What *is* D&D

[Drowbane]

A game in which one or more people play a strange bunch of homeless people in a Dark Ages + setting. Where one of the major goals per session is to meet strange new people, kill them, and then take their stuff. On occasion there might be a dragon and or dungeon for this misfit party of homeless vagabonds to encounter. More often there will be instead equally bloodthirsty orcs, or mutated (often by magic, sometimes by "nature" or divine providence) animals to fight and loot.

Often these wandering homeless vagabond murderers and grave robbers will also tend to have more material wealth than that held in the vaults of nameless NPC Kings or dragon hoards.

 

[Lwaxy]

The 3 stores that carried 4e in my wider area tried to push it almost aggressively because it wouldn't sell well - except the battlemaps/tiles/miniatures.

Over here, you don't find RPG stuff, not even German translations, in bookstores except for a German developed one so that's not edition related.

I remember I have been told that a few board game stores had 4e available and it supposedly sold fine enough there. New audience, no edition-set old schoolers I guess.

 

[Zireael]

I think it remarkable that the following are so distinctly lacking in so many of these lists:
-Levels
-XP

I guess it's because levels and XP are also present in most RPG games.

 

[jbear]

Seriously? Even in this thread you are going to drag it into a "What 4e is or isn't" thread.

Take it elsewhere please.

To me D&D is a game that fired my imagination, took me on boundless and unforgettable journeys, where I was able to create my own fantastic adventures through my characters or pave the paths for my players to for my players to walk their own journeys upon.

I'm surprised so many people relate D&D to cold hard mechanics. That has never important to me in any other degree than helping me adjudicate player actions, or the degree to which it got in the way of the adventures, dice rolling and fun in any of the editions.

Nothing essential has changed in my experience of D&D throughout the years apart from ease of use. It has and always will be the best game I've ever played.

The mechanics are just an aid. The essence of D&D is the adventure, the wonder, the mystery, the mix of enjoyment and suffering, the rush of victory in the face of seemingly impossible odds etc etc.

Mechanics ... pish.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Umm, it also ended up with 3e as well.

And, I'd point out that 4e didn't do badly. Best selling rpg ever, at least for core books, is hardly a failure. 5 year run, perfectly acceptable. Solid annual income from the DDI. Two very healthy organized play groups that are being very well received all over the world. Plus the RPGA, but, since WOTC has put some distance between them and the RPGA, they cannot take credit for that.

The only thing 4e failed to do was achieve the goals that WOTC themselves set.

That does not make it a failure.

Well you got me on 3E (though I may be mistaken, but my undertsanding was their market research as done after its release).

We have had this discussion about 4e before and lets just say I question most, if not all, of your concusions there.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yeah, I mean, does anyone have any kind of figures, it seems an edition of D&D lasting less than 4 years before a new edition is announced for release can't be good.

 

[Redbadge]

Yeah, I mean, does anyone have any kind of figures, it seems an edition of D&D lasting less than 4 years before a new edition is announced for release can't be good.

But to be honest, 3e and 3.5 lasted on similar time scales. Maybe this is just the way that WotC has decided is best to continue revenue flow; frequent revisions/releases.

For example, Magic: the Gathering has an even greater overturn of releases, but no one claims that a set of magic is a failure because they replace it in a year.

The greatest seller by far is core books; seems likely that if they can replicate the core sales of 3e, 3.5, 4e every for years, that is exactly what they will try to do. Whether or not anyone actually likes the new system is secondary, as long as it doesn't negatively impact the cycle for the future. (Which based on my perception of the overall positive vibe surrounding 5e, I can't see how it won't be at least as successful sales-wise as 3e/3.5, and probably even as good as 4e).

 

[Bedrockgames]

But to be honest, 3e and 3.5 lasted on similar time scales. Maybe this is just the way that WotC has decided is best to continue revenue flow; frequent revisions/releases.

For example, Magic: the Gathering has an even greater overturn of releases, but no one claims that a set of magic is a failure because they replace it in a year.

The greatest seller by far is core books; seems likely that if they can replicate the core sales of 3e, 3.5, 4e every for years, that is exactly what they will try to do. Whether or not anyone actually likes the new system is secondary, as long as it doesn't negatively impact the cycle for the future. (Which based on my perception of the overall positive vibe surrounding 5e, I can't see how it won't be at least as successful sales-wise as 3e/3.5, and probably even as good as 4e).

I dont think 3.5 is a genuine new edition though. It was an excuse to sell new books, and 4e did kind of the same thing with essentials. But 4e also had a different release model, so it is hard to compare.

I do thnk it is obvious that 3e did well and either retained or grew the player base while 4e split and ended being seriously challenegd by a competitor.

 

[Redbadge]

I dont think 3.5 is a genuine new edition though. It was an excuse to sell new books, and 4e did kind of the same thing with essentials. But 4e also had a different release model, so it is hard to compare.

I do thnk it is obvious that 3e did well and either retained or grew the player base while 4e split and ended being seriously challenegd by a competitor.

That's kind of what I meant though. Every release is an excuse to sell new books.

And although 4e no doubt split the playerbase (at least the part of the playerbase *I* care about, which are those passionate individuals that are so invested in the game they take time to post on D&D message boards, surely a minority, you'll note), but if the 4e core sold well as WotC claims, then whether or not the playerbase was split is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, especially if everyone comes rushing to try 5e as well, which I certainly expect.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I mean, does anyone have any kind of figures, it seems an edition of D&D lasting less than 4 years before a new edition is announced for release can't be good.

Umm, 3e? Lasted 3 years before a new edition was RELEASED, never mind announced. 3.5 lasted 5 years, same as 4e.

Basic/Expert churned over editions pretty quickly as well - Holmes, Mentzer, Red Box, B/E/C/M/I, Compendium. All fairly different editions of the game.

As far as DDI goes, well, we've got over 70 k subscribers now, as I check, up from the 50k there was when I subscribed back in September. 50% growth in 6 months. Pretty good for a "failed" edition.

It's funny how the only people on the "4e is a failure thus we need to reject all things 4e" are the same people who have been unrelenting critics of 4e since day 1.

Since I got asked for citations, can anyone provide a single shred of evidence that 4e "failed"? Besides the release of a new edition? Hrm, 1e had the Unearthed Arcana about 5 years into its run released because of flagging sales, 2e had the Players Options in about the same time, 3e lasts 3 years total, 3.5 lasts 5 years, 4e lasts 5 years. Yeah, total failure.

Hey, you might be right. It could have been a financial disaster. I don't know.

Thing is, neither does anyone else. So why do people insist on repeating over, and over and over again like a mantra that 4e is a failure?

I wonder what these same folks will say in a couple of years when Pathfinder announces it's starting up a new edition.