Why I really like D&D.

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It was a response to somebody who had asserted that 4e was well designed towards the simulating of fantasy literature, specifically Lord of the Rings.

It's basically the only version of D&D that doesn't require a cleric - who is, you will note, notoriously absent from the Fellowship.

However, 4e is probably not a good choice, as it is too 'tightly' bound to the rules conventions it sets up for itself. That was the point I was trying to make.

But you made the point poorly, is what people are objecting to. Because it would be trivially easy to rewrite your example, using 4E mechanics, to match what happens in the book.

So, really, you didn't demonstrate anything other than the fact that you can take an edition of D&D and be silly with it - which is a trait, as pointed out here, not unique to 4E.

 

[Fifth Element]

This is where I think you're running afoul in your argumentation. 4e has not actually been divisive. Those who view the edition as "not D&D," "not an RPG," "an MMO board game," etc. and refuse to acknowledge that such sentiments are merely their opinion are actually divisive.

Agreed. And this thread is in danger of going down the tubes like the last one.

 

[Hautamaki]

You know, adding the word "fact" as the end of a statement does not actually turn that statement into a fact. Nor does simply repeating a statement that has been challenged actually do anything to defend that statement from challenge...

Anyways, I've argued here on ENWorld that the entirety of the current 4E/Pathfinder spilt is rooted back in differing opinions that emerged during the 3E era, before 4E was even announced. As such, blaming the split entirely on 4E isn't really the only possible conclusion that can be made from looking at the actual facts concerning the split fanbase. This is especially true given the scarcity of reliable information proving that the Pathfinder/4E split is any more significant than the split caused by any previous edition change.

In short, nothing you say is fact. It's just guesswork that is probably more influenced by WotC and Paizo marketing than actual truths.

Well there is one indisputable factual statement you can make: In the 3.5 era and before, the overwhelming majority of D&D products sold/played were whatever the current edition of D&D was. The release of 4e was the first time in D&D history that a near 50/50 split occurred. Now the root causes of this might be debatable but the fact remains that if 4e had never been released most likely to this day the majority of D&D players would still be playing 3.5. There is of course the distinct possibility that there would be fewer total players around in this hypothetical universe than there are now, but I believe it's overwhelmingly likely that the fanbase would be much more unified in either case.

 

[Harlock]

Not to pick on you, Trippy Hippy, but we could substitute 3e for 4e in your post about dividing the fanbase. We could then insert 3.5e as well, because that argument was made more than once on these very boards back then. I do, however, agree with you nearly completely regarding ease of grouping with D&D and I too laud WotC in their stated goal of unifying the fanbase. I really hope they pull it off.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well there is one indisputable factual statement you can make: In the 3.5 era and before, the overwhelming majority of D&D products sold/played were whatever the current edition of D&D was. The release of 4e was the first time in D&D history that a near 50/50 split occurred.

I was not around for it, but I understand from other posters that the 1E / 2E split was pretty ... contentious.

Do you have the sales figures from that time to back up your factual statement?

 

[Fifth Element]

The release of 4e was the first time in D&D history that a near 50/50 split occurred.

If true, then the OGL would presumably be a huge factor in this. When 3E was released there was no easy way for another company to keep on publishing 2E material.

Now the root causes of this might be debatable but the fact remains that if 4e had never been released most likely to this day the majority of D&D players would still be playing 3.5.

And if 3E had never been released?

 

[Campbell]

Well there is one indisputable factual statement you can make: In the 3.5 era and before, the overwhelming majority of D&D products sold/played were whatever the current edition of D&D was. The release of 4e was the first time in D&D history that a near 50/50 split occurred. Now the root causes of this might be debatable but the fact remains that if 4e had never been released most likely to this day the majority of D&D players would still be playing 3.5. There is of course the distinct possibility that there would be fewer total players around in this hypothetical universe than there are now, but I believe it's overwhelmingly likely that the fanbase would be much more unified in either case.

I don't think # of people playing Game X is all that useful of a metric. You also need to account for the utility they gain from Game X as well as the degree of transferable experience from table to table. If more players have a satisfying game experience due to the Pathfinder/4e split than its a net win for consumers. I also find the idea that 4e created a rift in the community somewhat dubious. Towards the end of 3e's lifespan there was a highly diversified fairly split community. I remember seeing a lot of play style discussions that mirror the 3e/4e edition slap fight pretty well. If the way you view/address playing D&D is incompatible with the way a given group plays it doesn't really matter what edition they're playing.

 

[TrippyHippy]

It takes two to tango. 4e wasn't divisive. 3e wasn't divisive. Even the OGL wasn't divisive, though it was a great tool for those who chose the 3.5 side.

No, the divisiveness was in the community, itself.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming - I find it galling that anybody could seriously argue that all the issues we have been quite angrily debating about for years on this site and elsewhere have not, in fact, stemmed from the release of 4e. That's what all the arguments have been about - for or against!

The very mention of 'Edition wars' and the fact that Pathfinder alternates between outselling and being runner up to D&D indicates that the community is split. Obviously, this situation was not occurring before 4e release.

As I said, that is not a value statement - it's a fact.

To claim that the division in the community is the communities fault, is basically airbrushing out the core issue. Moreover, people aren't just debating the merits of 4e vs Pathfinder - they are putting their money where their mouth is and buying into them.

Pathfinder may not be going anywhere, but it's own existence is solely down to the development of 4e in the first instance.

 

[TrippyHippy]

If true, then the OGL would presumably be a huge factor in this. When 3E was released there was no easy way for another company to keep on publishing 2E material.


And if 3E had never been released?

No other company was allowed to print 2e stuff before or after 3e. There was no OGL for it. Of course, using the OGL, retroclones of earlier editions started coming out instead.

Also, it needs to be pointed out that, despite their problems, TSR were still making a growth and profit from the AD&D brand right up to their being bought out by Wizards, despite making a lot of business mistakes. The 3e/D20 stuff expanded (or at least maximized) the market greatly - which was surely the intended goal - it's just Wizards didn't necessarily have the foresight to see where the whole OGL thing would lead, and made a whole bunch mistakes themselves in the resultant years. One of those mistakes, but by no means the only one, was the entire way that 4e was marketed and introduced.

 

[Dannager]

To claim that the division in the community is the communities fault, is basically airbrushing out the core issue.

I believe firmly that the exact opposite is the case - that claiming that the division in the community is 4e's fault is an exercise in willful ignorance. The community was split well before that, but it only had a single game to rally around. There was plenty of discontent, but not much in the way of an outlet. There was a fairly large contingent of D&D players who were playing D&D 3.5 (or whatever) a particular way, and felt incredibly threatened by 4e's release because they perceived that the way they were used to playing D&D would not be supported. While inaccurate, that perception led to a truly vicious rebellion.

Blaming the divide on 4e's release is like blaming the U.S. Civil War on Lincoln's election.