Is the Split a Bad Thing?

[haakon1]

I to have seen the issue of not being able to find players who want to play the same edition.

I have more than enough players, but my problem is getting people together to game. Nevertheless, I've had one perspective player say "no" when he heard it was 3.5e instead of his preferred 4e (which he can't find players for).

The 3.5 people who switched to Pathfinder are at least spending money on the hobby.

I'm still doing 3.5e, but I buy Pathfinder stuff (and old 3.5e stuff). I miss the variety of the 3.5e -- having just 1.5 publishers of new 3.5/PF stuff (Paizo and Kobold Quarterly) isn't really as much of it as I'd like to buy.

I think WOTC has learned a lesson and that is people won't just switch because it is DnD if the game changes to much. . . . The problem with that is that a lot of people did not switch and they lost a revenue stream.

Except for mini singles and 3.5e stuff, I'm kinda done with WOTC. They may have learned their lesson, but I dread what "cure" they will come up with will "overcorrect" in some obnoxious way. Of course, since my expectations are superlow, perhaps they will surprise me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't buy the premise. Lots of people were unhappy with 3.5, sure, but there were lots of games out there for them, from True20 to Conan to non-d20 games. These other games didn't cause "splits." The split happened when 4E was announced -- or more specifically, when it became clear that 4E was going to be a different animal and that it was not going to be supported by 3rd parties the way 3.x was. Paizo stepped up with Pathfinder only because there was no OGL for 4E. Would some have stayed back or left D&D? Sure -- just like at every other edition change. But without the twin factors of an extreme shift in the "D&Dness" of D&D, and the fact of the OGL empowering Paizo, there would be no split.

I don't particularly disagree with most of that.

Having said so, I still remember all the talk (message boards and in person) in the 3e era. There was a lot of debate within the D&D community about a lot of substantive issues within the game. There was on many boards (including ENW) one section for charop discussion, another for character and plot discussion, and a general section. Now I don't see that sort of debate within the various communities, only between them.

While hardly homogenous, I think the communities that exist now of 4e, PF, 3.X, and various other rpgs are much more unified than the broad 3e community was at its height. I'm hard pressed to say that this is bad. What I'm getting at is that the people from communities other than mine are the same sort of people who never clicked in my game to begin with. That they're now officially part of a different group only confirms what I already knew. This isn't to say that they're bad people, merely that they don't enjoy my style, I don't enjoy theirs, and the differences between us are now represented by which game we play.

The 4e announcement certainly changed the social climate around the game, it was certainly but even if WotC hadn't released 4e as we know it, or had instead released a revised version of the existing game (again), I think the discontinuities between various gaming styles would still exist within the D&D community at large, albeit not quite as loudly.

 

[Reynard]

Having said so, I still remember all the talk (message boards and in person) in the 3e era. There was a lot of debate within the D&D community about a lot of substantive issues within the game. There was on many boards (including ENW) one section for charop discussion, another for character and plot discussion, and a general section. Now I don't see that sort of debate within the various communities, only between them.

I can't speak to 4E -- I don't play it, nor do I frequent 4E specific boards -- but Pathfinder discussion doesn't seem substantially different to me than 3.x discussion did -- there's still a contingent that is hyper focused on crunch and balance issues, and a contingent that doesn't seem to care about that and is more interested in "story" or whatever passes for it. And those two groups, among other side-groups, conflict every time a new supplement comes out.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I can't speak to 4E -- I don't play it, nor do I frequent 4E specific boards -- but Pathfinder discussion doesn't seem substantially different to me than 3.x discussion did -- there's still a contingent that is hyper focused on crunch and balance issues, and a contingent that doesn't seem to care about that and is more interested in "story" or whatever passes for it. And those two groups, among other side-groups, conflict every time a new supplement comes out.

I feel like I've almost never seen a PF player be critical of anything Paizo releases; it's quite striking to me. Then again I'm not one and I don't claim to know the whole community.

Guess this is my way of proposing an agreement to disagree.

 

[billd91]

I feel like I've almost never seen a PF player be critical of anything Paizo releases; it's quite striking to me. Then again I'm not one and I don't claim to know the whole community.

Guess this is my way of proposing an agreement to disagree.

A little time on the Paizo board will quickly disabuse you of the notion that PF players aren't critical of things Paizo releases. Even a little time in the Pathfinder section of ENWorld can show you players critical of some Paizo developments.

 

[Celtavian]

I feel like I've almost never seen a PF player be critical of anything Paizo releases; it's quite striking to me. Then again I'm not one and I don't claim to know the whole community.

Guess this is my way of proposing an agreement to disagree.

You very obviously have never been to a Pathfinder board or are willfully stating an untruth. You must not have even been to the Pathfinder Forum on this site. Even as you wrote this, there are a few players that post on EN World's Pathfinder forum writing house rules for their campaign because they are not satisfied with the way Paizo products handled a particular class, spell, or aspect of the game. They have been vocal against a particular product or aspect of a product. The happen to enjoy the overall ruleset, even if they don't enjoy it all. There are plenty of 4E players that do exactly the same thing. It is doubtful that all 4E players and GMs are happy with everything in the game and thus write extensive house rules to add or subtract as they see fit for their game style and tastes. Happens with every game.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't particularly disagree with most of that.

Having said so, I still remember all the talk (message boards and in person) in the 3e era. There was a lot of debate within the D&D community about a lot of substantive issues within the game. There was on many boards (including ENW) one section for charop discussion, another for character and plot discussion, and a general section. Now I don't see that sort of debate within the various communities, only between them.

While hardly homogenous, I think the communities that exist now of 4e, PF, 3.X, and various other rpgs are much more unified than the broad 3e community was at its height. I'm hard pressed to say that this is bad. What I'm getting at is that the people from communities other than mine are the same sort of people who never clicked in my game to begin with. That they're now officially part of a different group only confirms what I already knew. This isn't to say that they're bad people, merely that they don't enjoy my style, I don't enjoy theirs, and the differences between us are now represented by which game we play.

The 4e announcement certainly changed the social climate around the game, it was certainly but even if WotC hadn't released 4e as we know it, or had instead released a revised version of the existing game (again), I think the discontinuities between various gaming styles would still exist within the D&D community at large, albeit not quite as loudly.

There was never a split in D&D like the one that came about when 4E was released. You can ask guys like Morrus who built his business up during 3E, any of the game publishers like Mark CMG or the Necromancer games publishers. Or any of the game designers that have worked with D&D over the years. I've been playing D&D for 30 years now. I was around when EN World was Eric Noah's site. I have never seen the community split like it did with 4E. 4E was the cause of the split, not differing opinions on the direction of the game. Some went with the new version, some wanted to stick with the old.

You cannot estabilsh a new market unless a split is big enough to support that market. No ediition of D&D caused a large enough split for another game company to come in and take a large slice of the market away from what was once The Market Big Dog. This was an unusual and unforseen mistake by WotC's market research.

As has already been stated, pen and paper RPGs are not the biggest money makers for a company like Hasbro. Hasbro most likely purchased D&D because it was the market leader in pen and paper RPGs. Companies generally like to pick up properties with strong, established market leadership even in obscure hobbies.

The move to 4E caused a schism which damaged what Hasbro had purchased: the market leader in pen and paper RPGs. You can expect they are not happy and most likely have issued an edict within the company to re-establish D&D as the dominant market leader and take back what was lost to Paizo as much as possible. Or they are contemplating selling the D&D property since it is not as powerful as it once was or retiring it for a while until they decide what to do with it.

But make no mistake, 4E created the schism. And some group at WotC made assurances that the people that didn't like 4E were a marginal group that weren't worth taking into account. When the schism happened and another company built themselves up off WotCs marketing mistake, you can bet Hasbro brass wasn't happy. And still isn't.

We gamers go off how we feel. If we feel we like a game better, then we play it and are passionate about it. Hasbro has no such attachment to D&D. All they care about is where they're at in the market and how much revenue they are generating off D&D and WotC. As far as they're concerned, WotC lost a substantial part of their market. They want it back or they have some other plan for D&D we do not see. But wheels are churning behind the scenes at WotC. I think we'll see some moves made with a new edition to re-establish clear market dominance, not simply market leadership. That I have little doubt of. Whether it works or not, we shall see.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

Hasbro most likely purchased D&D because it was the market leader in pen and paper RPGs.

I suspect Hasbro bought Wizards of the Coast because of Magic: The Gathering. D&D came with it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I suspect Hasbro bought Wizards of the Coast because of Magic: The Gathering. D&D came with it.

That, plus (I suspect) they may have been attracted by the potential of the revenue stream from the D&D books & computer games.

 

[billd91]

I suspect Hasbro bought Wizards of the Coast because of Magic: The Gathering. D&D came with it.

I suspect the Pokemon card game was an even bigger inducement. Both Magic and D&D came with that.