When did WotC D&D "Jump the Shark"?

[BryonD]

In this thread

 

[Fifth Element]

In this thread

What page? I've been through the thread and don't recall them.

 

[TheUltramark]

I've provided my own anecdote several times: every 4E player I know personally still also plays 3E and is interested or plays Pathfinder. That suggests there is not a deep split in the market, though I don't believe that small bit of evidence has any real meaning for the market as a whole.

As for my justification for rejecting your evidence, it's because you provide nothing but anecdotes as evidence for this deep split. I might concede there was more than just anecdotes if you provided something other than anecdotes. If you have done so, I have missed them.

I hate to even get into the split or no split...especially since it isnt about banana split, but here goes....

I play 4e currently, and I have zero interest in pathfinder. I didnt even know it exsisted until I came to this board, so I looked at some of the stuff, and I gotta be honest, the thought of learning a whole new system, after investing the time and brain power in 4e (which is just fine) really makes no sens - to me. People who want to play PF exclusively are more than welcome to, why would I want to stop them? People who want to dabble in both d&d and pf - again, why is it of any concern to me???????

Now, I think I am going to enjoy some ice cream

 

[Hussar]

Here's an example of why I don't buy the voodoo "evidence" that BryonD pins his conclusions on.

Look at Osric. Looking at the OSRIC downloads page, as I type this, there are currently 48379 downloaded copies of OSRIC out there. At least that many copies have been downloaded from the official site.

Now, I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that not everyone who has downloaded OSRIC is playing it or even ever played it. I know this, because I'm one of them. I downloaded it to take a look, but, never played with it. So, I know this is true.

Now, how many OSRIC players are there out there? Who knows? I do know that the Dragonsfoot forums have about 6000 ish members, so that might be a good place to start. Obviously, again, this number is REALLY, REALLY rough.

Now, how many downloads did the free Pathfinder Beta garner? The only number I could find was from the Golariapedia - here, in the first paragraph that stated by the end of the playtest, 45000 copies had been downloaded.

Does that mean that Pathfinder is roughly the size of OSRIC? Well, I doubt it. And, considering Paizo sold out their first print run, I'd guess that probably the numbers are higher.

But, again, you've actually got comparible numbers to look at. Both the free versions of the games garnered about the same number of downloads.

Should we then conclude that Pathfinder is about as popular as OSRIC and other OSR games? Does that put it in the same category as things like Labyrinth Lord and Castles and Crusades?

Hey look, I found a snake!

 

[Hussar]

I hate to even get into the split or no split...especially since it isnt about banana split, but here goes....

I play 4e currently, and I have zero interest in pathfinder. I didnt even know it exsisted until I came to this board, so I looked at some of the stuff, and I gotta be honest, the thought of learning a whole new system, after investing the time and brain power in 4e (which is just fine) really makes no sens - to me. People who want to play PF exclusively are more than welcome to, why would I want to stop them? People who want to dabble in both d&d and pf - again, why is it of any concern to me???????

Now, I think I am going to enjoy some ice cream

Well, honestly, the AuldGrump answered this, but, I think it bears repeating. TTRPG's are a pretty darn small hobby. Traditionally, you had D&D covering about 3/4 of the sales in that niche. That means that you had one company who was making enough money to be able to afford things like playtesting, high quality books, and various other bells and whistles.

If you fraction between two companies, now no one has enough money to develop bigger projects. Imagine WOTC, with half as much money coming in, trying to develop something like the DDI. As horrible as their online efforts have been, cut the budget in half and it's just not going to happen.

The theory goes, and I'm not sure if I ascribe to it, that having one large (ish) company servicing the hobby works better than a couple (or a bunch) of much smaller companies.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

So, let me ask
is there a segment of player out there that has at some point, when they were on board with coastwizards and their products, bought every new book as it came out and tried to integrate it into their own game?

That seems rather ambitious and completely opposite from the way we play. When we played 3.25 for example, there were some of the books we never bothered to get, for any number of reasons, including laziness i suppose.

There is, and it is not unique to Wizards - Back in 2e there were lots of really badly balanced splats (I am looking at you, Complete Book of Elf Cheese!), that folks would try to integrate anyway.

I never had a hard time telling players (or myself) 'No. Just, no.' Neither in 2e or 3e.

This did not prevent somebody from wanting to play a samurai in what was essentially the 17th C. Germanies. Or an Oozemaster in the middle of the burning times.

Sometimes I had to line item a book - yes, yes, no, yes, no way in the seven burning Hells, okay..... I actually had better luck with 3pp books than with WotC. WotC's material was likely to be all over the place, good, terrible, everything in between.

well, I guess then i am just a casual player, but I bet I have just as much fun as anyone else.

Having fun is what it's all about. If you are having fun then have at!

The Auld Grump

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I actually had better luck with 3pp books than with WotC. WotC's material was likely to be all over the place, good, terrible, everything in between.

I'm the sort of collector described, and I even do it with select 3pps. I do like to integrate it all, but not necessarily in the same world or time. Also, integration can include "unique" individuals...i.e. there is one oozmaster in the whole world - a freak of nature.


But I quoted your point there because I agree. I find 3pp books to be much more consistent than WotC books (here I'm mostly speaking to their 3.5 offerings--which I'm now thinking is when they jumped the shark).

But, that said, a 3pp book might be consistently bad or consistently good...but it's consistent. WotC books I found usually had some gems and some rough. I wonder if that is a function of 3pps being smaller and usually having a single writer rather than WotC being larger and potentially having a few individuals work on a book?

 

[Maggan]

The only number I could find was from the Golariapedia - here, in the first paragraph that stated by the end of the playtest, 45000 copies had been downloaded.

Heh. Four of those downloads are by me! I was between computers and lost some files, and had to download the playtest again.

Cool thing, that open playtest, btw.

/M

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm the sort of collector described, and I even do it with select 3pps. I do like to integrate it all, but not necessarily in the same world or time. Also, integration can include "unique" individuals...i.e. there is one oozmaster in the whole world - a freak of nature.


But I quoted your point there because I agree. I find 3pp books to be much more consistent than WotC books (here I'm mostly speaking to their 3.5 offerings--which I'm now thinking is when they jumped the shark).

But, that said, a 3pp book might be consistently bad or consistently good...but it's consistent. WotC books I found usually had some gems and some rough. I wonder if that is a function of 3pps being smaller and usually having a single writer rather than WotC being larger and potentially having a few individuals work on a book?

Or just trying to be all things to all people, yet at the same time trying not to go too far in any one direction. So there was a whole lot of dabbling, and not much focus.

There were exceptions - Tome of Magic had some very interesting, very focused spellcasters. And it was one of their better books - possibly their best book that I never used. If Pact Magic had been around when I first did my 1600s homebrew then it would have been a very different place. Not good for retrofitting though.

A3pp could afford the focus, and go further along their path - Frost & Fur vs. Frostburn. I used both, but F&F was much the better book in my estimation.

The Auld Grump

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There can't possibly be any question as to whether there are folks who won't play 4e, so, just to make sure I understand you, the sticking point as far as you're concerned is whether or not there's a "vast" quantity of people who won't play 4e?

So we can agree on a split, but not a "vast" one, or in BryonD's words, a "deep" one.

I gotta say that the willingness of folks to dig their heels in over such a fine point makes BryonD's assertion all the more likely. But how about this for a litmus test: there's obviously a split at ENWorld, but that doesn't tell us how far the split runs. What if the same split exists in other online communities? Anyone have any evidence of that? What if the split exists amongst players in brick and mortar stores, too? Does that prove a "vast" or "deep" split? How about if there is evidence of a split in many or most online communities and brick and mortar stores?

Really, it sounds like the only way for some folks to be convinced that BryonD's assertion is true would be to have a worldwide census, but there must be some other way, besides hard numbers, to lean the fence-sitters one way or the other.

Well, there will always be someone who won't play any given game. There's a lot of people in the world. For the concept of a 'split' to be meaningful I think more is required than "there's this guy that won't play X and there's this other guy that won't play Y" to be saying anything meaningful.

I don't know that I care to try to parameterize what constitutes a split. I don't see that any arbitrary dividing lines I'd draw would mean much or that there would be any reason for anyone else to agree with them.

I don't even agree that there is any appreciable split at Enworld. Again there are people that insist they won't play one or the other, but people make a lot of absolute sounding statements online and then when it comes down to it they don't mean much. More importantly than that though, I don't see that many people here making such hard and fast statements. Some, but it seems like a reasonably small fraction.

The fact that there's no way to prove or disprove BryonD's assertion has no bearing on its validity whatsoever. Reasoning that "because you can't disprove X that proves it" is so wrong it isn't even wrong. No rational person operating in an evidence driven logical deductive fashion will be convinced without convincing evidence.

Anyway, to get off that dead horse...

Back in the 2e days our policy was basically if it wasn't core 3 book 2e then forget it. We did utilize some of the earlier supplements like the Priests Handbook and Monster Mythology. The later options stuff was all pretty much untested garbage that was pumped out during the "Playtesting is a waste of time and not real work" phase of TSR's final plunge into oblivion. Now and then someone would try to pass some of it off, but I never even bothered to buy those books. This was TSR's jumping of the shark.

As for 4e, we allow anything from any official source. There have been a few times when concern has been expressed about a specific build, item, or power. Nobody in my games ever insisted on cheesing out, so it didn't matter. The orb wizard wasn't that optimized, only picked up one or two save penalty effects, and generally didn't try to break things wide open. Notice though, this possibility wouldn't have required anything except core stuff, AV1 and PHB1. So you see 4e seems to be the first edition that didn't diverge into lala land at some point. It always had a few broken things, they got fixed, and you can safely purchase any 4e book and it is well designed. I know I have most of them and they're all fine. The stuff in Dragon is fine too. 4e has in no way shape or form jumped anything. It may be slowing down due to having tapped out most of the obvious material, but it sure hasn't gone downhill.