D&D 4E What Aspects of 4E Made It into 5E?

[pemerton]

Plenty of money is relative. It seems likely that a lot of money went into developing 4e, which didn't do much 'retreading' of past material, and which had a very rapid pace of release the first two years, and was developed concurrently with the last batch of 3e products, and had digital tools being developed, too.

That wasn't money it was making as it went, that was an investment by Hasbro

<snip>

Most of that was probably sunk costs, even if they were recovered, the goals weren't met

Clearly the "core brand" goals for 4e were not met.

But I personally think it is unlikely that it cost WotC money. You refer to sunk costs, but even if all the supplements were developed in the period 2007-2009 (which I doubt), the publication of them happened later, and wouldn't have been done (I don't think) if it wasn't returning a profit.

I think if the D&D division of WotC really had gone broke with 4e, they wouldn't have been given another chance. Unless the management of WotC is far more sentimental than I've got any reason to suppose.

 

[Jester David]

Clearly the "core brand" goals for 4e were not met.

But I personally think it is unlikely that it cost WotC money. You refer to sunk costs, but even if all the supplements were developed in the period 2007-2009 (which I doubt), the publication of them happened later, and wouldn't have been done (I don't think) if it wasn't returning a profit.

I think if the D&D division of WotC really had gone broke with 4e, they wouldn't have been given another chance. Unless the management of WotC is far more sentimental than I've got any reason to suppose.

Looking back at 4e, they immediately changed gears with Essentials in 2010, with work on that having to begin in the fall of 2009. So a year after launch and they were already considering relaunching and revising the game. And prior to even that, in the spring of 2009 they pulled sales of PDFs for piracy concerns, suggesting they were blaming digital file sharing for low sales.
And in 2011, right after Essentials, the creative head of D&D left, likely not by choice. Meanwhile, three or four produces were cancelled, with the one almost being almost finished instead being released for free on the website. All the while, the D&D team was shedding staff like crazy, laying off a couple big names every year.
While they likely weren’t losing money, these sudden and heavy change suggests a sharp decline in sales. None of that suggests a healthy game line.

Was the brand broke? Okay, probably not as a whole. And probably not even on a book-by-book basis. They probably always recouped expenses. After all, companies like Paizo were making money selling Pathfinder before it passed D&D. But it likely wasn’t performing up to expectations. And with sales declining over time, it was likely inevitable that eventually they would release a book that lost money.

I do wonder why WotC gave them another chance. There probably was talk about ending the line. I imagine the name recognition of the brand and potential for licensing helped.
And MtG makes so very, very much money that the investment costs of development and publishing a new edition likely made the endeavour low risk. After all, MtG was making an order of magnitude more money than D&D. It likely cost them two weeks of Magic profits to make 5e, with the knowledge if it did poorly they’d at least recoup the expense, and if it did well they’d turn a profit. They would lose nothing in the attempt and could just cancel the line later if it failed. And if it did well...

 

[Jester David]

By my recollection, WotC did a lot of market research.

Even so, back in the day, I predicted 4Ed would be the “New Coke” of D&D. And like the actual New Coke case, I suspect that no amount of research (of which there was LOTS) would have revealed how the market as a whole would react, or at least, how the reaction would break along certain demographics (particularly based on gaming experience).

Apparently, they ignored a lot of play testers. A lot of early testers echoed the complaints that were repeated throughout the edition. (The stuff that usually gets dismissed as “edition warring”.) The management had their ideas of what people wanted and wouldn’t be swayed. And there wasn’t enough time to redesign. Like the Realms, it was just assumed people would like it because it was D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm assuming that what you mean by this is that, the more experience someone had with a variety of non-D&D games, as well as with D&D, the more likely they were to enjoy 4e!

No, because I’d be a great counter example: more than 100 systems before 4Ed came out. And because I’m human, my natural assumption is that my opinion- absent other data- is the norm. While I liked playing it, it was firmly in the “I never want to DM it” category.

What I meant was that people tend to fall in love with things. They gain sentimental value. Their familiarity is comforting. They are more likely to accept new things more quickly if they’re a supplement to instead of a replacement for something they already like. That was the big lesson from New Coke.

Coke did tons of research testing New Coke as a counterforce to Pepsi’s surging market share. Theynfound that NC not only beat Pepsi in taste tests, it also beat traditional Coke.

So when New Coke rolled out as a replacement for the old recipe, they gained all kinds of new consumers from Pepsi and other brands...but lost huge numbers of traditional Coke drinkers. Despite the taste test results, Coke’s established market didn’t want a replacement for Coke, they wanted a Pepsi-like drink to consume on occasion. Sales plummeted.

4Ed did a great job with bringing in new players, but veteran D&D players were a different story. There wasn’t a wholesale rejection, but there wasn’t a massive adoption, either. The major 3.X games- especially Pathfinder- all had a boost from D&D vets who were hoping 4Ed would be a refined version of 3.5Ed, not a substitute for it. Sales were strong, but it also split the market.

Which was kind of what I expected based on my education and my purely anecdotal observations. There was just something that told me that 4Ed as a system could have been bigger if it were not marketed as D&D, and presented in a more genericised “toolboxy” system like HERO, GURPS, OR M&M not shackled to D&D’s sacred cows.

I mean, imagine 4Ed with no classes, just the 4 roles, with all the role-specific powers available to each character with that descriptor. No more need for multiclassing feats in a feat-hungry system. Very flexible.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Apparently, they ignored a lot of play testers. A lot of early testers echoed the complaints that were repeated throughout the edition. (The stuff that usually gets dismissed as “edition warring”.) The management had their ideas of what people wanted and wouldn’t be swayed. And there wasn’t enough time to redesign. Like the Realms, it was just assumed people would like it because it was D&D.

While we know those complaints were made, we can’t know what percentage they were of the overall responses. If 5-25% of the responses were of that nature, WotC would probably feel pretty comfy going ahead. 33%+ they might get antsy.

And again, what were the demographics of the complainants? Were most of the negative comments coming from vets or newer players?

 

[Parmandur]

Looking back at 4e, they immediately changed gears with Essentials in 2010, with work on that having to begin in the fall of 2009. So a year after launch and they were already considering relaunching and revising the game. And prior to even that, in the spring of 2009 they pulled sales of PDFs for piracy concerns, suggesting they were blaming digital file sharing for low sales.
And in 2011, right after Essentials, the creative head of D&D left, likely not by choice. Meanwhile, three or four produces were cancelled, with the one almost being almost finished instead being released for free on the website. All the while, the D&D team was shedding staff like crazy, laying off a couple big names every year.
While they likely weren’t losing money, these sudden and heavy change suggests a sharp decline in sales. None of that suggests a healthy game line.

Was the brand broke? Okay, probably not as a whole. And probably not even on a book-by-book basis. They probably always recouped expenses. After all, companies like Paizo were making money selling Pathfinder before it passed D&D. But it likely wasn’t performing up to expectations. And with sales declining over time, it was likely inevitable that eventually they would release a book that lost money.

I do wonder why WotC gave them another chance. There probably was talk about ending the line. I imagine the name recognition of the brand and potential for licensing helped.
And MtG makes so very, very much money that the investment costs of development and publishing a new edition likely made the endeavour low risk. After all, MtG was making an order of magnitude more money than D&D. It likely cost them two weeks of Magic profits to make 5e, with the knowledge if it did poorly they’d at least recoup the expense, and if it did well they’d turn a profit. They would lose nothing in the attempt and could just cancel the line later if it failed. And if it did well...

My theory is that the MtG guys want to keep a stable of talented Dungeon Masters employees, so they can play D&D at work. There is a heavy presence of Magic folk in any "WotC people play D&D" streaming sort of thing.

 

[Hussar]

While we know those complaints were made, we can’t know what percentage they were of the overall responses. If 5-25% of the responses were of that nature, WotC would probably feel pretty comfy going ahead. 33%+ they might get antsy.

And again, what were the demographics of the complainants? Were most of the negative comments coming from vets or newer players?

Which, of course, runs into the whole gnome effect problem. Just becauses 10% of your audience doesn't like something, that means that nearly 50% of your groups have a problem with something kvetching about this or that change.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am amused by this theorycrafting.

4E failed. It did so because it forgot to be a role-playing game first and foremost.

I loved the tactical battle game, but in the end, we dropped 4E because the combats took so much time there wasn't enough energy and focus left for the actual RPG experience.

I imagine this was the same for you too, yet somehow you keep discussing as if the game wasn't fundamentally a failure.

TLDR it was more interesting when the topic was what bits made it into 5E.

 

[Zardnaar]

Looking back at 4e, they immediately changed gears with Essentials in 2010, with work on that having to begin in the fall of 2009. So a year after launch and they were already considering relaunching and revising the game. And prior to even that, in the spring of 2009 they pulled sales of PDFs for piracy concerns, suggesting they were blaming digital file sharing for low sales.
And in 2011, right after Essentials, the creative head of D&D left, likely not by choice. Meanwhile, three or four produces were cancelled, with the one almost being almost finished instead being released for free on the website. All the while, the D&D team was shedding staff like crazy, laying off a couple big names every year.
While they likely weren’t losing money, these sudden and heavy change suggests a sharp decline in sales. None of that suggests a healthy game line.

Was the brand broke? Okay, probably not as a whole. And probably not even on a book-by-book basis. They probably always recouped expenses. After all, companies like Paizo were making money selling Pathfinder before it passed D&D. But it likely wasn’t performing up to expectations. And with sales declining over time, it was likely inevitable that eventually they would release a book that lost money.

I do wonder why WotC gave them another chance. There probably was talk about ending the line. I imagine the name recognition of the brand and potential for licensing helped.
And MtG makes so very, very much money that the investment costs of development and publishing a new edition likely made the endeavour low risk. After all, MtG was making an order of magnitude more money than D&D. It likely cost them two weeks of Magic profits to make 5e, with the knowledge if it did poorly they’d at least recoup the expense, and if it did well they’d turn a profit. They would lose nothing in the attempt and could just cancel the line later if it failed. And if it did well...

Even a few thousand people on DDI probably could finance 5E and they had the older edition reprints as well.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am amused by this theorycrafting.

4E failed. It did so because it forgot to be a role-playing game first and foremost.

I loved the tactical battle game, but in the end, we dropped 4E because the combats took so much time there wasn't enough energy and focus left for the actual RPG experience.

I imagine this was the same for you too, yet somehow you keep discussing as if the game wasn't fundamentally a failure.

TLDR it was more interesting when the topic was what bits made it into 5E.

I thought 4E was a good game, but not at being a good D&D. I played D&D minis and it kind of felt like an advanced version of that with leveling instead of point buy warbands. I liked some of the 4E stuff in Star Wars Saga for example and atm we're having a discussion about 5Eing SWSE or using some parts of it to revise the old D6 Star Wars RPG (basically consolidate skill system into things like rifles, pistols, simple etc instead of blasters, slugthrowers, vibroweapons etc). I have not been playing the Thrawns Revenge mod at all however nope not once in a million years. Excuse me got to go the rebels erm New Republic are attacking Bilbringi in the Orinda campaign gtg. If anyone has advice on winning when you're outnumbered 3-1 and are beaten on quality and economy........