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

[BryonD]

We have some on these boards who play only 4E or only PF. We also have others who play both. Do you dispute this? If not, you have your anecdotal evidence.

Which is not to say it's evidence of anything.

Much to the contrary of disputing it, I have pointed it out in this very thread.

But I'm not challenging the idea that some overlap exists. I'm looking for anecdotes that seriously challenge the claim of "a split" as a decent characterization of the market as a whole.

 

[Fifth Element]

But I'm not challenging the idea that some overlap exists. I'm looking for anecdotes that seriously challenge the claim of "a split" as a decent characterization of the market as a whole.

We don't know. That's what I'm arguing.

There are several possible characterizations;for example unified, muddled and a deep split. You're making the assertion that a deep split is the accurate one. It's not up to me to disprove that, it's up to you to prove it.

 

[BryonD]

Well, I think WotC should have given a lot less attention to the gripes of those who didn't like TSR-D&D, so it probably washes out. And I mean that both in terms of 3e and 4e.


RC

Heh. Well, in fairness, I'm using a bit of a double standard on this myself. I *don't* think WotC should focus on getting lost fans back right now. Of course anything that grows the fans base is still the right move. But it would be easier to lose 4E fans than to recover people who have walked away from D&D to embrace 4E.

Don't throw good money after bad.

I didn't even know about the change to CaGI. But I would agree that I saw many debates about it and typically it was anti-4E people pointing it out and pro-4E people defending. Now, clearly, there may have been far more massive arguments entirely within the 4E fanbase and I just missed those because I don't frequent those places. But Perm's comment does not suggest he saw anything different than I did.

If they really did change because of anti-4E complaints, then that is a bad move and part of the schizophrenia I mentioned.

 

[BryonD]

We don't know. That's what I'm arguing.

There are several possible characterizations;for example unified, muddled and a deep split. You're making the assertion that a deep split is the accurate one. It's not up to me to disprove that, it's up to you to prove it.

Shrug.
I'm not hung up on "prove". Making the case where it is the reasonable conclusion of a rational assessment of the available data is adequate. And with that you can always have people just say "no it isn't" no matter how much you do show.

Whether or not you look closely enough to decide for yourself and whether or not you are willing to say so really don't matter.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Much to the contrary of disputing it, I have pointed it out in this very thread.

But I'm not challenging the idea that some overlap exists. I'm looking for anecdotes that seriously challenge the claim of "a split" as a decent characterization of the market as a whole.

I don't see any evidence of much of anything outside of various forums.

Of the people that play in 4e games I run, some also play 3.5 and/or DM 3.5. One runs a 4e Gamma World game. Another couple of my old 2e players (who never even played 3.x at all to my knowledge) still like 2e and would like to play 2e, but they didn't either say they wouldn't play 4e. The FLGS here is rather eccentric as the person who owns it has infinite money and thus has no interest in pleasing customers. Said person doesn't seem to be a 4e fan, but I haven't really actually discussed it with them. They don't run Encounters, but neither AFAICT do they participate in any Paizo/PF outreach. They carry a full line of 4e products, a full line of 3.x products, and a full line of PF products. Their roster of reservations for tables has been filled with various stuff, including a couple 3.5 games that have had a table for years. There's no real room for another game. I'm assuming they have little interest in 4e since no 4e games are on that list. Neither are any PF games. Most of it is M:tG, WH40K, a couple other RPGs, and misc other games.

In other words, if anything, 3.5 is still the most popular system, 4e seems to be mostly well accepted and the 3.5 people I know will play 4e. Nobody has PF or has played it. There are still some 2e holdouts, but they mostly seem amenable to playing 4e.

Not much can probably be drawn from that. There are plenty of player groups around I have no contact with and I don't know what they play or prefer. Anything could be true. We all exist amicably and no words of hate have been spoken in my presence. Prior to the release of 4e and PF most people played 3.5 and some played 2e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] I don't think there is actually massive discontent amongst 4e players at WotC at all. I think if you go back and look at the 3.5 boards there was equal amounts of complaining about trivial mechanical details then as well. Given that there are rarely large issues to complain about 4e you simply see people jumping on all the smallest things like if a class has one more or less HS than it should and nonsense like that. The system is solid enough that you can actually see those small differences and they mean something you can measure. With 3.5 there was no point in even bothering, the issues were much more high level and much bigger.

Likewise DDI. Since people are paying for it on a monthly basis they naturally are quite picky about it. Mostly DDI has been quite excellent. They were ill-advised to remove the old CB when they did, but that aside DDI has been nothing but great. Some concern about magazine article quality/quantity was certainly understandable but notice they seem to have been well aware of that and have repeatedly stated it is going in the other direction now. Of course DDI really shouldn't be an issue anyway. It is a pure PLUS on the side of 4e, if you don't like it you don't buy it. No amount of complaining about it really reflects on the game system at all.

So, no, I don't think people are particularly dissatisfied about 4e or with WotC right now. I think they are the same insufferably unpleasable Internet rabble as ever!

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm not hung up on "prove". Making the case where it is the reasonable conclusion of a rational assessment of the available data is adequate.

And I'm not hung up on semantics; that's what I mean by prove in a case like this.

Whether or not you look closely enough to decide for yourself and whether or not you are willing to say so really don't matter.

I've looked at every bit of evidence you've offered, and found it seriously lacking. You keep referring to the data as if it's something well-established and easily interpretable. It's not. Everything that I've seen you present relies on one's point of view to arrive at a conclusion. That is, if you think there's a split, you'll see a split. But I haven't seen anything really solid to say one way or the other with any certainty.

You've agreed that some overlap exists between 4E and PF players, for example. You've apparently decided that that overlap is small enough that a deep split exists, even though we have no way of knowing what the degree of overlap is.

In my group, the overlap is 100%, since we all play both 4E and PF. Now there's no way that's the case for everyone, but I wouldn't make a conjecture about what the percentage is for the market as a whole, without some sort of actual research being done. It could be 2%. It could be 50%. We don't know. Selectively collecting a few anecdotes and arriving at a conclusion on that results in a baseless conclusion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not hung up on "prove". Making the case where it is the reasonable conclusion of a rational assessment of the available data is adequate.

I am firmly of the opinion that we don't have enough data to know anything.

I am also firmly of the opinion that you are making a reasonable conclusion based on what data you do have and/or find acceptable. So long as you don't assume that your conclusion must be the case, you are on firm ground AFAICT.

I don't see any evidence of much of anything outside of various forums.

Which is also fine.

Individuals are allowed to set the bar as to what they believe is credible evidence, and how much of said credible evidence is required to make a conclusion credible.

BryonD's assessment is reasonable. Human beings (and other living organisms) can and do make judgement based on inadequate data. The rabbit who waits for proof that there is a fox in the bushes is an ex-rabbit in very short order.

Your rejection of that assessment is also reasonable. Skepticism is rational.

But, if sometimes making a judgement means you end up leaping away from the wind, sometimes also waiting for more data about that rustle in the bushes means that the fox gets you.


RC

 

[BryonD]

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] I don't think there is actually massive discontent amongst 4e players at WotC at all.

Ok, I'll certainly take your word for that.

So, no, I don't think people are particularly dissatisfied about 4e or with WotC right now. I think they are the same insufferably unpleasable Internet rabble as ever!

Well, amongst the fan base certainly....

It is true that other elements were present before, but the proportions are notably different.

 

[BryonD]

I've looked at every bit of evidence you've offered, and found it seriously lacking.

That's nice.

We disagree.

I'd look at your evidence and assess it as well. That is if you had any.

You keep referring to the data as if it's something well-established and easily interpretable. It's not. Everything that I've seen you present relies on one's point of view to arrive at a conclusion.

That is just plain wrong.

When Black Diamond say that PF is selling as well as 4E, that is NOT a "point of view". If someone says that they now know the answer because Black Diamond made a statement about their slice of the pie, they would be very wrong. But that is simply one example.

Yeah, there is information out that which is completely open to being called subjective.

But trying to hide the rest of the information behind that just sounds like trying to find a preconceived conclusion.

Black Diamonds piece of the pie does NOT tell us what is going on. Hussar keeps comparing it to blind men and elephants. And if you take it out of context, trying to use Black Diamond alone is one blind guy saying the elephant is shaped like a snake. It is wrong and foolish.

But, the funny thing is, all the blind guys are feeling different parts of the elephant and instead of saying "a snake", "a tree", etc....

They are all saying: "an elephant", "yep, elephant here too", "I got elephant".

There appears to be an elephant in the room.