Non-D&D 4Ed

[Aldarc]

You're missing the point. This isn't about which edition you prefer: this is a speculative thread about what 4Ed's full potential really is.

4E's full potential is what you make it out to be. No more. No less. If people are projecting their "legacy issues" on 4E, then they are not necessarily using 4E to it's full potential.

 

[Nagol]

If it didn't carry the D&D name, then what would make it different from the dozens of other fantasy RPGs out there?

Mechanics, intellectual property they can use freely, a respected imprint, and access to a very large distribution network?

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I usually agree with you DA. This time I think you are way off base, and I think the negativity swirling around WotC/4e has creeped in to your soul. .


Either I disprove your point, or I am the exception to your rule.

• I played AD&D.
• I bought some 2e sourcebooks when they were released, but we still played AD&D.
• We played a handful of non D&D sessions of other RPGs. We might have played a session or two of Battletech and Car Wars. Heck I am not sure those count as RPGs?
• Then I stopped playing for ~17 years. I did not play any RPG, during this time. So in essence, all I ever played was AD&D.
• in early 2009, for various reasons, I returned to D&D and it's new "4th Edition". I said, "So wow, in almost 20 years it only went from 2 to 4. Interesting! I wonder what 3rd edition was? (I still have no clue)"

Right or wrong, D&D is the RPG game I play. If 4e were released branded as "SkillChallenger" instead I quite simply would not have played. I actually would not have known it existed. I can also say I know of several other people with a story similar to mine.

I guess I just question your base assertion, that without "the name" 4e would have been "bigger" (whatever that really means).

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I probably wouldn't ever have looked into it if it hadn't been the next edition of D&D.

I'm not saying this because I believe it's a bad system - because I actually think it's a good system. I'm saying it because I am aware that there are dozens of equally good or better systems out there that I've not yet looked into simply because they're not as well known as the D&D brand.

Must spread XP ......

 

[MrMyth]

I don't think 4E calling itself D&D has reduced its potential - the designers demonstrated they were working to make the best game they could, regardless of what changes needed to be made. Nor do I think that if it wasn't called D&D, it would have found a greater audience - I imagine it would have done fine, but no better than most other random RPGs that, in the end, simply don't have audiences in anywhere near the amount that D&D does.

 

[Umbran]

I think those 2 factors alone could have boosted the game's sales-

I think you vastly underestimate the power of the D&D brand name.

It is a good game, but there are lots of mechanically good games. Being a good game isn't enough. It takes something special to differentiate one game enough to lift it above the mass of others that experience mediocre sales.

 

[Mort]

I've come to the conclusion that 4Ed could have been bigger than it is if it were not released under the D&D badge. My rationale is as follows:

1. Were it not called D&D, it would not have alienated 3.5Ed players who didn't want a substitute for their favored system.
2. Without legacy issues, the game's mechanics could have been "unshackled" and made a more flexible game.

I think those 2 factors alone could have boosted the game's sales- it would have stood on its own merits more than relying on comparisons to what had gone before (for good or ill).

I have to disagree with this part - There is no way 4e would have sold nearly as well without the D&D name attached. Branding matters - A LOT. Without the D&D name attached I would be shocked if 4e managed a third of its current sales figures.

Now as to the separate question of could it stand on it's own two legs as a system, or perhaps even be better for it? Perhaps, personally I DM Ebberron and I think 4e is perfectly suited to the magic feel of the setting (very large amounts of common low magic, but rare on the big effects etc.). So for me it is a very good fit - I DMd Ebberron with 3.5 but found it very shoehorned (which is strange since that is the system the setting was designed for, still felt this way though) - but have no such issues with Ebberron 4e.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

First, this isn't about "proof". There isn't any. Statement #1 is derived from generalities about business and the self reporting that goes on around here. From the second category, we have innumerable posts about how people don't like 4Ed because it "nerfed" this or "ditched" that.

From the former, there are the realities of how & why businesses launch products "from the makers of _______", even in entertainment. Branding matters, but there's more than one way to leverage branding than just slapping the brand name on something and saying "here is the new one."

How many movies have you seen because of a particular director or actor's involvement being prominently displayed in the ad campaign? New books have writers names in highly-visible print- often along with "from the writer of"- that are not directly linked to prior work (IOW, not a sequel). Why do you think the NFL made it clear that Arena League Football was a one of their products? The answer is they're leveraging their existing brand identity to improve the odds of success for a new product...without directly impacting the established brand. Just based on consumer psychology, if you've ever bought an RPG besides D&D, but D&D is among your favorites, "by the makers of D&D" would probably have gotten you to give the game a chance...while diminishing the likelihood of having strong set of negative emotional responses about "what has been changed." "By the makers of D&D" lets them put the D&D brand name on something without having to remake D&D; it leverages the name without requiring the new product be the same.

Second, legacy issues clearly limited the mechanical design of 4Ed. Without legacy issues, 4Ed could have:

1. Ditched alignment completely
2. Would not have needed a class-based strucure, meaning no need for multiclassing, more flex in feat utilities, and so forth.
3. Could have provided a template for race designs not locked into "D&D" expectations
4. Could have had more variation within the powers themselves: for example, A/E/D/U versions of each could represent either "overcharging"/ lesser=>greater versions of spells (like in Arcana Unearthed) or actual variants of the spells- what would a MM Daily look like? Or an At-Will version of Fireball?

...Not that I agree all of those would be changes I would want personally.

 

[Mort]

I get that this is a thought experiment more than anything else – but the big question for me – why on earth would WoTC release 4e as anything other than the next D&D incarnation?

Because then the big, big question: what happens to D&D? WoTC certainly wasn’t going to go to Paizo and say – hey why don’t you run with this –we’re going a new direction! The other alternative would be for WoTC to release a Pathfinder like fix 3.75 if you will, but then they have 2 competing fantasy systems running at the same time – a massive recipe for disaster.

I think part of 4e’s problem was not so much how different the system was, but WoTCs somewhat bungling rollout and subsequent issues (Gleemax etc.) but as far as releasing it as a different system (even “by the makers of D&D) I think that would have been an even bigger disaster.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I get that this is a thought experiment more than anything else – but the big question for me – why on earth would WoTC release 4e as anything other than the next D&D incarnation?

Why would Coke make anything other than Coke? Why would Chrysler make cars other than Chyslers?

Because they're trying to capture market share with people who don't necessarily want Coke or Chrysler exclusive of all similar products...but who nonetheless trust those companies.

Because then the big, big question: what happens to D&D? WoTC certainly wasn’t going to go to Paizo and say – hey why don’t you run with this –we’re going a new direction! The other alternative would be for WoTC to release a Pathfinder like fix 3.75 if you will, but then they have 2 competing fantasy systems running at the same time – a massive recipe for disaster.

That is the conventional wisdom, yes. But conventional wisdom isn't necessarily true. There are companies that manage to produce products that cover similar ground but still cater to different audiences- see the aforementioned Coke and Chrysler. Even within the RPG biz, you see that this is possible. Look at the original WoD games: while mechanical underpinnings were similar, their line of Mage, Vampire, Werewolf, Changeling, etc., were not balanced to be played with each other. Not well, anyway. (Later editions changed this.)

As THE major player, the proverbial 800lb gorilla, WotC has the resources to pull this off...IF they properly differentiate the products, of course.

WotC early on did try to release another FRPG, Everway, alongside D&D. It failed, not because people didn't like it, but because WotC simply didn't have the cash flow to support Everway. They also tossed Primal Order. About the only thing they kept besides D&D were the cash-cow CCGs. Times have changed- WotC has much deeper pockets and cash flow than they did in the early days of 3Ed. It is entirely possible that they could have invested in and supported a non-D&D FRPG.

I think part of 4e’s problem was not so much how different the system was, but WoTCs somewhat bungling rollout and subsequent issues (Gleemax etc.) but as far as releasing it as a different system (even “by the makers of D&D) I think that would have been an even bigger disaster.

If 4Ed were released as another product from "the makers of D&D", the rollout goes much more smoothly, since they wouldn't have felt the need to dis the previous edition, there wouldn't have been the same baggage about license cancellations (which may not have occurred), etc.