? Wow!"

Considering that's what many of us did say when 3e came out (thanks to the feat system), I don't see that as a point of distinction for 4e compared to 2e.

I think we'd have seen a much bigger divide between editions than we ended up seeing between TSR AD&D/WotC D&D and the D&D resurgence we saw in the early 2000s would have been smaller by an order of magnitude or two. Coming after Players Option, I think 4e as a third edition would have been a serious blow to the D&D brand.

 

[Mercurius]

In before someone says "4E isn't D&D (to me")."

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

 

[Rechan]

If it's a mega chain, yes. It's a FLGS, then the repeat customer is your gig. Mislead them, and they'll never return.

That's not to say their opinion on 4E is right or wrong, but assuming for a second it was right, this is the proper way to treat a customer you need to return - tell them your honest opinion. If you just sell, you won't last a second season relying on repeat customers.

Assuming for a second it was right, then why are they even carrying the product if they are going to steer their customers away from it?

 

[talok55]

Considering that's what many of us did say when 3e came out (thanks to the feat system), I don't see that as a point of distinction for 4e compared to 2e.

I think we'd have seen a much bigger divide between editions than we ended up seeing between TSR AD&D/WotC D&D and the D&D resurgence we saw in the early 2000s would have been smaller by an order of magnitude or two. Coming after Players Option, I think 4e as a third edition would have been a serious blow to the D&D brand.

Yeah, I think that if 4E had been released in 1999 (especially with the GSL instead of the OGL) it would have done serious harm to the brand. It may have not killed D&D, but I think it wouldn't be nearly as popular. I don't think it would have been the main tabletop RPG anymore.

 

[Rechan]

I'd point out that if you go to Dragonsfoot or other Grognardian places, they will call 3e "not D&D". There were rantings in Dragon Magazine around 1999-2000 and are still a few postings on the net of how 3e is horrible.

A few years ago I sat in a guy's living room as he ranted about how 2e's saves were "more realistic" than 3e's.

 

[talok55]

I never said that 3E wasn't well received by some or that some never switched from 2E. I think it's pretty safe to say that the number of those that didn't switch from 3.0/3.5 to 4E is magnitudes greater than the 2e holdovers and probably would have been so for any hypothetical "4E being released as 3E in 1999" scenario.

 

[Mercutio01]

I'd point out that if you go to Dragonsfoot or other Grognardian places, they will call 3e "not D&D". There were rantings in Dragon Magazine around 1999-2000 and are still a few on the net of how 3e is horrible.

A few years ago I sat in a guy's living room as he ranted about how 2e's saves were "more realistic" than 3e's.

I was one of those guys up until just before 3.5 was released. Then I bought the core three books for 3.0, and not two months later I learned that 3.5 had been released. GRR!

In any case, I was more open-minded with 4E, but that business model moved away from my customer model, and I've since found most of my gaming to be indie games.