Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6384692" data-attributes="member: 87792">Indeed.&nbsp; I'd describe the 90s cohort as &quot;White Wolfers&quot;.&nbsp; TSR was churning out shovelware at about 5 books per month, but most of the new players in the 90s were playing the younger, cooler game in preference to D&amp;D.&nbsp; (The really huge cohort was the early 80s, of course, with the Satanic Panic - and selling 750,000 copies of the rules per year).We have a large cohort with 3.0 that also includes the d20 glut.&nbsp; For a brief while, thanks to a complete game revamp and the OGL we had a draw of cool as well as an onramp.&nbsp; D&amp;D managed to present itself as cool briefly to the sort of crowd who was finding the FSF cool - and d20 is a whole lot less arcane than D&amp;D (and looks a lot less arcane than it is).&nbsp; It fell away as all such gluts do.&nbsp; There was, so far as I can remember very little such effect for 3.5 - it was the edition no one wanted or asked for and came out to general grumbling - but very decent profits as most people switched.And then with 3.5, with WoW, and with the end of the d20 glut things fell away.&nbsp; A lot.4e was meant to reverse the trend.&nbsp; There are lots of reasons WotC messed it up including a murder/suicide derailing DDI - but it didn't grow the base.&nbsp; Pathfinder has muchbetter surrounding values even if I don't care for the game but they're barely in a position to grow the base either.&nbsp; The hooks for starting up just aren't there other than knowing people in the community.So other than Mearls (and much has been written about his relationship with 4E) you're citing two designers of 3.0 and the designer of the OGL.Thing is all three of them are right.&nbsp; 3.0 was a major high point - and there's been attrition ever since.&nbsp; How much has anyone seen 5e outside the bounds of the FLGS?If D&amp;D has half the players it did in 2000 then by my reckoning that means 4e was pretty successful.&nbsp; I've presented Google Trends before on the subject - but between January 2004 and December 2007 D&amp;D lost over half its google searches.&nbsp; This is what I mean by 3.5 haemoherraging people.&nbsp; Even if D&amp;D has only a third of the people it had in 2000 that wouldn't surprise me - and most of the loss was under late 3.0 and 3.5.Did 4e ever reach the heights of 3.0?&nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; All it did was almost held steady.&nbsp; Which is a pretty huge thing when you compare it to what came before.Even counting PF I think the overall fanbase has shrunk quite a lot.&nbsp; The high point was in the 80s when they were selling 750,000 copies per year.&nbsp; I'd be surprised if 3.0, 3.5, or even 4E+PF sold that in total.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6384692, member: 87792"] Indeed. I'd describe the 90s cohort as "White Wolfers". TSR was churning out shovelware at about 5 books per month, but most of the [I]new[/I] players in the 90s were playing the younger, cooler game in preference to D&D. (The really huge cohort was the early 80s, of course, with the Satanic Panic - and selling 750,000 copies of the rules per year). We have a large cohort with 3.0 that also includes the d20 glut. For a brief while, thanks to a complete game revamp and the OGL we had a draw of cool as well as an onramp. D&D managed to present itself as cool briefly to the sort of crowd who was finding the FSF cool - and d20 is a whole lot less arcane than D&D (and looks a lot less arcane than it is). It fell away as all such gluts do. There was, so far as I can remember [I]very[/I] little such effect for 3.5 - it was the edition no one wanted or asked for and came out to general grumbling - but very decent profits as most people switched. And then with 3.5, with WoW, and with the end of the d20 glut things fell away. A lot. 4e was meant to reverse the trend. There are [I]lots[/I] of reasons WotC messed it up including a murder/suicide derailing DDI - but it didn't grow the base. Pathfinder has [I]much[/I]better surrounding values even if I don't care for the game but they're barely in a position to grow the base either. The hooks for starting up just aren't there other than knowing people in the community. So other than Mearls (and much has been written about his relationship with 4E) you're citing two designers of 3.0 and the designer of the OGL. Thing is all three of them are right. 3.0 was a major high point - and there's been attrition ever since. How much has anyone seen 5e outside the bounds of the FLGS? If D&D has half the players it did in 2000 then by my reckoning that means 4e was pretty successful. I've presented Google Trends before on the subject - but between January 2004 and December 2007 [I]D&D lost over half its google searches[/I]. This is what I mean by 3.5 haemoherraging people. Even if D&D has only a third of the people it had in 2000 that wouldn't surprise me - and most of the loss was under late 3.0 and 3.5. Did 4e ever reach the heights of 3.0? Nope. All it did was almost held steady. Which is a pretty huge thing when you compare it to what came before. Even counting PF I think the overall fanbase has shrunk quite a lot. The high point was in the 80s when they were selling 750,000 copies [I]per year[/I]. I'd be surprised if 3.0, 3.5, or even 4E+PF sold that [I]in total[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification