Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink

[Jester David]

You gotta compare apples and apples, not apples and oranges.

The fact is that you created very specific content and it's selling at 1/3 the rate of some of your other general purpose content. Given how specific it is, it's actually amazing it's selling as well as it is. Consider this: If on average there is 1 player at each table that wants a warlord (which may be a high estimate) and I'd estimate most players at a table would like additional feat options then Your warlord material should be selling at about 1/4 to 1/5 the rate of the feat book. It's actually closer to 1/3 which is impressive IMO. The stats you posted about your own sells are actually evidence that warlord material is as sought after as it should be.

Now there may be other stats that show what you are trying to claim about the warlord not being a popular selling class but don't act like your own stats back up that assertion.

This makes the false assumption that everyone at the table is making purchases, the "there are three to six players for every DM" argument. But, in practice, you tend to have one or two people who buy products regardless of total number of players. I'm not going to sell two or three copies of my feat book to a single table.

The product is somewhat broad, appealing to battle masters (for the fighter, one of the most popular classes) and a new subclass that tweaks the BM.
It's certainly as broad as any other single class content. Which *is* comparing like to like. There's a lot of content for single classes doing much better. That's the issue. The warlord content isn't doing as well as swordmage or warden classes, or chronomaster, demonologist, or war Mage archetype. People seem to be voting with their wallets and either either happy with warlord content in the PHB or don't much care for warlords in general.

That's the issue. The absence of the warlord does not seem to be that much of a problem...

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, the question remains of reputation. Perhaps these authors, neither of which has much of a name or reputation, cannot move their class.

So I opted to publish my own warlord fighter archetype, with a list of new maneuvers.

You do realize you've probably garnered a reputation with regards to the Warlord? And, we already know fighter archetypes can't measure up. Those sales would show an interest in maneuvers, though, which is, in itself, as far as sales of amateur 3pp materials go, perhaps slightly disappointing.

And, really, you're also looking at a phenomenon like we had with Essentials: Essentials didn't sell well, even though it finally delivered the "I just wanna hit da orc wit m' ax" style 'Simple Fighter' that was supposedly so glaringly missed. WotC didn't interpret that as a rejection of the simple fighter, nor the generally more varied sub-class designs in Essentials. 5e has the simple fighter and classes with distinct sub-classes and varied mechanics, just like Essentials, only more so, and is doing well.

The absence of the warlord does not seem to be that much of a problem...

No, it's just that the faux warlord 3pp offering wasn't perceived as solution. Which is fair, the problem is that WotC has yet to offer a full class Warlord. That will not be solved with a sub-class from an amateur 3pp.

 

[Manbearcat]

You gotta compare apples and apples, not apples and oranges.

The fact is that you created very specific content and it's selling at 1/3 the rate of some of your other general purpose content. Given how specific it is, it's actually amazing it's selling as well as it is.

You do realize you've probably garnered a reputation with regards to the Warlord? And, we already know fighter archetypes can't measure up. Those sales would show an interest in maneuvers, though, which is, in itself, as far as sales of amateur 3pp materials go, perhaps slightly disappointing.

I think there is another key angle to this that is more difficult to quantify. How many D&D players who are looking for a specific heroic fantasy TTRPG experience that is kindred to that of 4e (rather than just riding the wave of the next iteration of D&D) aren't even in the mix anymore? How many of them are still playing 4e or are playing 13th Age, Dungeon World, Cortex+, Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds or even Fate Core? Were they still vested, those would be your primary unit-movers with respect to 4e-specific content (eg Warlords) on the DM's Guild.

Just because those players aren't doing the peasants with pitchforks thing and endlessly agitating/trolling the internet doesn't mean they do not exist. Further, the surmise that they don't exist in consequential numbers is pretty aloof IMO. It isn't hard to look around (lots of long-time players on this board, RPG.Net is rife with them, and I know quite a few - 20 or so - in the small cadre of players in my own life) and see them. A pair of questions the 5e designers and consultants surely mulled over during the iteration process was "consequential enough to be relevant (?)" and "just how relevant are they compared to the OSR and 3.x/Pathfinder crowd"? I'm certain that the answer they settled on was "not nearly as relevant."

So loading the "Warlords aren't popular" premise with the conclusion that there has been no relevant drop-off in that cross-section of the player-base seems to me to be a bit of Begging the Question.

 

[Jester David]

You do realize you've probably garnered a reputation with regards to the Warlord?

A reputation here in this subforum with the maybe 10 people who regularly post in it. Not a particularly a huge sampling.

And, we already know fighter archetypes can't measure up.

To you.
I'm guessing everyone else is happy with the Battle Master or PDK.

Those sales would show an interest in maneuvers, though, which is, in itself, as far as sales of amateur 3pp materials go, perhaps slightly disappointing.

That you refer to all of the content of the DMs Guild it as "amateur" says a lot about your biases.

What, pray tell, separates and "amateur" from a "professional"?

No, it's just that the faux warlord 3pp offering wasn't perceived as solution. Which is fair, the problem is that WotC has yet to offer a full class Warlord. That will not be solved with a sub-class from an amateur 3pp.

So it can *only* be solved by a "professional" product, which probably means one published by WotC? Who are, of course, going to make such a product because of the overwhelming demand shown on the DMsGuild.

That's ridiculous full of assumptions.
Not only that there is a large audience of warlord fans who are unsatisfied, but that all share your dismissive opinion of 3rd Party material, of warlords only working as a full class, and a belief that the best way to get such a class is to show no interest or support of any attempts to make content that supports that trope. But are also for some reason completely unwilling to make this class they so desperately want themselves, or even accept a subclass as "better than nothing".

Which is really what it comes down to. Right now the choices are really "subclass that is better than nothing", "DIY", or "nothing". And the fans are voting for "nothing", with both their wallets and their time. Okay, cool. That seems to be their choice. "Nothing" for the win.
Not what I'd choose. I'd go "DIY" (and am making decent money doing so).
But when you choose "nothing" you kinda lose the right to complain about not having anything to show for it.

I think there is another key angle to this that is more difficult to quantify. How many D&D players who are looking for a specific heroic fantasy TTRPG experience that is kindred to that of 4e (rather than just riding the wave of the next iteration of D&D) aren't even in the mix anymore? How many of them are still playing 4e or are playing 13th Age, Dungeon World, Cortex+, Burning Wheel, Savage Worlds or even Fate Core? Were they still vested, those would be your primary unit-movers with respect to 4e-specific content (eg Warlords) on the DM's Guild.

Just because those players aren't doing the peasants with pitchforks thing and endlessly agitating/trolling the internet doesn't mean they do not exist. Further, the surmise that they don't exist in consequential numbers is pretty aloof IMO. It isn't hard to look around (lots of long-time players on this board, RPG.Net is rife with them, and I know quite a few - 20 or so - in the small cadre of players in my own life) and see them. A pair of questions the 5e designers and consultants surely mulled over during the iteration process was "consequential enough to be relevant (?)" and "just how relevant are they compared to the OSR and 3.x/Pathfinder crowd"? I'm certain that the answer they settled on was "not nearly as relevant."

So loading the "Warlords aren't popular" premise with the conclusion that there has been no relevant drop-off in that cross-section of the player-base seems to me to be a bit of Begging the Question.

WotC's surveys did show that the majority of gamers aren't edition warriors and have no preference for edition, playing whatever their DM wants or the current edition. And we do know that Pathfinder outsold 4e despite the number of Pathfinder books being sold each year being fairly small compared to the number of 3e books (or 4e at launch). 4e lost as more sales to 3e or just apathy than they lost to Pathfinder.

That really means that the number of ardent 4e fans is likely proportionately small. Of that minority, the number of warlord fans is smaller still. And those that strongly want a warlord class rather a fighter archetype is smaller still. And of that sub-sub-percentage, the number who are playing 5e rather than 4e (i.e. the game they are a strong fan of and it's pretty damn playable) or another system would be even smaller still.
I don't think there was a drop-off so much as never all that many to begin with.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To you.
I'm guessing everyone else is happy with the Battle Master or PDK.

Anyone who might have been interested in a fighter archetype for that purpose might be. So, no, not 'everyone.'

Not only that there is a large audience of warlord fans who are unsatisfied, but that all share your dismissive opinion of 3rd Party material, of warlords only working as a full class, and a belief that the best way to get such a class is to show no interest or support of any attempts to make content that supports that trope.

Your conclusion calls for many such assumptions, as well.

Which is really what it comes down to. Right now the choices are really "subclass that is better than nothing", "DIY", or "nothing".

I'm not convinced the extant sub-classes are meaningfully different from 'nothing,' but aside from that, yes, currently we have no worthwhile choices. Declining all of them is perfectly reasonable and only to be expected.

4e lost as more sales to 3e or just apathy than they lost to Pathfinder.

4e beat pathfinder in sales - you're thinking of Essentials, which, as I pointed out, was illustrative of what's wrong with your logic, here.

That really means that the number of ardent 4e fans is likely proportionately small.

Or simply not boycotting and smearing 5e the way h4ters did 4e.

But, even if you assume that 4e fans are some tiny minority, that does not justify intentionally trying to exclude them from 5e, which is meant to be inclusive of fans of all prior editions. If anything, it makes it all the more critical to avoid the appearance of doing so.

I think there is another key angle to this that is more difficult to quantify. How many D&D players who are looking for a specific heroic fantasy TTRPG experience that is kindred to that of 4e (rather than just riding the wave of the next iteration of D&D) aren't even in the mix anymore?

We can't really say. I would guess mostly 'riding the wave,' 5e is the new edition and being appreciated as such. For now, what a 4e fan might want that 5e doesn't provide is still readily available from ongoing 4e campaigns. That'll change as groups break up, campaigns wrap up, and the years without support continue.

So loading the "Warlords aren't popular" premise with the conclusion that there has been no relevant drop-off in that cross-section of the player-base seems to me to be a bit of Begging the Question.

 

[Jester David]

4e beat pathfinder in sales - you're thinking of Essentials, which, as I pointed out, was illustrative of what's wrong with your logic, here.

Your recall incorrectly.

Pathfinder initially tied 4e in the summer of 2010, prior to the release of any Essentials products save the Red Box, with the majority of Essentials coming out in the fall when D&D pulled back ahead. Pathfinder beat 4e following Essentials.
4e was losing sales and Pathfinder was catching prior to Essentials. Essentials was (very likely) a response to the dropping sales rather than a cause.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Your recall incorrectly.Pathfinder initially tied 4e in the summer of 2010,

No, we've been over this before. D&D stayed ahead of PF from the moment PF was released in 2009, until after the last 4e product had hit the shelves and Essentials been rolled out with much fanfare.

The strongest sales for an RPG have always been at release. 4e sold well at release. A year into it's run, 4e still beat Pathfinder's release. Pathfinder, a year in, beat the Essentials release. The Essentials format was quickly dropped, and the remaining run of hardcover D&D books (whether you want to count them as Essentials, 4e, or - I think, most relevantly - just D&D), did go on beating PF until WotC just stopped putting them out with the announcement of Next. As soon as D&D hit the shelves again, it was right back on top, and has stayed there.

That points to PF fans being decidedly in the minority - and the Essentials boxed-sets-and-little-softbacks format being a boondoggle.

As much as you may want to claim that 4e appealed to only a 'tiny minority,' the numbers have always told a different story.
But, again, even if we humor you and assume 4e fans /are/ that tiny a minority, they still don't deserve to be excluded from 5e, which did start with the goal of healing the rift of the edition war and being for fans of all prior editions.

 

[Jester David]

No, we've been over this before.

Then one would think you'd remember.

Heroes of the Fallen Lands and the Rules Compedium were released at the end of September 2010 (the 21st). The Red Box was released earlier in September.
The ICv2 Summer chart was released in October 2010 and showed Pathfinder and D&D tied. It's for Q3 which is July, August, and September. It's unlikely a product released for the final week of Sept had that much impact as to allow PF to tie.

The next chart (Q4 2010) shows D&D back on the top. That's when Essentials has launched. The next chart released is for Q2 2011, encompassing the months of April-June. At that point Pathfinder finally claims the top spot.
You'll remember at the time people dismissed Pathfinder's ascendancy as the result of D&D not having much product in stores, following the cancellation or delay of a number of books. Not Essentials.

You can see the full timeline of ICv2 charts here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1984-Top-5-RPGs-Compiled-Charts-2008-Present#.VtOSCZwrJaQ

A year into it's run, 4e still beat Pathfinder's release.

True.

Pathfinder, a year in, beat the Essentials release.

As show above, untrue. A year in, Pathfinder tied Psionic Power, the Dark Sun Campaign Setting, and the related monster book. Essentials beat Pathfinder.

The Essentials format was quickly dropped, and the remaining run of hardcover D&D books (whether you want to count them as Essentials, 4e, or - I think, most relevantly - just D&D), did go on beating PF...

Again, as show above, untrue.
Essentials beat Pathfinder and returned D&D to the top spot. But following the return to hardcovers, the cancellations, and the slower release schedule Pathfinder claimed the #1 spot and remained there until 5e was released.

...until WotC just stopped putting them out with the announcement of Next.

WotC didn't announce 5th Edition until January of 2012, well after the ICv2 chart in August 2011 showed Pathfinder on top. The cessation of publishing a few months after the announcement of 5e (several months really as 5e books continued for half of 2012) just allowed Pathfinder to retain the top spot.

As soon as D&D hit the shelves again, it was right back on top, and has stayed there.

That, at least, is true.

That points to PF fans being decidedly in the minority - and the Essentials boxed-sets-and-little-softbacks format being a boondoggle.

Pathfinder fans are indeed a minority.
But it points more to 4e not resonating with fans, since D&D managed to tie with Pathfinder pre-Essentials. And the fact they decided to make Essentials at all, a decision which would have been made back in 2009 when Pathfinder had just released, a mere year after the launch of 4e. They decided to release Essentials when PF was in its infancy, before the Bestiary was out and well, well before the game became popular.

As much as you may want to claim that 4e appealed to only a 'tiny minority,' the numbers have always told a different story.

I don't want to claim anything. I get no satisfaction from the game I love doing poorly, even if it's not my favourite edition. I take no joy in the events that led to the game being managed by a skeleton crew.
But the numbers don't lie. And it really looks like 4th Edition wasn't performing as well as desired from very early.

But, again, even if we humor you and assume 4e fans /are/ that tiny a minority, they still don't deserve to be excluded from 5e, which did start with the goal of healing the rift of the edition war and being for fans of all prior editions.

I say 4e fans are a minority because I believe that any fans of a particular edition are a minority. That the majority of D&D fans are just that: fans of D&D. First and foremost they like D&D, play D&D, and don't care about the specific flavour of the game. (Which comes from the what Mearls reported from the surveys, and was a total surprise to me. But I'm not going to argue with facts: I'm going to change my opinion in response to the new facts & evidence.)

Do they deserve to be excluded? Certainly not. But it's a pretty big jump from "don't exclude" to "make a class just for them."
Really, that assumes all 4e fans want the exact same thing - they all want a warlord - which is pretty unlikely. 4e fans are likely a diverse lot who want lots of different things. It's reductive to make them all warlord fans and claim the best way to do service to the edition is with a class.
Many might be just as happy with an avenger or shaman. A more robust tactical system might also top the lists. Couldn't they also honour 4e by doing an adventure storyline set in the Nentir Vale? Maybe some details on the Dawn War or maps of the 4e cosmology?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then one would think you'd remember.

There's "remember" and then there's "agree with you." The point you're trying to make is that 4e was somehow wildly unpopular with D&Ders, and it wasn't, indeed, you get into why, below...

I say 4e fans are a minority because I believe that any fans of a particular edition are a minority.

Fans of any particular edition, exclusive of all other editions, are certainly each in a fairly small minority. I don't even fall into the category of '4e fan,' when you set that bar. I've been playing the game since 1980, and in that time, only the second half of the 2e run disappointed me, and I haven't ever entirely stopped playing AD&D, 3e or 4e, even though I'm running & actively promoting 5e.

Similarly, fans who specifically rejected one edition are clearly in a small minority. Every once in a while, edition warriors would acknowledge that there really weren't that many of us causing all the fuss, and then get back to it.

First and foremost they like D&D, play D&D, and don't care about the specific flavour of the game. (Which comes from the what Mearls reported from the surveys,.)

I hadn't heard that quote, but it's hardly surprising. Each new ed does very well for a while, then tapers off. It fits with a very stable fan base on the one hand, and a basic model that can only move supplements for so long before bloat starts to diminish returns, on the other. Past editions have each tried to do something in particular, well, often something the prior edition really flubbed. 5e finally got the bright idea to try to do everything past editions had done particularly well, at least, with an optional rule or few in place. They called that 'modular,' which conjures the wrong idea (and a much higher bar) in my mind, because of my professional background, but, looking at what they actually came up with, and how neatly in dovetails with the RAW-repudiating 'rulings not rules' maxim, it's surprisingly workable. It's just not there yet, and stuff modern D&D did well (both 3e & 4e) is where the most still needs to be done. Though, if we're being realistic, 5e can only ever get details of 3.5 (like PrCs, perhaps) & 4e (like the warlord) 'right,' it can never go back to the RAW-uber-alles system-mastery rewards of 3.5 or the balance-uber-alles structure of 4e, there's just no foundation for either - and 5e treats such player-empowerment schemes as antithetical to it's DM-empowerment mandate.

it really looks like 4th Edition wasn't performing as well as desired from very early.

There's no question 4e didn't perform as it needed to. The goals set for 4e were unrealistic, the entire industry has never even come close, RPGs, even D&D never did break into the mainstream like video games & MMOs have. D&D was given some serious resources to take a shot at an unprecedented level of success, instead of being dropped to some lower level of investment, which is where it is now, having failed to establish MMO-like revenue streams.

I take no joy in the events that led to the game being managed by a skeleton crew.

It's not a wonderful result for the business or for fans, but it's not because of the sound & fury of the edition war or 4e radically under-performing prior eds (or being so 'unpopular' that the it's innovations should be excised from the game forever), but because D&D took it's best shot, and couldn't expand it's appeal enough, even taking somewhat radical-seeming steps to break out of the box it'd been in.

Do they deserve to be excluded? Certainly not.

Then maybe we can get past this unanswerable edition war issue of relative popularity? It doesn't matter if your faux-warlord fighter archetype sold badly on DMsG, or that D&D didn't ever reach MMO levels of income.

But it's a pretty big jump from "don't exclude" to "make a class just for them."

It's really not. The Warlord has become something of a poster boy for 4e, pointedly excluding it creates an unsavory appearance of having taken sides in the edition war. Including it plays to the stated goals of 5e, not just to including the best bits from prior eds, but to expanding the range of playstyles it supports.

Couldn't they also honour 4e by doing an adventure storyline set in the Nentir Vale? Maybe some details on the Dawn War or maps of the 4e cosmology?

The World Axis cosmology was presented as an alternate, IIRC, and you can point to other bits and pieces here and there. You can also point to how higher profile aspects of 4e haven't made it over, and how those that have are marginalized or bowdlerized. So there's definitely more to be done on that front. But, no, the Warlord is the most pointed of omissions, and it's inclusion would help the game meet more of its goals, as well. If done well, it'd be an all-around win.

 

[pemerton]

Is the discussion still on player agency?

This seems weird given the language of 5e focuses on words like "can". A warlord that uses a power like Commander's Strike would have language such as "the friendly creature can use their reaction to make an attack". So the character can always say "no". It's never forced.

As I understand it, the claim is that it is a burden on agency simply to be invited to accept the buffs, because that is to invite the player of the recipient PC to accept that his/her PC is inspired by the warlord.