Is the Split a Bad Thing?

[BryonD]

I'm saying that the really vitriolic hate filled edition warring that we saw a lot of back in 2008, though not as much now, was and is fueled by a subconscious fear that one's preferred edition will be abandoned.

I think truly is much more opinion than reality. And further, I think it comes down to perception. Specifically, I think "vitriolic hate filled" and "fear" represent a significant misinterpretation of what happened.

I think that there were very real differences in opinions and preferences. I certainly know I was on the front line of the "war" all along. But the idea that I felt either "hate" or "fear" is simply amusing. But I do think it is easy to see how some people may have found writing off my opinions as "hate" to be easier than trying to understand how my point of view could co-exist with theirs.

And it certainly goes both ways. I was told many times that the only reason I didn't like 4E was that I was not open to change. And yet now some of the exact same people are up in arms at the slightest hint that 5E may be coming.* Or at least I perceive them as "up in arms". They are not afraid of 5E in the least. They are just completely happy where they are now. I could say "fear" and "vitriol". And I'd be just as wrong as those who accused me of it. Even though the only really major difference is the total quantity of people expressing the opinion.

(That isn't to claim that things didn't get heated. Often.
It is to claim that not accepting the other side as legitimate had everything to do with it, and particulars of either side did not)






* - For the record, I'm completely betting against a 5E announcement this month. I think it is way to soon regardless of how 4E is doing.

 

[Glade Riven]

I think the biggest difference is that this time there is the Internet. Yes, the internet has been around for quite a while, but there are exponentially more people online today than back in the year 2000 (in the year two-thoousssaaand!). Internet communication has a tendency to exasperate nerd rage (face it - we're nerds). The second biggest difference is that the lack of an OGL left many third parties high and dry that supported the 3e/d20 system.

As much as I kinda like 4e, it has turned out to be the N64 of roleplaying games.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The main problem, as far as I am concerned, is the acquisition of new players. If the split hurts this then the split is bad. If the split helps with this then it is good.

I think that it is bad, but I could be wrong.

WotC had a chance at this for Essentials, but it looks like it died aborning. It is why I have hopes that 5e might be along the lines of BECMI - we need the new blood.

Pathfinder struck closer to the mark with the PBB, but I don't know how well that is working. The Borders that we used to have was actively pushing gaming, I even ran a few games for newbies at their manager's request. (And a game for the manager and his crew.)

The B*A*M that replaced Borders doesn't seem to care. Half the shelf space, shared with computer game books, back corner location, uninformed staff - but they have five full shelves of Bibles, Bible covers, and books on Christian Living.... A bit of market research would have done them some good - instead they are complaining that sales are down 75% from the Borders that used to have the location.... We had one of the most successful Borders in the nation.

The Auld Grump

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.
/snip

Of course, the only thing that could take the market away from D&D was D&D itself. A problem that WOTC created by allowing the OGL to be used.

Where was the mistake really made depends an awful lot on who you feel like blaming.

 

[BryonD]

Of course, the only thing that could take the market away from D&D was D&D itself.

It certainly worked out this way. But it doesn't mean that it is the only way it could happen.

The marketing advantage of being the industry standard and recognized brand is massive. If you can not get exposure then quality is, unfortunately, not relevant. In a perfect world an awesome game could grow from a single group based on word of mouth. But it virtually never works that way.

But at the same time, a quality product with some exposure can knock-off the existing king.

The OGL did not give away the brand. From a really picky point of view D&D did not take away from D&D, Pathfinder did. But your point clearly stands because the root is that the EXPOSURE that brand provided absolutely transferred. Once two products both had comparable footing on the exposure front it comes down to mass market appeal. But if a new game showed up tomorrow, somehow got the needed foothold AND also had better overall appeal then both D&D and Pathfinder could get left behind. Yes, that is a huge "if". But it is possible.

In the end though it seems that you point shows that the split clearly exists and also that it is a very good thing. If the brand had a lock on exposure, then sharing that exposure will force more innovation.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course, the only thing that could take the market away from D&D was D&D itself. A problem that WOTC created by allowing the OGL to be used.

The OGL only made cloning 3Ed/3.5Ed easier: since you can't copyright game mechanics, a determined design team could have put out a RPG mechanically identical to those versions of D&D to satisfy that market even without the OGL.

 

[kitsune9]

A split is only bad when it no longer meets the profit targets and threatens the brand itself. Your DDI example is 66k subscriptions up from 60k. We as gamers may cheer this number, but some bean counter at WotC or Hasbro expected or demanded 250k, a far higher number. A split makes this number impossible because now gamers who would have stuck around to play 4e have other choices--they have Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, True 20, or all the OSR retroclones. And there's support for these games to some degree so they won't be coming back to WotC anytime soon.

Now, from a choice perspective, a split is a good thing because if any brand happens to die, there are other games. If Pathfinder goes belly up someone else can take the OGL and make a Pathfinder clone. Or I can go play an OSR game and buy the support that comes out for it. Or I can go pick up Fantasy Craft. Or play 4e. I will not be lacking choices.

 

[Hussar]

The OGL only made cloning 3Ed/3.5Ed easier: since you can't copyright game mechanics, a determined design team could have put out a RPG mechanically identical to those versions of D&D to satisfy that market even without the OGL.

This certainly worked for OSRIC.

but some bean counter at WotC or Hasbro expected or demanded 250k, a far higher number. A split makes this number impossible because now gamers who would have stuck around to play 4e have other choices--they have Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, True 20, or all the OSR retroclones. And there's support for these games to some degree so they won't be coming back to WotC anytime soon.

Is that 250k statement something you know or a possible situation? You've made it a statement here, but, I'm wondering if you left out the "if" at the beginning.

Really, I'm not sure if 250k would ever have been reasonable. I mean, it would be great if it happened, but, I'm thinking that sub numbers in that range would be pretty pie in the sky.

However, a split only makes this number impossible if you believe that the gamer base is static - that it isn't growing.

Personally, I think the increased exposure from both sides, appealing to two very different crowds, is a good thing. I don't want a 3.5 or Pathfinder game. It's not to my taste. I want a 4e game because it appeals to me. A nominal 5e that tries to bring you back will lose me because my tastes are not your tastes.

3e D&D had lost me a long time ago really. I kept playing because of the modules, but, even then, I got out of D&D for a couple of years even before going to 4e because I was dissatisfied with 3e. 4e has really energized my D&D gaming again. I've actually created my own adventures for the first time in years.

So, yes, I do believe the split is a very good thing. It has given the players the best of both worlds. Those that want a 3.5 D&D style game have Pathfinder. Those that are OSR have an embarrassment of riches for choice. And, yes, 4e players have lots of goodies too.

I think that instead of a period of slow dying that some are pointing to, we are entering a period of sustainable growth where everyone's tastes get catered to.

 

[Aldarc]

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

These divisive undercurrents definitely existed under 3.0, but I agree that 3.0's "unity" was definitely an illusion. The proliferation of "alternated" products under the OGL demonstrated that quite well.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, that's a point Aldarc. If everyone was happy under the 3e umbrella, why did we have such vocal fans of alternative d20 systems. Whether True 20, M&M, or the bajillion other variants, did we honestly have unity under the d20 system?

Additionally, again, if we had unity, why did so many publishers abandon 3e/3.5? Even before 4e was announced, we were down to three (including Paizo and obviously WOTC), maybe 4 print publishers doing 3.5 D&D material with any regularity. Most of the big guys had long moved on - Mongoose, AEG, White Wolf (with it's Sword and Sorcery line), and most others were either no longer doing any 3.5 D&D stuff, or were only dipping a toe in from time to time.

Did 4e cause the split or simply highlight what had already happened?