|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2011 - 1:45PM
#1
|
|
|
As I'm only familiar with 3.0 and 3.5, I was curious if 4th edition is selling as well as the previous edition and if it really is reaching a broader fanbase? I don't have anything against 4th personally, it's just that I have so much invested in 3.5 (and I'm also heavily into Neverwinter Nights 1&2) I don't as yet feel the need to change. I think my love of multiclassing and building 3.0/3.5 characters is what appeals to me most.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2011 - 1:47PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2009
|
I think my love of multiclassing and building 3.0/3.5 characters is what appeals to me most.
4e doesn't have much of that. Building characters is a lot more straightforward and being useful is a lot easier, while being super-powerful is practically impossible. So if drawing up characters is your thing, 3.5e is probably better for you.
As for reaching a broader fanbase... I've convinced a lot of people to play 4e with me, people of whom I'm pretty sure I would not be able to play 3.5e due to the high system mastery and time investment requirements. My girlfriend also managed to figure out 4e in about 3 months, while never really "getting" 3e even after playing for 2 years. Most likely, again, due to the required system mastery.
Epic Dungeon Master Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen! Your Kingdom awaits!Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2011 - 5:04PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
[ So if drawing up characters is your thing, 3.5e is probably better for you.
Not necessarily I love creating characters and 4e is exactly where I like to do it. When I feel like optimizing (In part because I dont feel guilty that I am going to create a punpun/CoDzilla) or reflavoring (Its more easilly distinguished what I can spice up) its all scrumptious.
Oh and when I create a character in 4e I definitely feel encouraged to be also thinking of them in terms of their place in a team... which gives me more warm fuzzies.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2011 - 5:26PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
As I'm only familiar with 3.0 and 3.5, I was curious if 4th edition is selling as well as the previous edition and if it really is reaching a broader fanbase?
Ironically, from the little available evidence, the answers would seem to be 'no' and 'yes.' We have no solid sales data, but WotC's freakish behavior over the last years, starting with Essentials and proceding to announce, pull and re-anounce products, has that special air of desperation that corporate america only gets when sales are below target (no telling how unrealistically high that target was, though). As for the breadth of the fan-base, well, D&D has always been a game for the oldest and newest gamers. There's always been a contingent that starts with D&D and never really moves on, and, because of the game's name recognition, new players often start with it.
In the 90s, that changed, as new players were drawn to Storyteller and LARPing - or away from RPGs entirely to M:tG and it's immitators. D&D remained a strong product line due to its name recognition and legion of longtime fans, but it lost that position of leadership and that natural 'first gaming experience' that it had so long enjoyed.
3e changed part of that. By going open-source, 3.0/d20 leapt back into industry leadership. It was a brilliant stroke. With D&Ds name recognition and solid core of fans, would-be competitors had to ask themselves 'do I want to compete with D&D, or jump on the open-source bandwagon.' Even WWGS, who'd been about as close to an industry leader as there was in the 90s, opted for the bandwagon. WotC just about rolled up the RPG industry and delivered it to Hasbro, not that Hasbro's bottom line would've noticed. But, leadership is not revenue.
With 4e, two distinct things happened. 1) The designers were given enough latitude to slaughter some sacred cows and seriously improve the game, really modernizing it for the first time, well, ever. 2) The OGL was dumped in favor of a more restrictive GSL, which basically dumped all those 3rd-party bandwagon-jumpsers like a first wife - and reckoned not on the alimony. 1) was a briliant success. 2) was a dismal failure.
With every edition, there are hold-outs who cling to the old version for a while (sometimes a long while) and nerdrage about how evil the rev-roll is. Normally, they die away for lack of new material. However, through the power of the OGL, new material (Pathfinder) kept coming out, so the hold-outs can nerdrage about the evil of the new edition idefinitely. There's really nothing for WotC to do but give in, roll back time, give up on innovation, take D&D back to the open source model, and accept that the game will never again have anything going for it but name recognition and third-party support.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2011 - 7:40PM
#5
|
|
|
I was curious if 4th edition is selling as well as the previous edition
No.
3e benefited from a confulence of lucky events. The people who grew up playing 1e were curious about the game again or had kids ready to play. Meanwhile, 2e had all been dead, so people were ready for a change. It was perfect timing.
and if it really is reaching a broader fanbase?
No.
4e has a solid audience, but the edition is just less flexible. It traded the flexibility of 3e for balance and consistant play. It does what it does well really well. Phenomenally well. But if you try and do something else it's a bit of a struggle. It's just not built for some styles of play, which means a slightly narower audience.
I don't have anything against 4th personally, it's just that I have so much invested in 3.5 (and I'm also heavily into Neverwinter Nights 1&2) I don't as yet feel the need to change. I think my love of multiclassing and building 3.0/3.5 characters is what appeals to me most.
It's hard to argue with investment. If you have a lot of books or are really fond of an edition, there's not much point in switching: if you're not completely interested in something new you'll compare editions and seek out faults. It might be better to try 4e as side games, something as an experiment but not a permanent replacement so you can enjoy it for what it is rather than feeling force to accept it completely as your new system.
Try a couple games of Encounters at a gaming store or a few Living Forgotten Realms modules.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? My Webcomic: 5 Minute WorkdayUpdated every Tuesday and Thursday Spoiler:
Show
Updated Tuesday and ThursdayRead my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list). You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2011 - 8:04PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2008
|
I personally find 4e to be an improvement in most categories over all previous editions, but like Tony said - WotC's very, very erratic (bordering on unprofessional) behavior makes it obvious that it's floundering to some degree.
The main reasons why, I surmise, are:
1. Its more restrictive, board-gamey gameplay alienated many RPGers who are used to simulationism being part of the game rules rather than being handled in the abstract. This is the main thing that split the fanbase from 3e. My opinion is that D&D has never handled simulationism very well, and that it's better served by a ruleset more similar to 4e's.
2. The edition came about a year or two prematurely, and felt somewhat overly-capitalistic. The result of this was a lower-than-expected quality of early products like the original rule books, the introductory adventure and the FRCG, as well as major, unforgivable rules oversights like the math scaling.
3. The butchering done to the FR setting, which has been for some time the flagship campaign setting for D&D, even if not the "core" one. 4th edition FR left a very, very bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths and I'm quite sure it played a rather large role in continuting the exodus from the official D&D brand.
4. WotC/Hasbro's diminishing reputation over typical "corporatism" - things like yearly layoffs and excessive focus on IP and anti-piracy regulations. The "change" to the OGL was somewhat misguided and did little but cause resentment and more fracturing amongst both gamers and content developers.
5. The fact that PF is about the most ideal version of 3.x that will ever exist, and enough players liked 3rd edition enough that PF was a more natural upgrade for them than 4e was.
6. Regardless of the merit of the Essentials line as independent products (I liked most of them), its execution as a mid-edition revamp was not particularly well handled - it left a lot of disorganization, bloat, and inconsistency in quality and presentation in its wake, and failed to fix some of the more egregious problems with the overall system.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2011 - 8:10PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
I personally find 4e to be an improvement in most categories over all previous editions, but like Tony said - WotC's very, very erratic (bordering on unprofessional) behavior makes it obvious that it's floundering to some degree.
The main reasons why, I surmise, are:
1. Its more restrictive, board-gamey gameplay alienated many RPGers who are used to simulationism being part of the game rules rather than being handled in the abstract. This is the main thing that split the fanbase from 3e. My opinion is that D&D has never handled simulationism very well, and that it's better served by a ruleset more similar to 4e's.
2. The edition came about a year or two prematurely, and felt somewhat overly-capitalistic. The result of this was a lower-than-expected quality of early products like the original rule books, the introductory adventure and the FRCG, as well as major, unforgivable rules oversights like the math scaling.
3. The butchering done to the FR setting, which has been for some time the flagship campaign setting for D&D, even if not the "core" one. 4th edition FR left a very, very bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths and I'm quite sure it played a rather large role in continuting the exodus from the official D&D brand.
4. WotC/Hasbro's diminishing reputation over typical "corporatism" - things like yearly layoffs and excessive focus on IP and anti-piracy regulations. The "change" to the OGL was somewhat misguided and did little but cause resentment and more fracturing amongst both gamers and content developers.
5. The fact that PF is about the most ideal version of 3.x that will ever exist, and enough players liked 3rd edition enough that PF was a more natural upgrade for them than 4e was.
6. Regardless of the merit of the Essentials line as independent products (I liked most of them), its execution as a mid-edition revamp was not particularly well handled - it left a lot of disorganization, bloat, and inconsistency in quality and presentation in its wake, and failed to fix some of the more egregious problems with the overall system.
1. Strawmanry.
2. Strawmanry.
3. And yet, there was peoples BROUGHT BACK TO FR to it - and many fans didnt mind it, or even liked it. Like me.
4. The OGL screwed the owners. And there was way too much crap.
5. PF = scam, as you pointed. It's just a freaking update sold with a pseudo-anti-capitalistic bent.
6. Bah.
7. I vote for Québec SOlidaire, and as a centrist,they have the right to make money.
This post was a ramassis of clichés, strawmen and rehashed crud. Hatin'.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2011 - 8:22PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2008
|
I personally find 4e to be an improvement in most categories over all previous editions, but like Tony said - WotC's very, very erratic (bordering on unprofessional) behavior makes it obvious that it's floundering to some degree.
The main reasons why, I surmise, are:
1. Its more restrictive, board-gamey gameplay alienated many RPGers who are used to simulationism being part of the game rules rather than being handled in the abstract. This is the main thing that split the fanbase from 3e. My opinion is that D&D has never handled simulationism very well, and that it's better served by a ruleset more similar to 4e's.
2. The edition came about a year or two prematurely, and felt somewhat overly-capitalistic. The result of this was a lower-than-expected quality of early products like the original rule books, the introductory adventure and the FRCG, as well as major, unforgivable rules oversights like the math scaling.
3. The butchering done to the FR setting, which has been for some time the flagship campaign setting for D&D, even if not the "core" one. 4th edition FR left a very, very bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths and I'm quite sure it played a rather large role in continuting the exodus from the official D&D brand.
4. WotC/Hasbro's diminishing reputation over typical "corporatism" - things like yearly layoffs and excessive focus on IP and anti-piracy regulations. The "change" to the OGL was somewhat misguided and did little but cause resentment and more fracturing amongst both gamers and content developers.
5. The fact that PF is about the most ideal version of 3.x that will ever exist, and enough players liked 3rd edition enough that PF was a more natural upgrade for them than 4e was.
6. Regardless of the merit of the Essentials line as independent products (I liked most of them), its execution as a mid-edition revamp was not particularly well handled - it left a lot of disorganization, bloat, and inconsistency in quality and presentation in its wake, and failed to fix some of the more egregious problems with the overall system.
1. Strawmanry.
2. Strawmanry.
3. And yet, there was peoples BROUGHT BACK TO FR to it - and many fans didnt mind it, or even liked it. Like me.
4. The OGL screwed the owners. And there was way too much crap.
5. PF = scam, as you pointed. It's just a freaking update sold with a pseudo-anti-capitalistic bent.
6. Bah.
7. I vote for Québec SOlidaire, and as a centrist,they have the right to make money.
This post was a ramassis of clichés, strawmen and rehashed crud. Hatin'.
1. Please elaborate on how this is a strawman, that accusation doesn't even really make sense.
2. Same here.
3. There is no do doubt whatsoever that the Realms lost more fans than it gained in this edition, sorry to burst your bubble.
4. Perhaps. But many people would disagree, which was the point of my post.
5. PF isn't a scam, it's a more direct evolution of 3.x, which some people are quite happy with. Enough to put a serious dent in the WotC fanbase.
6. ... whatever
It doesn't even really seem like you read the post carefully or understood the point of it.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2011 - 8:29PM
#9
|
|
|
It doesn't even really seem like you read the post carefully or understood the point of it.
Yeah.
I especially enjoy how he accuses you of "hatin'" when you said "find 4e to be an improvement in most categories over all previous editions" and simmilar comments.
I think most of the FR changes were not a bad idea. There were good reasons for most. It was just problematic that they also affected the novels and did not enable people to pick which era they wanted to play in, locking people into the heavily altered Realms.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? My Webcomic: 5 Minute WorkdayUpdated every Tuesday and Thursday Spoiler:
Show
Updated Tuesday and ThursdayRead my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list). You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 14, 2011 - 8:31PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2004
|
It doesn't even really seem like you read the post carefully or understood the point of it.
Yeah.
I especially enjoy how he accuses you of "hatin'" when you said "find 4e to be an improvement in most categories over all previous editions" and simmilar comments.
I think most of the FR changes were not a bad idea. There were good reasons for most. It was just problematic that they also affected the novels and did not enable people to pick which era they wanted to play in, locking people into the heavily altered Realms.
It's anyway false and hatin'. At times, you have to be direct and simple, and don't waste words.
|
|
|
