G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Mmmm.
Anyway, as a reminder:
1. 4e had a botched rollout at GenCon in August 2007, leaving many people to (mistakenly) believe that a computer was required to play; numerous misconceptions about 4e started then that WoTC never properly cleared up.
2. 4e was released on June 6, 2008. The Great Recession started between the announcement at Gencon and the release of the product; not an auspicious time to release books (and to hope for sweet, sweet subscriber revenue).
3. 4e was hoping to have a major MMO licensing tie in, computer game tie in, and so on. Again, economic timings were not favorable. In addition, the idea of "always on" internet was still fairly novel; the original (slow) iPhone was just released in 2007, and while the base of D&D players is assumedly more tech-savvy than most, these projections may have been too much too fast. Services that we take for granted such as Roll20 and twitch were not around yet.
4. In addition to (3), there are still many players that prefer tech-free times with D&D- it is a respite from technology. They may be luddites, but they are out there. Which goes back to the botched rollout in (2). No, computers were not required, but that isn't what they chose to emphasize.
5. The project was always snakebitten; as I recounted in the other thread, the developers have stated that the product was rushed, which caused them to make the classes too "samey." Anything that could go wrong did go wrong- they entrusted key parts of the computer component to, um, well let's just say an individual that was unstable and ended in tragedy. And the overly-optimistic projections (and lack of concomitant success) caused Hasbro to immediately slash funding; 4e was already dead internally by the time Essentials was released.
6. There is serious disagreement within the 4e community that I have noted regarding what should have done to salvage 4e; for example, I have seen many, many people comment that 4e didn't really make sense or come into its own until Essentials in terms of appealing to a mass market and being understandable to the casual player; however, others (such as @Tony Vargas ) repeatedly complain that Essentials is a betrayal of 4e.
7. Tying back into (2), the idea of subscription services and "Everything is Core" (repeated releases of core books each year) is an idea that was especially unappealing to consumers given the time frame; combined with the change in the licensing scheme, some gamers tuned this out as a mere cash grab.
8. That the reception for the product would be, at best, mixed was evident to anyone that wasn't on the design team. As I recounted previously, Paizo was invited to playtest 4e (to determine if they wanted to license it); after sampling it, they were confident in continuing with their own system.
9. Finally, while the "always on" internet wasn't prevalent enough for the product, this was the first edition launch where the majority of people playing the game had easy access to the internet, which made extreme and intense opinions (AKA the edition war) that much more noticeable, and a thing. People used to argue about PCs and Macs (how quaint!), but FANDROIDS v. SHEOPLE? That's a war.
10. Finally, this all must be measured in terms of what is a "flagship" product; to borrow a phrase, when D&D sneezes, every other product in the TTRPG field gets a cold. For D&D to be battling out marketshare with other TTRPGs is terrible; for D&D to be doing it with a D&D clone is unthinkable. And that's the key point that I'm about to elaborate on- think of D&D as a cruise ship. It is great for what it does, but it can't dock at every port. It can't turn quickly. It is a massive, lumbering beast. You might prefer a catamaran, or a sailboat, or a powerboat. But they won't carry all the passengers of a cruise ship. And when you're making a cruise ship, you have certain limitations- you can't make it a fast cargo smuggler!
It's the same with D&D. Too much new design, too quickly, and risk alienating some of the people that love you. Heck, think of Starbucks coffee; long known for its burnt flavor (overroasted), they have to be careful changing it up because many people expect nasty, overroasted coffee now.
So moving into the instant question, it's a pure category error to ascribe one's pet cause (I LOVE MARTIALS!) to the failure of a particular edition of D&D (to the extent it was a failure). First, as I described in the OP, I view D&D as a conversation between players over time, and 4e has contributed to that conversation, and is part of the DNA of the new edition.
But more importantly, there were numerous reasons that it was not as successful as it could have been as a commercial product; to the extent that it generated backlash, the reasons are multitudinous, but I would concentrate on something that Tony has said several times; the idea that if someone had kept up with the hobby, had kept up with 3e, had read Book of 9 Swords and Tome of Magic and incorporated them into their play ... maybe paid attention to more modern TTRPG theory ... maybe they didn't think it was a big change! But not everyone is like that. A lot of gamers are lapsed gamers, or occasional gamers, and to the extent that you want a renaissance in playing, you need to attract those people too- the ones that need something which is mostly familiar.
It's not about the primacy of magic; 4e is plenty magical however you want to define it. 4e was a bold attempt at a different direction that didn't work, but parts of 4e remain relevant to both how people DM and have been incorporated into 5e's rules, making 4e one of the most interesting parts of the grand tapestry that is D&D.
Just for the record, none of that influenced me. I ignored 4e largely because I flipped through the books and there was (what seemed like) endless crunch and options and stat blocks and a whole bunch of terminology I didn't even recognize. Paragon paths and feat tiers and daily vs. encounter vs. at will and...etc. etc. etc.
"Primacy of the Build" is not what I love about RPGs.
