The fragmentation of the D&D community... was it inevitable?

[shadzar]

Our fighters are seldom completely useless

I am wondering where that came from also. Seems a group of people decided to write out the game as some mathematical equation where Class X > Fighter.

In games I play in everyone works together and we don't see a fighter because even slightly useless, nor has a fighter character's player felt they were useless.

 

[Umbran]

4e looks - and from many accounts, plays - like a kneejerk reaction to "fan microverse" sheep-like forum mantras. Interestingly, mantras based on the rules "on paper", as it were. Not in actual play.

...if you never saw fighters find themselves completely useless; if you never saw someone get frustrated because only spellcasters were allowed narrative power and they wanted to make a mythical swordsman hero, then either you and your players never dove deeply into the game, or your players did see it and went out of their way to self-regulate.

Okay, so now we are between the rock and the hard place - one side claiming the problem does not really exist and the other claiming that only those who didn't look hard enough didn't see the problem.

Both of these are dismissive absolutisms. People are probably going to get angry, annoyed, and the rhetoric will get worse. But we can avoid that.

Please, try to accept that others can have problems you don't.

Please, try to accept that you don't necessarily know why they don't see the problems you do, because you weren't at their table.

Discussion where information gets exchanged is a wonderful thing. But life is too short for unproductive argument.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Personally, I think 4E is a direct result of WOTC taking the Pepsi challenge and choosing Jif.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Plenty of people hated 3e for those exact problems.

Of course they did. You'll note I didn't say "nobody had these problems". I said the exact opposite of that.

But if everybody had the problems you had with 3E, where did all the Pathfinder players come from?

And let's be honest here: Not everybody who's chosen to stick with 3.5E (or migrate to Pathfinder) thinks it to be some sort of perfect game. The game has problems. Problems which can very easily become systemic once you reach the teens.

But there are two questions here--

One: Was it necessary for 4E to abandon the core gameplay of D&D in order to solve those problems?

Two: Was the player base's dissatisfaction with those problems sufficiently large and sufficiently universal to make abandoning the core gameplay of D&D palatable for them?

I think the answer to #1 is, "No."

And I think there's plenty of evidence, including Pathfinder's success, to suggest that the answer to #2 is also, "No."

I think that a 4E that was more radical than Pathfinder in solving some of the fundamental problems with the game (particularly at higher levels) WITHOUT sacrificing the core gameplay of D&D from 1974-2008 would have been more successful than either Pathfinder or 4E is today.

 

[Umbran]

But there are two questions here--

One: Was it necessary for 4E to abandon the core gameplay of D&D in order to solve those problems?

That's not the relevant question. Very few things in the Universe are truly, "necessary." Certainly, nothing in hobby game making is outright necessary. I don't think anyone ever wrote an RPG of any kind because it was really necessary.

The question should be more, "Did it make sense in the context of their perspectives (including their own business needs) to do it this way?"

I think the answer to #1 is, "No."

As noted, that answer has been, "No." for every game ever created, so it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. And we can only speculate as to the answer of my version of the question, as it depends on a context e don't have.

And I think there's plenty of evidence, including Pathfinder's success, to suggest that the answer to #2 is also, "No."

There's also plenty of evidence (including 4e's success - it isn't like the game has flopped, you know) that suggests the answer to #2 is, "Yes." You phrased your question subjectively (who gets to decide what is "sufficient"?), so the data can be made to say what you want.

 

[Beginning of the End]

That's not the relevant question. Very few things in the Universe are truly, "necessary." Certainly, nothing in hobby game making is outright necessary. I don't think anyone ever wrote an RPG of any kind because it was really necessary.

You seem to have read the first three words of the question and then skipped the rest of it.

As noted, that answer has been, "No." for every game ever created, so it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

That sounds weird. Let's give it a try:

"Was it necessary for Monopoly to abandon the core gameplay of D&D in order to solve the problems of D&D 3.5E?"

No? I dunno. I mean, the question sounds like complete nonsense. Maybe you just meant roleplaying games.

"Was it necessary for Burning Empires to abandon the core gameplay of D&D in order to solve the problems of D&D 3.5E?"

I guess if I squint really hard I can almost have that one make sense. Although I guess BE is more of a storytelling game, so let's try...

"Was it necessary for Ars Magica to abandon the core gameplay of D&D in order to solve the problems of D&D 3.5E?"

Nope. That's still nonsense. I'm going back to my theory that you didn't actually read past the third word of the question.

There's also plenty of evidence (including 4e's success - it isn't like the game has flopped, you know) that suggests the answer to #2 is, "Yes." You phrased your question subjectively (who gets to decide what is "sufficient"?),

Do you honestly feel that 4E enjoyed the same success rate in converting existing players of D&D that 3E did in 2000? Or that BD&D/AD&D did in 1977-79? Because that's the entirely non-subjective standard I actually set in my posts.

 

[Maggan]

I'll use your questions as a springboard for a tangent, if I may?

One: Was it necessary for 4E to abandon the core gameplay of D&D in order to solve those problems?

No, but it was necessary to abandon core gameplay to allow WotC to sell D&D to new or lapsed customers. The existing core gameplay wasn't bringing in enough customers for WotC to run D&D as the business they wanted. So they had to change the product.

Two: Was the player base's dissatisfaction with those problems sufficiently large and sufficiently universal to make abandoning the core gameplay of D&D palatable for them?

No, but I think that had WotC tried to sell the same game, to the same people, just with some tweaks to solve those problems, it would not have gone well for WotC.

Paizo can do that, i.e. sell basically the same game but "fixed", with the same content again (basic rules, game master rules, monsters and so on), since they are viewed as saving the game. They aren't hoisting the same rules on gamers once again to make a quick buck, so to speak.

EDIT: the very recent announcement of Ultimate Combat is to me an indication of this. Had WotC released yet another iteration of the Ninja and the Samurai for 3.x, the reactions would have been very different from what I expect Paizo is getting from their release.

It is my belief that had WotC tried the same, the backlash would have been significant and the business results would have been unsatisfactory for WotC.

Note that this doesn't mean that I believe that 4e was the only way to do a transition to another set of rules or another type of core gameplay to avoid the "you're selling the same game again, fiends!" trap.

Cheers!

/M

 

[shadzar]

It is my belief that had WotC tried the same, the backlash would have been significant and the business results would have been unsatisfactory for WotC.

Then why even try? Why not say HEY we don't know what we are doing right now with D&D, so we will make accessories and such for those that like it but here is a brand new [sword and sorcery/high fantasy] RPG game to take a look at while we figure out D&D.

They said they screwed up with 3rd and 3.5 by making 4th, so why not just say it out right rather than make fun of the players?

I think the backlash from 4th would have been equal, BUT they could have tried which would have put pressure on Paizo and not let them come this close to them in the race.

So would the backlash have been any different to trying to fix 3rd edition AGAIN, as opposed to that of 4th edition?

Either way, you are splitting the players and losing your "core audience" as your new product consumes part of it.

 

[Maggan]

Then why even try? Why not say HEY we don't know what we are doing right now with D&D, so we will make accessories and such for those that like it but here is a brand new [sword and sorcery/high fantasy] RPG game to take a look at while we figure out D&D.

Probably because it would have been a defensive move, which is not commonly seen as a successful business strategy to follow. Most business moves are offensive, aimed at growing the business.

So to implement a hold pattern for D&D, would probably have been very difficult for the people running the business. It goes against the instincts, I believe.

Note that even if they had done so, the rise of alternatives such as Pathfinder could still have been a feasible outcome. And it would have been interesting to see how 4e would have fared as a new Sword&Sorcery game, and what path Paizo would have picked then.

/M

 

[Beginning of the End]

Paizo can do that, i.e. sell basically the same game but "fixed", with the same content again (basic rules, game master rules, monsters and so on), since they are viewed as saving the game. They aren't hoisting the same rules on gamers once again to make a quick buck, so to speak.

It is my belief that had WotC tried the same, the backlash would have been significant and the business results would have been unsatisfactory for WotC.

I agree. Which is why I wrote:

"I think that a 4E that was more radical than Pathfinder in solving some of the fundamental problems with the game (particularly at higher levels) WITHOUT sacrificing the core gameplay of D&D from 1974-2008 would have been more successful than either Pathfinder or 4E is today." (emphasis added)