Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5702979" data-attributes="member: 22779">If that is your only criteria, then I'd say they have succeeded.  While 4e might not be as popular as 3e was in, say, 2001, it's certainly not a failure.  From all appearances, it's healthy and growing.  Between now three (Living campaigns, Encounters and Dungeon Assault) organized play initiatives and a pretty solid DDI subscriber base, I'd say 4e is healthy and growing.When people talk about how popular 3e was, they always want to point to 2000-2003 (ish) during the boom years and how 4e isn't living up to that.  Thing is, D&D, throughout its history, only lived up to that level ONCE and that what in in the very early 80's.  Yet, D&D has been pretty healthy for most of its lifetime.Could it be better?  Probably.  Then again, we have two distinct branches of D&D which combined, appeal to a much, much wider audience than ever before.  How can this not be good for D&D as a whole?  I don't want consolodation.  I don't want there to be a unifying D&D.  I don't want any color so long as all I want is black.  I want choices.  Choices are good.  Choices mean that the hobby will continue to grow and competition means that the companies providing material for my hobby have to be better all the time.This is all good.</blockquote>