will 4.0 succeed?

[Aus_Snow]

That is relevant information.

It's not proof of sustainability, but it is relevant to this discussion. Quit dismissing it because it doesn't disprove the strawman youguys created.

It's completely understandable that you consider it relevant. That you consider there to be a strawman created by me and/or whoever else in this context. . . well, fair enough. I doubt I can convince you otherwise, somehow.

For the topic itself though - 'will [4e] succeed?' - I doubt that it really means much, and I've said so, and why. In addition, I've certainly made some mistakes along the way, granted. But at no time have I intentionally set up any 'strawman', and I have no wish to do so. I was arguing the points that I perceived to be there, and that I wanted to respond to, for better or worse.

If I have managed in the process to **** you off or whatever, sorry about that. Not my intent. I honestly haven't seen or heard any data that confirm the future success (i.e., the 'will it succeed' thing) or otherwise of 4e. I'm open to the idea, though.

On that note, it really would be very interesting to see some comparison of early 3.0 sales to early 4e sales, particularly in the months ahead. I seriously do believe that this would help in gauging 4e's relative success. After all, how else does one gauge the success of anything, other than relatively? And there is no true competitor handy for that purpose, as is widely known. So. . . why not the closest, most direct and relevant comparison in existence?

Anyone got some sales data on 3.0 handy? They would be very useful.

If not, cool. I'm happy to leave the topic alone. And hey, if 4e is outselling 3.0 (or is at a point where that can be determined, perhaps), I'm hardly going to protest. Surprised. sure. Protesting, no. For that matter, if 3e turns out to have been outselling 4e at some point, I'll say no more about it.

 

[Monkey Boy]

The point is not entirely invalid. Monopoly is an evergreen. It probably has a constant rate of sales that is in an acceptable region. You don't really need to support a Monopoly Website and create Monopoly Sourcebooks to maintain sales for it.

If 4E is a great success, but sales eventually decline (for the core books or supplements), Hasbro will probably force a 5E, since they know from 3E and 4E that new editions sell well.
If 4E is not a big success, and sales start lower then expected and decline further, Hasbro will probably not go for a 5E, since the implication is that new editions don't necessarily sell well. If it's still a kind of "Evergreen" (continually selling books at a low but steady rate), they might just close R&D and continue selling the books...
If 4E is a great success, and sales never decline significantly, little will prompt a 5E, except maybe the designers who think they can improve on it...

I see DnD being treated like Magic the Gathering. Sure the rules will remain essentially the same but they relaunch time and time again so people drop more money on the starting set. Think 'NEW CORE EACH YEAR'. Sheesh, they have told us they are doing this already. People buy core books, not publishing core books is like leaving money on the table.

The uncertain element in all this is DDI. If DDI is a success they might be able to tweak the rule set that way and not need to relaunch new editions.

Finally I believe it is naive to think that designers have any say in publishing a new edition.

 

[Jhaelen]

I also think that the been-there-done-that factor will hit much quicker in 4E. Not in weeks or months, but much quicker than 3E.

Quite possible. I intend to enjoy 4E to the fullest before that happens

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I see DnD being treated like Magic the Gathering. Sure the rules will remain essentially the same but they relaunch time and time again so people drop more money on the starting set.

Wow, that takes me back - people said pretty much the same thing in 1999 before the release of 3.0.

But it didn't happen then, and I doubt it will happen now. After all, WotC does have a few people with half a brain left...

 

[DaveMage]

Wow, that takes me back - people said pretty much the same thing in 1999 before the release of 3.0.

But it didn't happen then, and I doubt it will happen now. After all, WotC does have a few people with half a brain left...

Um, it's already happened - three times in 9 years.

We have had new core rules books in 2000, 2003, and 2008.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Um, it's already happened - three times in 9 years.

We have had new core rules books in 2000, 2003, and 2008.

But not every year, as the previous poster suggested.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wow, that takes me back - people said pretty much the same thing in 1999 before the release of 3.0.

But it didn't happen then, and I doubt it will happen now. After all, WotC does have a few people with half a brain left...

Well, in a way it's "more true" this time. The current plans from WotC are to sell new PHB, DMG and MMs each year, and they will be (in WotC-speak) all considered Core rulebooks.

It's still not a new edition each year, and not really _that_ different from the number of splat books 3E (3.0 and 3.5) had to offer. It's just a different format.

From a fan perspective, the Core Books II, IIIs and IVs will not be treated that differently from the 3E books from WotC. They are "nearly core", in the sense that most players will look at them per default for new options, though the DM will often have a final say.

For WotC, it probably means that later supplements will build on these Core Books, and you can expect supplements expanding classes from the later Core Books. This was already partially true in 3.5 (for new base classes, but not PrCs)

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah I find it silly when people think the Corebooks each year will be like; 4.1, 4.2, etc. their not, at all. To make them so they would need to redo/alter the entire rules and reprint these new rules each year in the new corebooks.

That isn't what they are doing, all their doing is giving a big chunk of crunch each year for the players so essentially if you want to make one big purchase each year buy the corebooks each year to add onto the game.

Hell, if they do boxed-sets and have same sale price on Amazon. Pay $60 and you get essentially a years worth of crunch, that in 3e you would need to buy numerous amounts of books to get the same amount.

That being said, I do hope DMGs will come out with some alternative rules for somethings, ie: alignment alternative rule is Trait, etc.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Um, it's already happened - three times in 9 years.

We have had new core rules books in 2000, 2003, and 2008.

It is not the same thing. 4E has things set up for major game expansions within the same rule set. I also assume that this will mean that post PHBII all WOTC adventures will assume you have the newest rules. That would be a step up from 3.5, where most of hte cool new stuff never saw the light of day.

 

[Ripzerai]

As a current 1E/2E player I definitely enjoy the style of the rules and the campaign material in 1E/2E. But after playing with the 3E rules for a while, I am finding the 3E mechanics to be a lot smoother and less clunky. Which in general results in a better story.

I think that's unusual. People have many criteria in making a decision about what game to play. What they're comfortable with and used to is a big factor. Another big factor is what the people around you are playing. I think the interaction of those two elements is stronger than the details of what the mechanics are like.

People play Champions, or GURPS, or FUDGE, or 1st edition AD&D, or OD&D, or Tunnels & Trolls or whatever because those are the mechanics they're most comfortable with and that's the game their friends want to play.

I think a game can be so very clunky that it's unplayable, but D&D in any edition is fun. As long as people can have fun with the game they're used to and as long as they can find other people willing to play it with them, that's the game most of them will play.

I'm sure there are some people, like yourself, who look primarily for some ideal of "smoothness" in their games, but I suspect for most people, that's a lesser priority.

I think character options are probably a bigger draw than "smoothness." If the system you use doesn't support the kind of character you want to play, you're more likely to move to another system if it's readily available to you. I think the real test of 4e will be in how flexible the character creation is. Can I play a good-hearted rogue, a bard, a druid, an elven fighter-mage or bladesinger, an ur-priest, a dual-scimitar-wielding drow ranger, a Fochlucan lyrist, a monk, an assassin, a ninja, a wild mage, an alienist, a 13-year old boy with wild hair and a sword bigger than he is, an immortal with rune-covered skin, an intelligent cat, conjoined twins, a mind flayer, or a dinosaur? If I can play all those things with the first release, I'm sold. If I have to wait a few years for those roles to be defined in the new rules, and it's not simple to create these races and classes myself, it may take a while for me to be converted.