Is this what you went through with 3rd Edition?

[pawsplay]

And plenty of people would NOT be playind D&D at all, who WILL be now that 4E will be out.

Oh, to be sure. I just wonder if it's a larger market than the people would have preferred a more incremental upgrade that stuck closer to what made 3e work.

 

[BryonD]

If the criticism can be applied to every other edition, then how is it a criticism of 4e?

Some are a lot more equal than others.

How is that not saying that 4e is an objectively bad edition? You are flat out stating that this is the WRONG SOLUTION.

I don't think anyone can argue that 3e wasn't a great commercial home run. I also recall arguments. But I also recall that the closer to release we got the more 3E won people over and 3rd parties were lining up to get in on it. Were there similarities? Oh yeah. But there are differences as well. By the time 3e was being demoed, there was clear consensus that it was going to work. As 4e grows closer the wedge only deepens.

4E will be THE game. And a lot of people will play it. I even fully expect that before Christmas WotC will be making comments about success beyond their expectation and hopes. But wait and see. 4E has a huge hurdle to overcome if it wants to be objectively claimed to be a financial peer to 3E. 3E rallied many lapsed D&Ders. And despite the handful of returners now, it seems clear that 4e will start out having knocked off a chunk out of their core fan base. Let's see where 4e stands, objectively, in 2010.

 

[Hussar]

4E will be THE game. And a lot of people will play it. I even fully expect that before Christmas WotC will be making comments about success beyond their expectation and hopes. But wait and see. 4E has a huge hurdle to overcome if it wants to be objectively claimed to be a financial peer to 3E. 3E rallied many lapsed D&Ders. And despite the handful of returners now, it seems clear that 4e will start out having knocked off a chunk out of their core fan base. Let's see where 4e stands, objectively, in 2010.

Now, there's a cogent criticism that I can get behind. ((Not too sure what it has to do with what you quoted, but, that's a different thing)) I think that's completely fair to say. D&D was dying when 3e came out. TSR had gone belly up. The market dominance of D&D was being chipped away pretty hard at the time.

None of that is true today. And, I agree that 4e has a much larger hurdle in trying to overcome its predecessor than 3e did.

I'm not too sure about the wedge you mention and I think that it's more an internet thing, but, time will tell.

But, this is a bit of a separate issue from what I'm discussing with KM. I have zero problem, as I mentioned before, with someone having a specific criticism of the game. I have my own as well. But, my beef is exactly the same one I had with 3e critics and that is vague, loose terms being tossed around as if they were facts.

Take the videogamey bit for a second. KM states pretty plainly that 4e is leaning more towards video games. Yet, in another thread, we have the following excellent post:

This interactivity - the ability of the PCs to find creative solutions to problems which may not have occured to the DM, and the ability of the DM to make changes to the game world on the fly in response to what the PCs do, or even depending on whether the PCs succeed or fail - is one thing that computers are not yet able to do, and it is thus going to be one critical factor in distinguishing a role-playing game with a human DM from one run by a computer.

From this post in Rodney Thompson Non Combat Encounters

So, right there, you have the game going in the EXACT opposite direction from video games. You cannot do that in a video game. You cannot have a player change the parameters of the game during play in a video game, but, 4e will encourage players to do exactly this.

Now, whether or not you like this idea, that's up for debate. That's fine. That's a legitimate criticism in my mind. But, to stand up and say that 4e is leaning towards more video gamey play is no more valid today than the criticism of 3e was. In fact, it's actually less.

 

[Vempyre]

Take a look here. Those go back to September of '99.

I think the list archives pre-Oracle went the way of the dodo, though. I've been trying to find the pre-September '99 Mystara archives for a while.

Links to .exe files are a no for me, sorry! (even if hosted on wizards.com)

 

[FadedC]

I think Bryon makes a reasonable point too. 3E had the major advantage that it was replacing a system that many might argue was already dead. 4E is replacing by far the most dominant system on the market. It's quite reasonable to expect 4E to be less of a financial success then the release of 3E.

On the other hand I still think they will make much more money by releasing 4E then they would by sticking with 3.5 and just pumping out sourcebooks. I know tons of people who may still play and reasonably enjoy 3.5 but they are no longer that excited about it and have given up on buying any new books for it. Most of these people will probably buy the 4E books.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

On the other hand I still think they will make much more money by releasing 4E then they would by sticking with 3.5 and just pumping out sourcebooks.

I don't think there's any question of that.

I do agree with the speculation that the extent of radical changes in 4E, combined with what is known so far of the GSL, is an attempt by WotC to regain control of D&D. I don't think it can be argued that 4E changes go far beyond what are needed to fix the fundamental problems that 3.5 has.

I don't really understand why they want to do that, though, except to the extent that presumably they think it will ultimately make them more money. The disconnect, for me, is that 3E and 3.5 were wildly successful. Sure, they also allowed some smaller companies to become successful and self-sustaining, but 3E and 3.5 under the OGL made WotC a lot of money. Why change that model now? Why do they not want 4E to be open design?

 

[MichaelK]

Many friends of mine continue to play 2e. Some of them are willing to play 3.x to find a group other are not, yet all of them claim (and I believe them) to prefer 2e. They will probably continue to happily play it for the next decade.

If 4e comes out and doesn't win me over then I will follow their example and continue to play 3.x, depending on how good/bad 4e is I may or may not be willing to play 4e in order to find a current group.

I have a nearly full collection of 3.x (and I plan on buying any missing ones second hand or on discount when 4e comes out), combined with a collection of OGL and d20 modern publications I have enough material to run 3.x games for the next century at least.

I have no problems with WOTC bringing out a 4th edition, in fact I think it's wonderful. I'm dissapointed that they are scrapping the OGL though and I'm not going to play 4e unless it's better than what I've got.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

This just seems rude and inflammatory, and I know inflammatory. People who don't like 4E are a "bunch of chicken littles."? Hardly. Most of the concerns and dislikes about 4E seem a lot better formed than those about 3E (primarily because we're all 8 years older, I'd imagine).

He wasn't "on-target" about ENWorld, as you seem to admit yourself. I'm sure other places had those arguments, but this place didn't see much of them. Plus, I've "been around a while" and I don't find all of those comments to be "eye-roll inducing", so saying that experience automatically equals some sort smug superiority to the "chicken littles" seems a bit off.

I apologize it was inflammatory. I just got a little annoyed by your implication that I was a johnny come lately who didn't know what I was talking about when I've been around these parts for ages.

I do disagree though that EnWorld was somehow the exception to all the discussion and complaining that was on the net in those days about how 3E was going to ruin the game. It was prevalent here as well.

But that isn't really here or there at this point. Its eight years ago and now we've got a whole new edition to argue about!

 

[billd91]

How is that not saying that 4e is an objectively bad edition? You are flat out stating that this is the WRONG SOLUTION.

Ahem. Go back to the line pretty much directly above what you quoted and note the "IMO".

For what it's worth, I agree with KM. I'd prefer a systematic solution that anyone can use than one limited to a particular critter concept.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
I don't really understand why they want to do that, though, except to the extent that presumably they think it will ultimately make them more money. The disconnect, for me, is that 3E and 3.5 were wildly successful. Sure, they also allowed some smaller companies to become successful and self-sustaining, but 3E and 3.5 under the OGL made WotC a lot of money. Why change that model now? Why do they not want 4E to be open design?

Why isn't it still open? The GSL is every bit as open as the old STL. Yes, it is not as open as the OGL, true, but, that doesn't make it closed. It's still an open license. I think that you'll find that the decision was made after a number of companies abandoned D&D to use the OGL to make their own self sufficient companies that now directly compete, rather than complement, WOTC.

99% of the material out there could be published under the STL. It was only after the debacle with the Book of Erotic Fantasy that the OGL became THE thing to publish under. But, the difference between the two licenses is very minor and wouldn't affect most publishers. Where the difference comes in is with publishers like, for example, Mongoose, who are using the OGL in combination with licensed products to publish games that have nothing to do with D&D. Yes, I know about the ideas of network externalities, but, I'm thinking that maybe, allowing companies to piggyback on the thousands of dollars of development you pour into your system without supporting your system isn't good business sense.

Ahem. Go back to the line pretty much directly above what you quoted and note the "IMO".

For what it's worth, I agree with KM. I'd prefer a systematic solution that anyone can use than one limited to a particular critter concept.

So, because it's an opinion it somehow changes the fact that he's saying that the system is bad? How does that work?

I can appreciate prefering a systematic solution. Heck, I probably agree with you. But, I wouldn't say that a systematic solution is somehow the RIGHT solution and anything else is the WRONG solution. I would say that this solution isn't one that I agree with and wonder why it was being done this way. But, to presume that you can make objective value judgments based on your or my personal preference is, well, rather presumptuous.