D&D 3E/3.5 What if 3.5 and 4E split the market?

[Glyfair]

60/40?

Holy cow if I thought the split was going to be even anywhere close to that I would be on that project in a heartbeat.

I cant imagine it more than 10-20%. But a very vocal and rabid 10-20%

I agree. However, I've heard this comment (which is right out of a D&D fantasyland, IMO) from a few. They want or expect the split to be enough where 4E is noticeably crippled. Those are the comments I really wonder about.

I think there's a parameter that's being overlooked here. It's not so much "I will only buy 3.5" vs. "I will only buy 4E". It's more like the "I will buy 4E vs. I'm not buying *anything*."

Which has little to do with the original impetus for this topic. I can see how it ties into to some concerns, but I never really considered how this will impact WotC. I think that anyone who thinks it will move the current version of D&D from being the dominating RPG is considering a fantasy. It could theoretically happen, but WotC wouldn't let it happen. It would take serious mismanagement for that to happen.

If gamers accept the fact that they have to buy several monster manuals to get all the classic monsters they are familiar with...

I can pull out my 3.X books and point to a lot of the "classic monsters" outside of the core Monster Manual. NG even published a book filled with many of them, Tome of Horrors. Sure, it has a lot of the marginal creatures. However, it also has such classic monsters as the brownie and leprechaun. Nope, the current D&D crowd are used to that.

 

[DaveMage]

I can pull out my 3.X books and point to a lot of the "classic monsters" outside of the core Monster Manual. NG even published a book filled with many of them, Tome of Horrors. Sure, it has a lot of the marginal creatures. However, it also has such classic monsters as the brownie and leprechaun. Nope, the current D&D crowd are used to that.

Let me pare that down a bit.

There are certain creatures that were in the first MM in all editions (certain giants, certain dragons, certain genies, etc.). These are the ones I'm talking about.

 

[RFisher]

1. If there were a split, it would add up to more than 100%, 'cause they would be plenty of people who would buy both.

2. the D&D market:every other RPG's market::the mass of the Sun:the mass of every other body in the Solar system. Even half of it is still significantly more than what sustains GURPS or Savage Worlds or Hackmaster or any other game you care to name. So, I fail to see a split as catastrophic.

(Not that I think such a split is likely.)

 

[PeterWeller]

Let me pare that down a bit.

There are certain creatures that were in the first MM in all editions (certain giants, certain dragons, certain genies, etc.). These are the ones I'm talking about.

Supposedly, there's over 300 monsters in the new MM, and I've seen no evidence to say that it won't include the classic spread of giants, dragons, golems, etc. This is just more baseless worrying.

 

[megamania]

I think the market will be split, but the split will be temporary.

Right now I have a huge backlog of 3.5 stuff to run. I have Ptolus, multiple Paizo adventure paths, Red Hand of Doom, and a bunch of Necromancer Games adventures that I haven't gotten to run yet. I've got WoTC books that I haven't even had the chance to properly read. I could run a whole campaign off the stuff in Libris Mortis, for example. The stuff that got released late in the 3.5 cycle was of pretty high quality -- probably better than the first 4E stuff will be, because the authors need time to get familiar with how to write good 4E adventures.

So, while I may eventually switch to 4E, it will be awhile. Hopefully, I'll manage to delay the switch until the game's been played for a couple of years and the broken stuff has been caught and revised. I wouldn't mind missing the first revision of splatbooks -- it would be nice to skip the 4E Tome and Blood and move right on to the 4E Complete Mage. And if I could pick up the game when they release 4.5 (and they will), that will be perfect.

I expect that during this time I'll try to get in a game and be a 4E player. But I won't need to buy anything but the 4E players handbook for this.

Honestly, I doubt very much that I am alone in this. People like me may be WoTC's biggest problem.

Ken

This is as close as anything written so to represent my position in DnD. I have so much 3.5 I want to do still yet no money to buy 4e. I have to go with what I have that I know is usable and good.

Eventually I'll get some 4e stuff but not when first released.

 

[DandD]

Supposedly, there's over 300 monsters in the new MM, and I've seen no evidence to say that it won't include the classic spread of giants, dragons, golems, etc. This is just more baseless worrying.

Well, hopefully, it's not some dozen monsters with different power setting counting every time as an individual monster.

I don't believe it myself, but perhaps there is a very slight chance that they really might be shrewd enough to pull it off...

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Supposedly, there's over 300 monsters in the new MM, and I've seen no evidence to say that it won't include the classic spread of giants, dragons, golems, etc. This is just more baseless worrying.

They specifically said in the podcast today that they're leaving some monsters out of the first MM in order to convince people to buy the second one. (Their example was frost giants, which apparently are slated for MM2.)

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

They specifically said in the podcast today that they're leaving some monsters out of the first MM in order to convince people to buy the second one. (Their example was frost giants, which apparently are slated for MM2.)

If I may?

What they said was they're leaving some monsters out of the first Monster Manual to expand the definition of core. This has been popularized as "to get people to buy the rest".

Just so nobody's misquoting them here.

Personally, I'm okay with them meaning "convince people to buy and use the others". I love monsters.

 

[Minicol]

But if the DI flops, all bets are off. Hasbro may not care about D&D, but that's as long as it makes money. The 'worst case' scenario sees WotC investing heavily in the DI, it then failing, and some Hasbro exec looking at the numbers and cancelling D&D as a whole. In that case, if someone has already done a 3.75e then they'll look like an absolute genius.

No : in such a case they would eventually sell the license to someone else to make up for their losses. And until that happened, 3.75 would be the system.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I certainly don't hope for a seriously split market. 20/80 in favour of 4e would suit me fine, for example.

As long as some competent publishers (and individuals) are putting stuff out there for 3e for a long time to come, I'll be happier for it. If not though, there is probably enough to go on with, from what I have and what I've yet to get for 3e/'Od20'. So either way, I'm not overly worried.

Between 3e and other d20 products, there are several fantastic games with almost limitless potential. More than several! So, s'cool.