IceBear wrote:That could be true, but given that WotC doesn't release sales figures it's hard to say....I'd imagine that in a given area a gaming store might notice they are selling Pathfinder more than 4E which is where those comments probably come from (I know my local gaming store 4E outsells Pathfinder).
Edition wars have also wounded the game. Various rules systems have been released over Dungeons & Dragons’ 38-year history: Basic, Advanced, Advanced 2nd edition, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0. Devotion to particular rules can be fanatical. Hostilities about how to best play the game — for example, how a sorcerer casts spells — flare up among the core fan base.
Smoove_B wrote:Has D&D ever been in the New York Times?Edition wars have also wounded the game. Various rules systems have been released over Dungeons & Dragons’ 38-year history: Basic, Advanced, Advanced 2nd edition, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0. Devotion to particular rules can be fanatical. Hostilities about how to best play the game — for example, how a sorcerer casts spells — flare up among the core fan base.
It's strange -- I knew this -- but it wasn't until reading the next paragraph that I realized how it related to what's going on in PC and console gaming right now, particularly with the Call of Duty series. When they release they new MP games each year, they continue to fracture the player base. Probably not by much, but I doubt there's a 100% conversion rate when the new iterations are released. On top of that, each time they release those $15 map packs the player base fractures again. It's been mentioned here before (well, in the PC gaming section) but it never really occurred to me that's what might also be happening with the D&D franchise.
It's a HUGE problem knowing that I have stacks of AD&D (1st and 2nd edition) material, campaign books, adventures, etc... that are completely useless. If the next D&D product could somehow bring new life to all that old stuff (including my stack of 80s and 90s Dungeon magazines that I refuse to get rid of) as well as give them the ability to launch all sorts of new products maybe they can entice more people back into the fold.
Maybe that's THE definition of trying to be everything to everyone but maybe it will light a fire under those of us that haven't touched the D&D pen and paper system since the early 1990s. I dunno.
Smoove_B wrote:Has D&D ever been in the New York Times?
The fantasy game Dungeons and Dragons will be dropped at Putnam High School after a six-month controversy, according to the school. About 500 people signed a petition to ban the game after the suicide in April of 13-year-old Roland Cartier, who was known to have played it.
A jury yesterday convicted a man of murdering his parents, rejecting a defense contention that he believed he was under the spell of a character in the game of Dungeons and Dragons.
The jury found Daniel Kasten, 20 years old, guilty of shooting his parents in May 1987 as they were sleeping at home in Lake Ronkonkoma.
The panel began deliberating Tuesday and continued this morning. In closing arguments Tuesday, Mr. Kasten's lawyer, William Nash, said that the case was not about Dungeons and Dragons, but that Mr. Kasten believed he was under the control of the Mind Flyer character when he shot his parents, Edith and Joseph.
IceBear wrote:Well, WotC just announced they are working on the next edition of D&D and since most people didn't like 4E
Odin wrote:Tanking was the biggest issue for me. In my old AD&D games, we never had a "tank." The idea that one guy would deliberately get all the bad guys to focus their attacks on him was unthinkable. You chose your opponents and the DM decided who they would attack, based on initiative and other factors. If your mage was lucky, he got to hang back and receive few or no attacks. If not, then then the fighter had to bust his ass to finish off his own guys so he could run over and help. Codifying "tanking" into the rules just... I dunno... disgusted me. I can't really put my finger on why, but it seemed so foreign to the AD&D game I'd so enjoyed and so similar to a MMORPG that it felt wrong to me.
TiLT wrote:What most of you seem to forget is that with 4E WotC moved the focus away from books and over into the digital space. People like me have subscribed since the beginning but only bought a few books (yet I use material from tons of them), and this seems to be by design. This also means that you can't use numbers from retailers to judge the popularity of 4E. Subscriber numbers from D&D Insider would be more useful, but I doubt we'll see any of those. By moving customers over to a subscription model WotC has a reasonably predictable and stable source of income compared to the typical RPG income slope. The 5th edition is very likely to follow in the same footsteps, with frustrated retailers but subscribers with access to materials they don't have the books for.
TiLT wrote:You can't compare an online document to the tools that DDI offers. It's a completely different thing, particularly in that the former requires a lot more effort from users and will always be the "cheap way" to play the game compared to owning the books. Using DDI requires next to no effort, or even awareness of new material, nor does it feel cheapened compared to the full products. My D&D campaign, which has lasted since 4E was first released, uses all the source materials that have been released, and I haven't had to do anything to support this. My players use the character builder on my computer, which presents them with a full and ever-expanding list of game features they can make full use of.
Online documents isn't a new thing. 3E and 3.5 both did that.
By the way, the 5-year life cycle has been WotC's modus operandi since the release of 3.5 and is well known among the customers. Nobody is surprised to see a new edition come out, and it's certainly not something you can use to judge the success of 4E. 5E would have come out next year no matter what, with the sole exception being if WotC suddenly stopped producing D&D altogether. I still think it's too early, but this is what WotC wants to do and they've clearly communicated this fact before.
Zurai wrote:... and this is TiLT sailing up a river in Egypt.
4th Edition was a surprise when it was announced 4 years after 3.5. No one really expected it.
The surprise of it put people out of business because they ordered a bunch of just-released 3.5 material that wouldn't sell because why buy 3.5 stuff when 4E is just around the corner?
Further, 3rd edition had an 8 year lifespan, not a 5 year one.
Further, until just this last couple of days, there was absolutely no word from WotC on a new edition being in development, and 4.E had only been out for about a year and a half. In fact, WotC has been actively denying that they had plans for a new edition.
Finally, let me put it this way: in 2000-2008, D&D was by far the #1 tabletop RPG on the market. White Wolf's stuff was a very, very distant second. No one else came even remotely close to D&D's dust trail. Now, in early 2012, D&D is no longer the top tabletop RPG according to any national source you care to ask. That is indisputable fact. Yeah, DDI isn't reported to national sources, but neither are people who only buy Paizo PDFs or use the PRD, so that's a wash.
By any standard you care to use, 3rd edition was a smashing success. By those same standards, 4E is a major letdown.
Any time you go from Windows-level market dominance to #2 in the market, there's going to be a reason for it, and that reason is almost certain to be "the customers didn't like the product as much as the competitor's". Either that or "we priced ourselves out of the competition" which probably doesn't really apply here. 4E is more expensive than Pathfinder, even ignoring the PRD, but I doubt that tabletop RPGs are that sensitive to that degree of price difference.
Peacedog wrote:4e was an interesting failure, I think. But a failure. Too much homogenity in the classes. Also, while there is a lot about 3e I like, there were many design failures there that 4e ultimately built on.
3e leveraged a lot of ideas Cook was using in homebrew campaigns. He put forth quite a few of them in the Book of Experimental Might. Fascinatingly, that book addresses one of my biggest criticisms with 3e, in that it puts much more interesting choices back into the hands of players with respect to character building.
Zarathud wrote:That's my problem with 4E. The special effects and role-based classes are fine for superheroes but not what I'm looking for in a fantasy RPG.
Users browsing this forum: TheMix and 1 guest