Something Awful leak.

[hanez]

And to some degree, I think he has a point -- some 3e fans didn't give 4e much of a chance.

My active 3e group moved wholeheartedly to 4e when it came out. Then we took a break after more then a year of 4e from frustration of TRYING to like the game and not liking it.

I moved to arcana evolved/pathfinder, while other players just quit. We just reunited a week ago playing AD&D 2nd edition totally gridless, with THACO and the whole deal. There are a lot of positives to 2e that we only noticed due to our problems with 4e.

Either way it made us question playing d&d, be tired of it, take time off and move to other products. Talk about splintering.

 

[Ratskinner]

The history of D&D is a bunch of challenges for non-spellcasters that spellcasters don't care about. 4E was the first edition that said 'a challenge should be challenging for every class' and did it.

Which is a totally different problem from "having to keep all ability scores high." Just saying.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's been stated in a few articles that Pathfinder is now the #1 selling RPG. If that is true, (I can't independently verify it), then it doesn't matter if Paizo is doing well for how big they are or not. It's still doing better than WotC when it comes to the Pathfinder / 4E divide.

How is it not true that the 3.5 years it was the sole edition means it wasn't successful? Do you really think that if Hasbro and Wizards were making money like they expected and the players embraced the system, they'd have scrapped it already? Based on previous experience, no, no they wouldn't have. They would strap the saddle on and ride it into the ground.

Now, going forward, their options are to either A) try and recapture the people they lost and make a system they will enjoy and potentially lose the 4e Neo-Grognards D). B) Build off of 4e and keep the playerbase they have now, which doesn't appear to be enough of a market to satisfy their sales numbers C) Hope to hades that they can make a system that appeals to both.

I think you'd find it HIGHLY informative to read Ryan Dancy's column here, as well as all the interviews you can find that have been online in the last several months by WotC people. I think it makes the whole picture much clearer in some respects.

The short of it is that WotC has known for half of forever that each new edition sells well for a while and then tapers off. Basically core books are by far the thing that sells best, the better supplements may do reasonably well too, but overall ongoing support for existing editions after the first several years is not making you a ton of money. They also know that the audience is getting older and smaller overall. The game has simply NOT been bringing in new people fast enough to replace old players for a long time. Each new edition sheds a few more holdouts and does a bit less well than the one before it, but if you stop putting out new editions, you don't have a viable business.

This is all what motivated WotC to put out 4e in the first place. The realization that the game has to shift its emphasis and change in some ways to keep appealing to a new audience. SPECIFICALLY their goals for 4e were to have an edition that was "digital friendly" (IE can be incrementally built on and material can be presented in things like DDI tools, etc) and provided less prep work and system mastery to play and enjoy. Additional features include improved human factors (cleaner presentation, more work frontloaded onto char gen vs table time, greater consistency for easier learning, etc).

In order to sell all of this to management (and there's a long and sordid history of why this was necessary) they had to establish that they could increase sales to the 'major product line' level within Hasbro (and this is sales of the actual game itself, not even counting any other stuff like novels, video games, etc). Effectively it is an impossible goal. At best it could be achieved only with perfect execution and a highly optimistic uptake of DDI. Regardless of what 4e looked like it was effectively never going to do that.

Notice that Paizo really doesn't factor into this. Whatever level of success PF has had, and nobody is arguing it isn't successful, WotC making basically PF themselves wasn't going to fulfill their goals and probably wouldn't have been funded. Nor is PF so different from 3.5 that it probably would have been very palatable to existing customers as a version roll by itself. It would have just been more of going down the same track that the game has gone down for 30+ years and they already know in the long run that leads nowhere.

Now, maybe without the existence of PF 4e would just continue on for another several years and be a 7 or 8 year edition instead of a 5 year one. Who knows? At some point they'd still be looking at the situation and still seeing they needed to do more, and doing basically what they're doing now.

Overall it doesn't matter. 5e needs neigh 100% uptake and pretty much perfect execution. So it is not going to succeed if it is the "trash the 4e direction" edition. Nor is it going to succeed if it doesn't work out the limitations of 4e. It MUST do both, or else it is actually worse than doing nothing in every respect. That's the long and short of it, and you can do the research and find the information that will back that up. They've worked themselves into a corner and thus WOTC at least cannot choose to support only one group of player's desires and not another. There's a REASON why this is the "unite them all" edition, because if EVERYONE isn't going to buy in, then its game over. I don't know what happens to D&D in that case, but presumably it doesn't involve the people who work on it now having jobs anymore, lol.

 

[Ratskinner]

Several reports over the last year have suggested Pathfinder has overtaken WotC as the best-selling RPG. I thought one of those reports actually received a brief writeup here at ENWorld, to the effect that Pathfinder is now doing twice as well as 4e. And I have to say that's broadly consistent with what I'm seeing in my neck of the woods.

Several people in my 4e gaming group feel frustrated by this turn of events because they see 4e as clearly "better" than what came before and foresee a future in which they become the 'Grognards' they're currently so quick to disparage. And I have to tell them in all honesty that they may be right about this. Nobody likes to be told they're a minority in the marketplace, or that a product they've come to know and love won't be carried forward, but that's the simple truth of what's happening here.

One particular member of my 4e group feels an especially keen sense of injustice over this turn of events, perceiving that 3e fans deliberately sabotaged 4e through their stubborn refusal to acknowledge its merit and are now being reward for their intransigence with a new edition. And to some degree, I think he has a point -- some 3e fans didn't give 4e much of a chance. But there isn't much point in rehashing those kinds of grievances, because there will always be people who reject one edition or another out of emotion rather than evidence. All we can do now is for each of us, as individuals, to take a stand against this kind of thinking and give the new edition the fair shot we may feel our own favorite edition was denied.

Broadly speaking, this matches my experience as well. Last time I checked, the FLGS was having trouble moving much 4e-specific material at all (Dungeon tiles and other WOTC products are still selling pretty well, though.) Pathfinder groups dominate the local scene, AFAICT.

The only thing I would quibble with (at least WRT my area) is the "didn't give 4e much of a chance". 4e took over the local gamersphere...and then lost it after about 2 years. Now, I know many 4e fans hate to read/hear it, but the nigh-universal response I've gotten when asking the local former 4e-ers is "Great Game, but it didn't really feel like D&D to me." Many times they add details like "great for tactical skirmishes" or something like that.

Obviously, that's not something inherent to 4e, but in the relationship an individual gamer has with 4e. The 4e faithful sincerely feel like 4e is a great successor to the D&D name (I assume, anyway.) At the same time, for whatever ineffable reason, the Pathfinders and OSR folks didn't. I sympathize with the 4e die hards (there are a lot of things I absolutely love about 4e, especially compared to 3e), while agreeing that it doesn't feel like D&D to me. It must suck to be a fan of the "New Coke" of roleplaying games...even more so if you don't agree that 4e is in that position.

I'm just hopeful for 5e being able to mend this divide (even if partially), but I think it will take some innovative game design to do it. Which is why I find these speculative arguments somewhat overblown. In the end, we just don't know how it will be done.

 

[Ratskinner]

There's a REASON why this is the "unite them all" edition, because if EVERYONE isn't going to buy in, then its game over. I don't know what happens to D&D in that case, but presumably it doesn't involve the people who work on it now having jobs anymore, lol.

Personally, I suspect it involves Hasbro putting the IP on a shelf, and perhaps marketing video and board games. At least until some day in the far off future when someone wonders "whatever happened to D&D?"

Honestly, I often think that the real mistake is thinking that D&D is a viable continuous product line. Perhaps the best way to do D&D is to put out a burst of ~8 new edition books, wait 8-10 years while reprinting them as necessary (and maybe putting out Dragon and Dungeon) then do a remake/update. Avoid the cost and expense of keeping people around to write books for ever-smaller fractions of the market.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Overall it doesn't matter. 5e needs neigh 100% uptake and pretty much perfect execution. So it is not going to succeed if it is the "trash the 4e direction" edition. Nor is it going to succeed if it doesn't work out the limitations of 4e. It MUST do both, or else it is actually worse than doing nothing in every respect. That's the long and short of it, and you can do the research and find the information that will back that up. They've worked themselves into a corner and thus WOTC at least cannot choose to support only one group of player's desires and not another. There's a REASON why this is the "unite them all" edition, because if EVERYONE isn't going to buy in, then its game over. I don't know what happens to D&D in that case, but presumably it doesn't involve the people who work on it now having jobs anymore, lol.

Here's the thing. They now KNOW that 4e style won't work, they lost too many people when they switched. They know people won't switch from 3.x, PF, 1st or 2nd to the 4e system. How many of those 4e people (many of whom played older versions) won't switch back if they fix some of the balance issues and make it a more 3.x base? That...they don't know.
They KNOW PF is selling well, making money on a game they created. Selling better than the replacement even. If PF is selling more books than 4e, and used 3.5 PHBs/DMG/Monster Manuals sell for near their original retail cost, why would they even consider a 4e BASED game.
4e elements with the gamey-ness removed? Sure. 1st and 2nd edition stuff, updated? Definitely. 3.x stuff? Assuredly.

It can't be only 3.5 Part 2, but it sure as heck can't be 4e part III either.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here's the thing. They now KNOW that 4e style won't work, they lost too many people when they switched. They know people won't switch from 3.x, PF, 1st or 2nd to the 4e system. How many of those 4e people (many of whom played older versions) won't switch back if they fix some of the balance issues and make it a more 3.x base? That...they don't know.
They KNOW PF is selling well, making money on a game they created. Selling better than the replacement even. If PF is selling more books than 4e, and used 3.5 PHBs/DMG/Monster Manuals sell for near their original retail cost, why would they even consider a 4e BASED game.
4e elements with the gamey-ness removed? Sure. 1st and 2nd edition stuff, updated? Definitely. 3.x stuff? Assuredly.

It can't be only 3.5 Part 2, but it sure as heck can't be 4e part III either.

There's a problem with this concept though. They made 4e because 3.5 wasn't cutting it. Now, I'm not saying that to criticize 3.5, but clearly if everything was just peachy then why change it? Yet as soon as 2006 they began to do just that. Just because "PF is selling well" FOR PAIZO doesn't mean WotC wants to be back there again. If they did they'd have made something like PF or just kept on with 3.5 for another 3-5 years.

I am not at all convinced there's a market for a WotC 3.5-like either. Why would people buy that when they presumably are still perfectly happy playing 3.5 and PF? If there was no game that was what they wanted that was SUPPORTED then sure, maybe. As it is, nobody has shown me any evidence that such a game wouldn't just sink without a trace and put barely a dent in PF. Thus we're left with your option of something based on 4e core presented in a way that gets people playing other editions interested and gives them an excuse to get into the more updated game without having to admit that maybe there were a lot of things 4e did right.

Here's the thing. I think there is VAST scope for making a more appealing game using 4e. It seems almost trivial to me to speed up combat by 50%, jigger some numbers around, move stuff around so there don't need to be so many feats and powers, etc. There's really no reason why such a 5e can't support Vancian casting and any and all of those things. It can be presented in a different style, emphasize different things, get rid of or modify some things that tend to get in the way of some styles of play, etc. In a sense such a game is quite a bit the legacy of 3.x as well, since 4e really doesn't do a LOT that is entirely new, and you can choose options for the really new parts that are more like old stuff (and I think a lot of the new parts can be presented in a fashion that is more palatable to fans of older editions).

Now, there are going to be some 4e purists who are annoyed by some of that, and some people from other editions that still won't like it, but we're as close to both meeting the business goals of WotC (which remember includes a clean core that can be incrementally built on with stuff in DDI, and stuff that is structured so that it can be served up in things like the DDI Compendium, CB, and MB). Those traits of 4e are going to have to go forward in some way ANYHOW, so why not do that? 5e will ultimately have to move in that direction anyway.

 

[keterys]

As far as I understand things, Pathfinder is not making enough money that it wouldn't also merit a new edition from WotC's perspective.

End of the day, they're looking for a _big_ success, not a "really good in RPG terms" success. It's an order of magnitude difference.

Ryan Dancey actually had an interesting bit about how the RPG market as a whole may be doomed, that might also be worth a read for those who want to cite problems with any particular edition. Certainly if you compare it to video games. Or some card games. I'm not sure how it compares to board games.

 

[pauljathome]

So, if people with other tastes want to see a new game succeed, well, they're going to have to compromise, and not just pay some casual lip service. I don't know where that leaves WotC, probably in a very bad place, but such is life.

Unfortunately, I have little incentive to compromise. Just like you have 4th edition I have Pathfinder. If DndNext isn't better than Pathfinder FOR ME then I'll try and stick with Pathfinder.

At some level I don't really care if DndNext succeeds. I certainly do NOT want to see it succeed at the expense of Paizo (I prefer Paizo to Wotc as a company). Now, I DO want to see the industry as a whole thrive but its not at all clear that DndNext is the vehicle for that.

The only reason that I'll compromise is probably the only reason that you'll compromise. If (and only if) DndNext is good enough that it grabs the huge majority of players and so makes it hard for me to find Pathfinder players.

This means that WOTC has an incredibly difficult job. They have to convince most existing Pathfinder players that DndNext is better than Pathfinder, they have to convince most existing 4th Edition players that it is better than 4th Edition, and they have to convince a reasonable number of NEW players that it is both better than any other D&D AND worth playing at all.

 

[dkyle]

Ryan Dancey actually had an interesting bit about how the RPG market as a whole may be doomed, that might also be worth a read for those who want to cite problems with any particular edition. Certainly if you compare it to video games. Or some card games. I'm not sure how it compares to board games.

It seems like board games are humming along fairly well. Certainly nowhere near the same feeling of DOOM that seems to pervade the RPG industry.

I think the big differences are:

* Board games tend to have much less "play time" per purchase, resulting in more frequent purchases. My impression of the board game community is that most just dabble in individual board games. At least that's how I, and the people I generally play with, play them. I don't think it's unusual for a purchased game to be played less than a dozen times, amounting to a few tens of hours of playtime. Whereas an RPG book can last years, spanning hundreds of hours of play. Splatbooks try to increase repeat sales, but there's a big resentment in the community towards them. Whereas noone complains when Mayfair brings out "yet another" board game.

* Playing RPGs is a big commitment, which can turn differences of opinions into fractures in the community. There are plenty of board games that aren't my favorites, but I'm OK with playing every once in a while, for the sake of playing with my group. On the other hand, someone in my group wanted to run an OSR game. I gave it a shot, but ultimately I just don't like that kind of a game, and wasn't willing to do a whole campaign of it, and now we're doing something else instead. Groups with less history than ours might have just dissolved instead.

* Playing RPGs is hard. Board games might be complicated, but ultimately, they're about understanding specific, well-defined rules. RPGs, even ones as regimented as 4E, have a lot more going on, and require a lot more judgement calls on what is and is not permitted.

* RPGs aren't really mass market anywhere in the world. Board games have Germany, where families play newly published board games that only board game geeks even know about in the US.