Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6366916" data-attributes="member: 996">That's one theory, but /all/ it's based on is that 1) there was a vocal and vitriolic edition war on-line, and 2) the game rolled rev 'early.'Now, we know from an insider leak that D&amp;D was pitched to Hasbro as a potential 50-100 million/year (something like 2 to 5 times the guestimated revenue of the whole RPG industry)&nbsp; 'core brand,' and that 4e, with substantial development investment and DDI &amp; VTT, was supoised to be that bid.&nbsp; The early rev-roll certainly meant that D&amp;D had failed to fit that goal, and, it's last two incarnations (Essentials &amp; Next/5e) point to a much lower investment in it, but, also, happily, much more reasonable expectations.&nbsp; So point 2 is prettymuch moot.&nbsp; The edition war was nasty and arguably damaged the perception of D&amp;D for any uninitiated who happened to be exposed to it.&nbsp; But, it was mostly on-line, where a few vocal posters can make a lot of noise, often each one on several different forums, maybe with several different alts.&nbsp; Edition warriors like to project their extreme opinions on imagined majorities or 'large segments' but no one has any numbers that back up such claims.&nbsp; At the table, the edition war hardly showed up.&nbsp; If some 3.5/Pathfinder players groused at eachother about how aweful 4e was around the 3.5 table, it was just echoing in the chamber.&nbsp;&nbsp; Same for 4e tables - the odd, &quot;wow, this is so much better than 3.5&quot; doesn't make much difference.&nbsp; Unless some troll intentionally sat down to play a game he hated, edition warriors were self-segregating IRL.&nbsp; So, while (1) might have contributed a little to the relative success of Pathfinder by cementing a sub-culture that rallied around it, it was unlikely it had much effect beyond that.&nbsp;So you're not saying they lack imagination, just that they choose to avoid being entertained by it.&nbsp; Bottom line is still that you're blaming the preferences of 'kids these days' for not climbing that &quot;high wall&quot; around the hobby, rather than taking a look at the wall and seeing how it might be given the Berlin treatment.&nbsp;You're doing a fair imitation.&nbsp; Tell you what.&nbsp; See how many posts you can go without attacking 4e or 'the last six years...'&nbsp; As a bonus, we'll see how many times I can quote you without defending it.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; &nbsp;Yes &amp; yes.Doesn't mean either statement is false, of course.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6366916, member: 996"] That's one theory, but /all/ it's based on is that 1) there was a vocal and vitriolic edition war on-line, and 2) the game rolled rev 'early.' Now, we know from an insider leak that D&D was pitched to Hasbro as a potential 50-100 million/year (something like 2 to 5 times the guestimated revenue of the whole RPG industry) 'core brand,' and that 4e, with substantial development investment and DDI & VTT, was supoised to be that bid. The early rev-roll certainly meant that D&D had failed to fit that goal, and, it's last two incarnations (Essentials & Next/5e) point to a much lower investment in it, but, also, happily, much more reasonable expectations. So point 2 is prettymuch moot. The edition war was nasty and arguably damaged the perception of D&D for any uninitiated who happened to be exposed to it. But, it was mostly on-line, where a few vocal posters can make a lot of noise, often each one on several different forums, maybe with several different alts. Edition warriors like to project their extreme opinions on imagined majorities or 'large segments' but no one has any numbers that back up such claims. At the table, the edition war hardly showed up. If some 3.5/Pathfinder players groused at eachother about how aweful 4e was around the 3.5 table, it was just echoing in the chamber. Same for 4e tables - the odd, "wow, this is so much better than 3.5" doesn't make much difference. Unless some troll intentionally sat down to play a game he hated, edition warriors were self-segregating IRL. So, while (1) might have contributed a little to the relative success of Pathfinder by cementing a sub-culture that rallied around it, it was unlikely it had much effect beyond that. So you're not saying they lack imagination, just that they choose to avoid being entertained by it. Bottom line is still that you're blaming the preferences of 'kids these days' for not climbing that "high wall" around the hobby, rather than taking a look at the wall and seeing how it might be given the Berlin treatment. You're doing a fair imitation. Tell you what. See how many posts you can go without attacking 4e or 'the last six years...' As a bonus, we'll see how many times I can quote you without defending it. ;) Yes & yes. Doesn't mean either statement is false, of course. [/QUOTE]

Verification