Is the Split a Bad Thing?

[TheFindus]

I think that the split was inevitable.
If I remember correctly, I felt back then that the stuff WotC produced for 3e in the end was, well, unremarkable and symptomatic. What I mean is that the spell compendium, for example, basically pointed out that there was too much stuff out there, that had to be compiled somehow to even have an overview. It was hard to loose track. The one product that I really liked was The Book of Nine Swords. And the game design in that book pointed to 4E.
I did not feel like playing 3e anymore, I was done with it, for mechanical reasons that have been told about 3e a lot of times. And I know lots of players who felt the same way. Of course, this is only anecdotal evidence and you might feel a different way (which is ok), but I had the feeling that a lot of people around me were not only ready to stop playing 3e, but really liked what 4E was. That is why we are playing 4E now. 4E was the reason I still play DnD.
Other people I know switched to Warhammer instead, some even play MERP. But not 3e.
So instead of asking how many customers Paizo won by sticking to 3e, I would like to know how many customers WotC would eventually have lost while sticking to 3e, say till 2010. And I would guess (this is hard, though), not a lot less like they have lost now.

I also do not expect WotC to provide support for all former editions of DnD. In my opinion, the whole concept of "togetherness in DnD" is false. All the bad stuff that was said in many many edition war threads (which really ticked me off so much that I stopped going to forums for quite some time - I have never understood and liked edition wars.) made me realize that we, as gamers, are generally not group hugging. Instead, we are very picky about what kind of games and editions we play. And if we are civil, we can talk about the different aspects of the games in a polite way and agree to disagree. Which is ok for me.

Also: since Paizo seems to be another big player these days, why not except them to fully support 4E as well? Do they do that? I don't think so, at least not in a meaningful way (but I can be proven wrong, of course, the Paizo site is down at the moment. I know, however, ENWorld does support 4E). And I do not expect Paizo to, either. Why support the competition?

 

[Mallus]

Right now I'm DM'ing AD&D and playing Pathfinder, with a 2.5 year 4e campaign on hiatus until someone agrees to run the end game.

I like The Split -- it simply means there are several versions of D&D for me and my pals to play... when we're not playing something else.

 

[Halivar]

The split came long before 4E for the person that matters most: me.

In all honesty, though, two years before 4E came out I was looking at new systems, including a home-brew dice-pool game that completely replaced D&D for me for a solid two years. I simply didn't want to play 3.x anymore, and was looking in a lot of places for a replacement*. I squeezed some new life out of it when we decided to use gestalt rules by default, but by the time 4E came along I was eager for something new.

As for the split... I don't think there is one. At the end of the day, each gamer is playing a d20 game that is almost identical to the hated *other* d20 system. When half the gamers out there are playing with dice pools or some such, then I might call it a split.

*EDIT: I should mention that I was also hard-core anti-WotC at the time, saying "I'll won't give WotC another thin red cent." Only to be roped back in by 4E.

 

[Windjammer]

Oh, it absolutely is. To date, the published campaigns and modules for 4E have been s hite, to put it starkly, and anything that momentarily rises above the mediocre (or rather, to the mediocre) gets hailed as a 'return to form', a 'true gem', 'one of the bestest D&D products ever', or whatever.

So why's the split bad? Easy. Loss of quality material.

Reason no. 1 the split was bad is that... Paizo abandoned 4E. D20 killed. Frankly, that's a serious beat to take. No adventure p4ths, no quality settings like Ptolus. Sorry WotC, but let's not kid here - you suck at writing that stuff, and your in house standards all but ensure that even talented freelancers produce hampered material.

But reason no. 2 the split was bad is that... with sales lacking, WotC abandoned 4E. I reckon Dark Sun was the last proper 4E product, and that's shockingly soon for so young an edition. After that WotC groped for a final straw, "Essentials", which re-wrote 4.0 instead of helping it with much needed additions (like... proper modules guys? seriously? just a bunch of core rulebooks again?), and ... that was it. Seriously. Instead of producing quality stuff for an edition which badly needs it - and not just Arcane Power 5 or Another 10000 Magic Items, book 3 - they hired out the only print products to freelancers so that they can work on 5E. I mean, seriously, by mid 2010 this edition was already over - how pathetic is that?

So, yes, of course the split is bad. Paizo is cracking out quality adventure p4ths, so many that one of the keenest questions for the company and its fans is WHICH THEME they have not covered yet, because they can't help repeating stuff already covered (soon - the third p4th on pirates! yay!) And at the same time, that other game got... Scales of War? Chaos Scar? You MUST be kidding me!

So in the left corner: a wholly over saturated edition with more quality content than any sane customer could ever have use for. And in the right corner: an edition that doesn't have one contender that will show up in the 'Best 50 adventures in D&D's first 40 years'. I think that's so bad it's not even funny.

Edit. Changed all the spelling on adventure p4th. Enworld, here's a suggestion: how about you let me advertise your product when I feel like it?

 

[Dragonblade]

4e split the game community, but only in the sense that it destroyed the illusion of unity that existed before

4e gave those of us disaffected, disillusioned, and disheartened, and tired of all the issues we had with 3.x an actual published alternative game that addressed those issues. Issues that had not been addressed by True20, Conan d20, or any number of d20 clones that were essentially the same game but with the serial numbers filed off.

For years, I WANTED a game where I generally don't carry lingering curses, diseases, negative levels, etc. from encounter to encounter. I WANTED a game where I get to save vs. spells EVERY round instead of sitting out and watching my friends play (Words cannot adequately describe how much I loathe that mechanic). I WANTED a game without level drain, where monsters have self-contained stat blocks, where melee characters get cool cinematic attacks that keep pace with casters, where my PC can be a cinematic hero from level 1, and where casters don't NEED A CROSSBOW!!

These aren't desires that suddenly materialized with the advent of 4e. I wanted a game like this since I first played 1e AD&D 25+ years ago. Before 4e I played a heavily house ruled 3e that already included many of these elements.

With 4e, WotC just gave me and players and DMs like me a voice and a game I could call my own. Not a house ruled home game, but an official published version of D&D. WotC gave us legitimacy.

Now this is purely my speculative opinion, and I don't pretend otherwise, but I feel this also is the root of edition wars.

The legitimacy that fans of cinematic 4e style play have now gotten is perceived as a threat to old school gamers who fear that somehow their preferred style is going to fade away. I see it as a subtle undercurrent to every thread contrasting 4e and Pathfinder. Its not enough for Pathfinder to succeed. 4e HAS to FAIL. It has to fail, so that old school play is vindicated as the only true D&D. Otherwise, there is a fear that the new paradigm that 4e introduced might start to creep into Pathfinder or other games.

Conversely, 4e fans feel the need to passionately defend a play style they have desparately desired for so long and are scared to death of losing if WotC doesn't succeed or if 5e takes a step backward towards a game style that they felt suffocated them for so long.

I don't think we'll ever put edition wars to rest, because it involves doing what people have been incapable of doing for thousands of years, tolerate the beliefs of others without fear of change.

But here is some perspective, with the OGL old school gamers will always have their preferred version of D&D. 3.x/Pathfinder will live forever regardless of what Paizo does in the future. But us 4e fans are on much shakier ground. This is why what happens with 5e is so important to me.

But for Pathfinder fans wishing for 4e to fail, that might be a pyrrhic victory. I take solace in the fact, that even Paizo would be foolish to literally let 50% of the Tabletop RPG market drift away and they aren't going to capture that market by trying to sell them Pathfinder as it exists currently. I suspect a sizable contingent of 4e fans would come over to Pathfinder and eventually their numbers and presence are going to exert influence both subtle and overt on its future development. I know, because that's exactly what I would do.

Additionally, even though half the market is PF and half is 4e, now that the split is out in the open there is no going back. 4e fans will no longer tolerate an edition of the game that doesn't serve their needs, and its now demonstrated that both camps are probably equal in size. Its not just a niche minority of D&D players. Meaning 50% of the market is going to look for an alternative if 5e doesn't build on the foundation 4e started. That seems like a powerful incentive for any company positioned to take advantage of it.

 

[billd91]

I don't think we'll ever put edition wars to rest, because it involves doing what people have been incapable of doing for thousands of years, tolerate the beliefs of others without fear of change.

But here is some perspective, with the OGL old school gamers will always have their preferred version of D&D. 3.x/Pathfinder will live forever regardless of what Paizo does in the future. But us 4e fans are on much shakier ground. This is why what happens with 5e is so important to me.

You've convinced me. I'm now looking forward to 5e and later iterations of D&D so that you can take your turn to be on the receiving end of the old "fear of change" canard.

Seriously, can't we let fear of change BS get a rest?

 

[TerraDave]

I think the unity around 3.0 was the anomaly, and what we have now is more of a return to normal.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't think we'll ever put edition wars to rest, because it involves doing what people have been incapable of doing for thousands of years, tolerate the beliefs of others without fear of change.

That is a big part of it, but there is also a thread running through it that somehow gamers "owe" fidelity to an edition in order to create a bigger pool of players for the common gaming good (whatever that is).

I first realized just how strong this was when I shared a few Fantasy Hero house rules and got some serious pushback by a couple of people. Now if anything would be expected to be "do it your own way," FH would be it. Yet, these guys explicitly said that if I ran it my way, then the players at my table were being trained into bad habits that would make them unavailable for some future FH game at another table. Nevermind that we were having fun my way. Nevermind that 2/3 of the players had never played anywhere else but at my table (and still haven't, more than a decade later). Like Babbage, I failed to understand the kind of confusion that could prompt that statement.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

I don't doubt that there are debates within a community, but house rules are not necessarily an indication of dissatisfaction with a gaming community. If anything, they represent a committment to work within that game. Certainly my extensive houserules for 3e reflect my positive initial experience with the core rules and my appreciation for the 'toolbox' mentality that went into their design. And a certain level of critical analysis is entirely healthy and doesn't reflect the degree of discord that led to 4e's rather radical design. Certainly there are others in this thread that seem to hold my 'untrue' viewpoint:

4e split the game community, but only in the sense that it destroyed the illusion of unity that existed before

---

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.

That we will.

 

[caudor]

The big split, I think, is one of the reasons there have been other splits...like the split within 4e itself. Perhaps split is the wrong word for 4e. The word I prefer is smeared. 4e slowly was smeared over time with constant errata, big math changes, changes in direction, and finally an official non-new-edition with Essentials.

Why? I think WotC, noting the big split, starting bobbing and weaving...thrashing about for a way to patch things. The DDI has been the only saving grace for 4e so far, and it got off to a very rocky start.

If you take a look at how the first core books have become outdated, then it is easy to see that 4e is not a unified edition, but a series of verying editions smeared together without an official label.

So for me, the split is bad because 4e simply smeared into a mess of an edition.