BryonD
Hero
There is a lot of truth there. There seems to be a great deal of presumption the debate needs to compare the 4E option to the 3E option. In my opinion both of those are wrong.
3E was well past its peak. I don't think it was completely done yet. But it was going down hill. So simply sticking to that path wasn't a good long term plan. But that doesn't mean that all other choices were equally valid.
I'm still convinced that a big part of the drive behind change in path was an attempt appeal to the WOW fanbase instead of the traditional tabletop RPG fanbase. (Standard disclaimer: I *do not* think 4E is WOW). The fact that no other MMO comes close to WOW should be the first clue how hard that is. Trying to do it with a tabletop game is starting with both hands tied behind your back, a blindfold, and a gag. But they tried. And, in the long run, that path was probably worse than sticking with 3E. Yes, there are a lot of people playing it. But there are also a lot of people playing 3E (Pathfinder or not).
We are less than three years in and we are debating which side of equity D&D and a game based on a prior version take. And that doesn't even account for people who play 3E but don't buy PF stuff. We are talking about the 800 pound gorilla. We SHOULD be talking about how many orders of magnitude ahead it is.
4E was a wrong path to take. That doesn't mean it is anything less than a great game and that the people who love it should love it any less. But it does not have the same appeal to the market. If it did there would be some 3E hold-out website somewhere. And the hold-outs would be making these posts there and 99% of the gaming community would never even know the conversation was happening.
4E was intended to "bring in new gamers". Every edition has brought in new gamers. People interested in this type of game come along at a steady pace, mostly by just getting to the right age, but through other paths as well. But that is fairly static. And 4E isn't doing any better. (I even suspect it is doing a touch worse) But there is no evidence whatsoever that it is achieving the goal of expanding the gamer base overall. As a percentage of society, tabletop gamers are still right where they should expect to be.
But in the effort of trying to make the pie bigger, D&D has lost a portion of the pie they already had. They still have a whole lot of the pie. But they got less pie.
And you can't underrate the value of the brand name. D&D is huge. The name alone will carry a system a certain distance.
WotC needed something new. They did not need to be in a rush to try to replace D&D numbers with WOW numbers right away. But they needed to be making a change. If WotC had changed to a non-3E game that looked at its fan base the same way 3E did, they could have been much more successful. And the system does matter a lot. People still play 2E. But, legal issues aside, if Paizo had decided to build Pathfinder on 2E it would be in a clearance bin by now. And, if WotC had made a different 4E and Paizo had made this new game called Pathfinder, which was exactly 4E only without the D&D name it would be, at best, winding down by now and probably already out of print.
(No disrespect to the Paizo guys, obviously those choices would never actually happen)
Make a new game. But make it FOR tabletop gamers. 3E was designed that way. Paizo saw that and with just some tune-ups and a new coat of paint they were able to get a lot of life out of it after its "life cycle" was done. When 4E has been out as long as 3E has, there will be some hold-out website somewhere.
