Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5429795" data-attributes="member: 957">90% seems an arbitrary and really high target.But it certainly can, and has, pleased a much higher portion than it is now.No offense to the Dragonsfoot / old-school crowd, but it has only gained ground since the 4E fragmentation, and yet it remains far smaller then either the D20/OGL crowd and the 4E crowd.&nbsp; Yes, you can point to individuals who are big fans of each.&nbsp; It doesn't make them representative of equal portions of the community.&nbsp; The way I discovered that 3E was coming was I search Dungeons and Dragons and found Eric Noah's new site (before it even had a forum).&nbsp; I certainly would&nbsp; not call things identical, but the internet soap box was well in place for the full 3E cycle.Yes, there were people who HATED 3E.&nbsp; But the proportions were nowhere near the same as now.&nbsp; Honestly, a very common critical comment aimed at 3E was that it was so popular that it was limiting innovation.&nbsp; To many designers were focused on D20 and new ideas were not being heard.&nbsp; That is not a problem we are having with 4E.If the only thing we had to go on was counting voices on the internet, then we wouldn't know anything at all.&nbsp; But there are plenty of other suggestions that the market is DEEPLY split now.&nbsp; And even the arguments coming from the 4E apologists are drifting.&nbsp; For example, for months now we have been hearing one source after another talk about how the books are not selling very well.&nbsp; And the fans would scream in unison that their data was incomplete and therefore meaningless.&nbsp; And while it is certainly true that the data is limited (not meaningless), it was funny to me that a dozen so-so data points was inadequate evidence, but blind faith and nothing else was proof of success.&nbsp; However, now the arguments have shifted to why the low book sales are just to be expected and don't mean anything.There are 4E haters who try to paint everything in absolutes.&nbsp; And they are wrong and make easy targets for avoiding the real issue.&nbsp; But, the real conditions don't change.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5429795, member: 957"] 90% seems an arbitrary and really high target. But it certainly can, and has, pleased a much higher portion than it is now. No offense to the Dragonsfoot / old-school crowd, but it has only gained ground since the 4E fragmentation, and yet it remains far smaller then either the D20/OGL crowd and the 4E crowd. Yes, you can point to individuals who are big fans of each. It doesn't make them representative of equal portions of the community. The way I discovered that 3E was coming was I search Dungeons and Dragons and found Eric Noah's new site (before it even had a forum). I certainly would not call things identical, but the internet soap box was well in place for the full 3E cycle. Yes, there were people who HATED 3E. But the proportions were nowhere near the same as now. Honestly, a very common critical comment aimed at 3E was that it was so popular that it was limiting innovation. To many designers were focused on D20 and new ideas were not being heard. That is not a problem we are having with 4E. If the only thing we had to go on was counting voices on the internet, then we wouldn't know anything at all. But there are plenty of other suggestions that the market is DEEPLY split now. And even the arguments coming from the 4E apologists are drifting. For example, for months now we have been hearing one source after another talk about how the books are not selling very well. And the fans would scream in unison that their data was incomplete and therefore meaningless. And while it is certainly true that the data is limited (not meaningless), it was funny to me that a dozen so-so data points was inadequate evidence, but blind faith and nothing else was proof of success. However, now the arguments have shifted to why the low book sales are just to be expected and don't mean anything. There are 4E haters who try to paint everything in absolutes. And they are wrong and make easy targets for avoiding the real issue. But, the real conditions don't change. [/QUOTE]

Verification