# Pramas: Does 4E have staying power?



## TerraDave (Dec 4, 2008)

Chris Pramas has an interesting blog post here.



			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> In separate conversations, an executive in the game trade and the former RPG buyer for a major chain of bookstores both told me the same thing: 4E sold in well but follow-up sales were slow. One of them told me that 4E supplements were selling at the same level as 3E supplements at the beginning of this year (i.e. 8 years into 3E's lifecycle).




He also covers the layoffs, the GSL, and the dearth of 3rd party support.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 4, 2008)

Thanks for the link.

Summertime should be interesting.


----------



## hexgrid (Dec 4, 2008)

That is interesting info if true.


----------



## malraux (Dec 4, 2008)

On the flip side, at the beginning of this year, the house bubble hadn't yet popped and the credit market was still functional.  So its not exactly an apples to apples comparison.  Also, looking at the 3e 3rd party market immediately after launch vs the 4e 3rd party market also isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison, as we know in retrospect that the 3e 3rd party market was its own bubble.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 4, 2008)

3rd parties aren't releasing anything new at this point under any system. Aside from Pathfinder, what major 3rd party OGL items have been either released or announced? Is there any OGL release aside from Pathfinder/Paizo that you would call more significant than Goodman's DCC books going 4E full force?

4E has divided the community, and on a city by city, FLGS to FLGS comparison, the results are going to vary wildly. In addition, I think Amazon stole a large portion of the RPG market when they released the 4E core set for half price. They have been pricing D&D books agressively ever since, and I'd wager they've kept a lot of customers buying from them. Judging the success of 4E sales from looking at FLGS and distributors isn't going to be a good predictor with Amazon's presence factored in.


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 4, 2008)

Its an interesting post, but I wish that Chris would have accounted for two things in his analysis.  One, what is the effect of Internet retailers that sell the 4e books at huge discounts compared to what the brick & mortar stores can offer, and second, what about the effect of the DDI, since WoTC is essentially selling a vast majority of their crunch content via the Compendium.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 4, 2008)

The layoffs could imply that DDI is not yet a success.


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 4, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> The layoffs could imply that DDI is not yet a success.




I doubt that the DDI met the initial expectations for revenue or progress (how could it, given what was promised); Randy Buehler admitted as much in DI #17.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 4, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> and second, what about the effect of the DDI, since WoTC is essentially selling a vast majority of their crunch content via the Compendium.




An excellent question.


----------



## filthgrinder (Dec 4, 2008)

malraux said:


> On the flip side, at the beginning of this year, the house bubble hadn't yet popped and the credit market was still functional. quote]
> 
> This.
> 
> ...


----------



## malraux (Dec 4, 2008)

Yeah, I can see the case that the core books are inferior goods, but supplements are likely luxuries.


----------



## FunkBGR (Dec 4, 2008)

Pramas is just sharing an opinion. It doesn't really mean anything, he's just musing. Since he isn't in the 4e boat, I don't really take it as more than just him still being skeptical of the new edition.


----------



## La Bete (Dec 4, 2008)

Gels roughly with what thalmin said a little while ago about how things were selling.

Reasonably reliable source as well.

However.... I really, *really* wouldn't draw too much from this with regards to DDI/layoffs/success of 4e.


----------



## Harr (Dec 4, 2008)

FunkBGR said:


> Pramas is just sharing an opinion. It doesn't really mean anything, he's just musing. Since he isn't in the 4e boat, I don't really take it as more than just him still being skeptical of the new edition.




Certain people who are in position of authority don't get to take the position of "just sharing opinion", since their opinion is viewed as more informed than most, and the sharing of it can have significant impact on people's opinions and behavior. For someone like Chris Pramas to be "just sharing opinion" is disingenuous, since he knows perfectly well (as do we) that many people will take his opinion to be either fact or indicative of the facts.

Whenever you read something like this by a person in that position your immediate mental reaction should be "Does this person have a vested interest or anything to gain by people believing this information, regardless of whether it's actually accurate or not?" 

If yes, then no amount of "Oh come on you guys, it's just my _opinion_, I mean come on seriously, teehee!" makes it any better.



> This is obviously biased viewing of data intended to promote a certain point of view. Seriously, enough of the 4e bashing, we GET IT. You don't like the product. Move along.




Exactly.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 4, 2008)

Quality and all that is fine and dandy, especially since I am a f4nboi and encountard and all. I am constantly worried that I end up being the only one playing 4E and seeing no more supplements, but I am irrational like that. 

If we want to look at market success, we never get the full picture, but a question might be: How is it looking overall? Where didn't the sales drop, where did they stay at previous levels? 

And yet another question what would these numbers mean for the future? 
Do the stores have to close? Does WotC have to stop publishing D&D? Do they just change their strategy? Can they do anything at all? If it's not a question of quality or market acceptance, but just a question of a receding economy, is there anything they can do except to go on and hope for the best?


----------



## Mallus (Dec 4, 2008)

All I can say is that I hope 4e has staying power, because I'm enjoying it so far. And I hope WotC fixes the GSL (how's that coming, BTW?).


----------



## darjr (Dec 4, 2008)

eh... and around here there are game stores that sold out of martial power.​


----------



## frankthedm (Dec 4, 2008)

Mallus said:


> And I hope WotC fixes the GSL (how's that coming, BTW?).



Heh, I'll believe it when I see it. I am having trouble believing any new version can undo the damage done by the initial Delays & wording of the GSL. 







			
				Pramas said:
			
		

> If WotC was serious about wanting the support of third party publishers, the GSL has been a strategic failure to date. If the goal was to cull the third party market though, mission accomplished.



Sure seems that way to me.


			
				darjr said:
			
		

> eh... and around here there are game stores that sold out of martial power.



How many did they order in the first place? Without evidence of how *many* were sold at that location, being sold out is hardly an indication of success.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 4, 2008)

I am not a fan of 4e. But nonetheless I hope sales are fairly brisk. I think it's important that WotC do well financially, for the sake of the industry, and I think it's also important that people keep playing games and having a good time, for the sake of the hobby. I think if 4e does not pick up some more momentum, 5e may come sooner rather than later, which would also be unfortunate, but may be inevitible; 4e is the first version of an entirely new set of rules, which means entirely new problems to iron out. 

The GSL situation needs to be fixed; whether Hasbro realizes it or not, they need 3pp. as the layoff reminds us, keeping a full time staff to write gaming books is financially difficult in the best of times, and almost impossible in rough times. Keeping development in house is probably not an option.

Most of the major game systems I can think of have some kind of third party support (D&D, Fudge, Runequest, savage Worlds), an active user community of tinkerers (GURPS, Hero), a magazine that takes a lot of unsolicited submissions (GURPS), or virtually nonexistent IP restrictions (various "given away" games like Marvel FASERIP, and by default, many OOP games). D&D 4e with its relatively closed system and in house magazine looks mostly like Palladium. While Palladium's longevity speaks of some kind of success, I don't think it's the best model. 

4e does have something of a tinkering community already brewing, which is a good thing for 4e.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 4, 2008)

filthgrinder said:


> 4e sold in well, and then we had ridiculous gas prices, and then in September we had an economic meltdown. We've suffered lay offs nationwide, consumer spending during that period fizzled out. So, the purchase of non-essiential like role playing suppliments suffered.
> 
> No kidding, did it really?
> 
> ...




I'm not convinced. We were being hammered with high gas prices already when 4e came out and now the economic "experts" are saying we've been in a recession for a lot longer than anybody previously thought. Sure, there was no panicky meltdown, but it's not like things were all ducky when 4e hit the shelves either.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 4, 2008)

I don't think you can easily scapegoat the economy entirely. Seasonal layoff cycles happen. While the economy might have worsened them/hastened them, it didn't *make* them, here after a new edition's build-up was over. We'd probably see layoffs at WotC no matter the price of oil right now.

I don't think it's simple skepticism, either. Pramas is a fairly measured and reliable source on this info, so I think the "core book spike" is real enough.

I'm pretty sad to hear that the GSL is still causing shenanigans throughout the 3rd party. It's unfortunate that there's no unifying 3rd party force at the moment, no strong leader to take up the standard like WotC was in the 3e days. They need to get a big chunk of companies on board with one thing, and stick with it, warts and all. I'm not sure Pathfinder can be that, but as long as 4e has the GSL, 4e can't be that, either.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 4, 2008)

malraux said:


> Yeah, I can see the case that the core books are inferior goods, but supplements are likely luxuries.



I don't know about that. Core books are still a luxury item in some sense. As consumer income increases, I expect sales of core books do increase slightly. But not as much as supplements, I agree there.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 4, 2008)

I can only speak for the UGT, not gaming as a whole, but I think that I am the only one of our group to have bought any release after the core books. Now, I run our 4e game so that may be part of it, but we're talking about a group of guys and gals that collectivly has, at least 2 copies of any particular (WotC) 3/3.5 book and as many as 5 or more of many of them.

After finishing KotS we went back to our high level 3.5 game and no one is really bugging to get back to 4e. I'm sure we will return to it, since we rotate games and GMs fairly regularly, but no one is exactly chomping at the bit to do so.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 4, 2008)

When he says

One of them told me that 4E supplements were selling at the same level as 3E supplements at the beginning of this year (i.e. 8 years into 3E's lifecycle).​
does he mean that the sales for the Adventurer's Vault are the same as those for Complete Champion?

Or does he mean that Martial Power and the Adventurer's Vault have the same sales as all 3E supplements?

edit: Or what, exactly?  It's ambiguous.  

Maybe it means that 20k units of Martial Power were sold, and that equals the 20k units of Complete Champion.  Maybe it means that 1k units of Martial Power were sold, the same as Sword and Fist.  Maybe it means 50 units of Martial Power sold, the same as a rare 3rd party 3E adventure.  Maybe it means that 100k units in total were sold of all 3E supplements, and 50k of each Martial Power and The Adventurer's Vault.

What is a supplement, anyway?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 4, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> When he says
> One of them told me that 4E supplements were selling at the same level as 3E supplements at the beginning of this year (i.e. 8 years into 3E's lifecycle).​does he mean that the sales for the Adventurer's Vault are the same as those for Complete Champion?
> 
> Or does he mean that Martial Power and the Adventurer's Vault have the same sales as all 3E supplements?



I read it to mean that any given 4E supplement is selling at about the same level as any given 3E supplement was.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 4, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I read it to mean that any given 4E supplement is selling at about the same level as any given 3E supplement was.



Yeah, seemed pretty straight forward to me.


----------



## Mark (Dec 4, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> When he says
> 
> One of them told me that 4E supplements were selling at the same level as 3E supplements at the beginning of this year (i.e. 8 years into 3E's lifecycle).​
> does he mean that the sales for the Adventurer's Vault are the same as those for Complete Champion?
> ...





Seems to be saying that non-core first year 4e books are selling in number of units comparable to non-core eighth year 3.xe books.  I do not know how well non-core eighth year 3.xe books sold but maybe Chris will stop in and clarify.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> When he says
> One of them told me that 4E supplements were selling at the same level as 3E supplements at the beginning of this year (i.e. 8 years into 3E's lifecycle).​does he mean that the sales for the Adventurer's Vault are the same as those for Complete Champion?
> 
> Or does he mean that Martial Power and the Adventurer's Vault have the same sales as all 3E supplements?




It means, more or less, that the monthly sales of 4e supplements so far are similar to the sales of January regarding 3e supplements. 

It may sound pretty bad because one may think that the 3e supplement sales in January or February should have been pretty limited considering the tour of promoting the new edition -even worse (and perhaps by an order of magnitude) if what he says is to be taken with outmost precision, since there were not any new 3e supplements produced means that the sales account for the sales of the older books only.


----------



## Roman (Dec 4, 2008)

I would like to take the time to thank Chris Pramas for sharing this with us. Sure, his sources are somewhat anecdotal, but they seem like very large anecdotes (large chains), which means they are probably somewhat indicative of the overall situation. Thanks for sharing this with us, Chris, most of the time we hear very little on this important topic from sources that have access to reliable or at least somewhat reliable information.


----------



## Mark (Dec 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> It means, more or less, that the monthly sales of 4e supplements so far are similar to the sales of January regarding 3e supplements.
> 
> It may sound pretty bad because one may think that the 3e supplement sales in January or February should have been pretty limited considering the tour of promoting the new edition -even worse (and perhaps by an order of magnitude) if what he says is to be taken with outmost precision, since there were not any new 3e supplements produced means that the sales account for the sales of the older books only.





You're saying you believe that he meant that 4e supplements were not selling at all?  I know that cannot be true.


----------



## malraux (Dec 4, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> I don't know about that. Core books are still a luxury item in some sense. As consumer income increases, I expect sales of core books do increase slightly. But not as much as supplements, I agree there.




I guess I would say that there are two factors.  The first is people who are short economically who don't buy the books (but would have in better times) and people who would have bought other things (new xbox, new gaming PC, ski trip to Vail) only having the money to buy gaming books.  The latter mitigates the former, though possibly not completely.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 4, 2008)

Its intersesting that WotC in its otherwise silly and dilberesque statement on the layoffs did not blame the economy. 

ICv2 - Digital Consolidation at WotC

Gaming could easily be a countercyclical hobby. Few are cheaper, and picking up a book here and there (and that is all it takes for strong sales) is not expensive. 

And of course previous recesions seem to be correlated with strong sales for the game.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

Mark said:


> You're saying you believe that he meant that 4e supplements were not selling at all?  I know that cannot be true.




I cant say I am totaly sure but I am significantly more inclined to believe he was talking about D&D book sales about 10 months ago -novels excluded- which means Races and Classes and the like are included. Either this or the person he was discussing with was talking about the period of Rules Compendium or somewhat before. But I believe the period of reference is most probably about a period after 4e's announcement. But perhaps this does not even make a difference given the general rumor that D&D sales had declined to some point since 2006.


----------



## Filcher (Dec 4, 2008)

Apart from the actual discussion of 4E sell through success/failure, the silly part to me is that the majority of the leading 3pp were banking on 4E replicating 3rd ed's success. Everyone wanted a gold mine like 3rd ed produced, and since it hasn't, the game system is to blame. 

In my opinion, this seems foolish. The market conditions (2nd ed ----> 3rd edition vrs. 3rd ---> 4E) are not remotely similar. 3rd edition is a viable game, 2nd edition (some will beg to differ) was not.

After selling pies to starving orcs, you go to fat, well-fed humans and expect the same sell through? No way in heck.

And yet, the new pies must be no good. 

Bah. Stupid argument.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 4, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I think if 4e does not pick up some more momentum, 5e may come sooner rather than later, which would also be unfortunate, but may be inevitible; 4e is the first version of an entirely new set of rules, which means entirely new problems to iron out.




If 4E does poorly, I think it just as likely there won't *be* a 5E (at least from WotC).


----------



## Mark (Dec 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> Apart from the actual discussion of 4E sell through success/failure, the silly part to me is that the majority of the leading 3pp were banking on 4E replicating 3rd ed's success. Everyone wanted a gold mine like 3rd ed produced, and since it hasn't, the game system is to blame.






I don't see it.  Some former 3pps who have independent companies in their own right have touted the GSL as a reason for non-support of the new edition.  Some people have pointed out some faults in the system, the business model and the lack of successful support through the DDI but I have not read anywhere that a former 3pp blames 4e for their own success or failure.  Can you link to something somewhere that backs your assertion?  With hundreds of former 3pps out there, and a few 4e 3pps making a go of it, I'd imagine there must be tons of links you could give if this were true.


----------



## Roman (Dec 4, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> If 4E does poorly, I think it just as likely there won't *be* a 5E (at least from WotC).




There is little doubt in my mind that there will be a 5E. There are only two questions for me. One is that of timing: i.e. whether 5E will come in 10 years or in say 5 years. The other question is that of direction: i.e. whether 5E will be based on the 4th edition, or if it will attempt to base itself more on say 3.5E (doubtlessly with some 4Eism thrown in) or if it will try to forge an entirely new direction. There is no question, however, that there will be a 5E eventually, barring some truly major unforseen circumstances.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> After selling pies to starving orcs, you go to fat humans and expect the same sell through? No way in heck.



lol. I liked this quote. 



Filcher said:


> And yet, the new pies must be no good.
> 
> Bah. Stupid argument.




Monte Cook had said that 4e had to be really brilliant becasue of this very condition. So I guess when people think the new pies are no good they mean not good enough. Not only for 3pp but also for Wotc which has some pretty high commercial standards. 
In fact it seems Paizo says to be doing better and if (infintely big if) 4e tanks perhaps some of the current 3pp will have the chance to gain status big time. Some of the people that currently got laid off could already make a deal with a 3pp augmenting its fame (Paizo perhaps?).


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 4, 2008)

I agree with Mark. The GSL has gotten the blame. And rightly so. 

The "system" is really just streamlined d20. Tons of stuff could be done with it. If stuff could be done with it.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 4, 2008)

Ya, on the whole pies thing...the fact that 3E is more competitive is kinda part of the point...


----------



## Filcher (Dec 4, 2008)

Mark said:


> I don't see it.  Some former 3pps who have independent companies in their own right have touted the GSL as a reason for non-support of the new edition.  Some people have pointed out some faults in the system, the business model and the lack of successful support through the DDI but I have not read anywhere that a former 3pp blames 4e for their own success or failure.  Can you link to something somewhere that backs your assertion?  With hundreds of former 3pps out there, and a few 4e 3pps making a go of it, I'd imagine there must be tons of links you could give if this were true.




I'm not worried about support/non-support, as (my perceived) complaints about sales/non-sales. 

Pramas wrote: 



> Our one planned product, an update of our d20 System Character Record Folio to 4E, just went to print. I am looking forward to its debut because it will give me some direct and measurable data. The original folio was Green Ronin's best selling product of all time, going through six odd print runs. It will be informative to see how the 4E version stacks up.




I think his expectations are out of line. But, like you noted, I don't have much to support my claims, and I'm feeling pretty darn lazy, so ....

...if you believe that the conditions of the RPG market that 3rd edition entered into are the same as the conditions that 4E entered into, I happily cede the point and retract my argument.


----------



## Mark (Dec 4, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> The "system" is really just streamlined d20. Tons of stuff could be done with it. If stuff could be done with it.





Indeed.  There seems to be a mindset that the fewer 3pps involved in 4e, the more control WotC maintains over the exact nature of what 4e is and becomes.  The GSL seemed to have been geared toward exactly that end, in that it is much more restrictive than the OGL in regard to what materials could be massaged, what could be released and what sort of involvement outside of 4e a company that supports 4e could have.  I think one of the biggest concerns since the layoffs has to be whether those who remain on staff will be able to maintain the same 4e without the guiding hand of the experienced individuals who have been sent packing.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> Tons of stuff could be done with it.




I do not agree with this. Because of the grid powers and grid balance 4e is much more focused and contained as a system -and difficult to develop for. It is also much more streamlined which if you think about it, it means less room to work with. Since it is also more clear it means players are more prone to buy excellent only staff for their game.


----------



## Filcher (Dec 4, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> he "system" is really just streamlined d20. Tons of stuff could be done with it. If stuff could be done with it.




Well, the owners can. The rest of us, who don't own it, can't. 

Like me guessing how fast I could drive your car, so why won't you let me borrow it? You let me borrow the last one ... 

I left some porn in the back seat, and ton of trash that you still have to carry around but I'll be better this time. Promise.


----------



## Mark (Dec 4, 2008)

Filcher said:


> I'm not worried about support/non-support, as (my perceived) complaints about sales/non-sales.





You seem to be missing a verb but I think I get your drift.




Filcher said:


> I think his expectations are out of line. But, like you noted, I don't have much to support my claims, and I'm feeling pretty darn lazy, so ....





I wouldn't characterize you as lazy, since you responded so fast, but the lack of links backing your claim leaves me wondering since I have not seen anything in my own surfing to support it either and I tend to try and keep up on such matters.




Filcher said:


> ...if you believe that the conditions of the RPG market that 3rd edition entered into are the same as the conditions that 4E entered into, I happily cede the point and retract my argument.





That seems neither here nor there in regard to your previous point since, for 3pps and most fans (and at one time also for WotC), the best of all worlds is a successful D&D with an OGL that allows for 3pps to flourish, as well.  Currently, the winds seemed to have changed in regard to what those with the most weight inside WotC seem to believe, otherwise we would likely have just seen a slightly revised OGL along with a new SRD.  How much and who has changed inside WotC depends largely on who is talking and who you believe but the fact that there has been a shift in mindset is not something I see anybody arguing about.  In the end it is what this mindset has produced, in the form of the GSL, that has been the sticking point for former 3pps.  Of the hundreds of 3pps during the 3.xe era, only a handful have become 4e 3pps and WotC seems satisfied with that situation.  Some larger, former 3pps seem to have come to terms with that situation, also, and moved on to become independent (even if the OGL is in use in some of their offerings).

The three biggest changes to my mind that exist between the market 3e entered and the market 4e entered are, firstly, 4e is competing with a much better in-house game than 3e had to supplant, secondly that 4e is obviously not being used to garner as much industry colition as 3e, and lastly the Internet as it exists today make the first two points much, much more important.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 4, 2008)

billd91 said:


> I'm not convinced. We were being hammered with high gas prices already when 4e came out and now the economic "experts" are saying we've been in a recession for a lot longer than anybody previously thought. Sure, there was no panicky meltdown, but it's not like things were all ducky when 4e hit the shelves either.




This.

Something will be found to rationalize lagging 4e supplement sales (it's the economy stupid!), or rationalize the DDI being almost a year behind schedule (they had too much optimism and tried to do too much too fast, or maybe they didn't -really- promise to have everything ready at launch, or Gleemax took too many resources so let's blame it!) or rationalize 4e changes to established settings in the face of fan backlash (it's just people on messageboards! It's nerd rage! The silent unposting majority loves it!).

And then the cycle of bad news, predictions of 4e's death, and rationalization of it being without fault will resume again, over and over. That's about the past year in a nutshell I think.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 4, 2008)

Shemeska said:


> This.
> 
> Something will be found to rationalize lagging 4e supplement sales (it's the economy stupid!), or rationalize the DDI being almost a year behind schedule (they had too much optimism and tried to do too much too fast, or maybe they didn't -really- promise to have everything ready at launch, or Gleemax took too many resources so let's blame it!) or rationalize 4e changes to established settings in the face of fan backlash (it's just people on messageboards! It's nerd rage! The silent unposting majority loves it!).
> 
> And then the cycle of bad news, predictions of 4e's death, and rationalization of it being without fault will resume again, over and over. That's about the past year in a nutshell I think.




The above statement assumes that 4E isn't selling well. I disagree with that assumption.


----------



## Filcher (Dec 4, 2008)

Mark said:


> The three biggest changes to my mind that exist between the market 3e entered and the market 4e entered are, firstly, 4e is competing with a much better in-house game than 3e had to supplant, secondly that 4e is obviously not being used to garner as much industry colition as 3e, and lastly the Internet as it exists today make the first two points much, much more important.




I agree 100%.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Dec 4, 2008)

filthgrinder said:


> This is obviously biased viewing of data intended to promote a certain point of view.




Seems to me that he went out of his way to be fair. One of his conclusions is: "While brand power is important (and D&D has plenty of it), it's ultimately the play experience of the fans that will tell the story."

Oh, the bias! Suggesting that people will play the game and decide if they like it? Outrageous!


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> It means, more or less, that the monthly sales of 4e supplements so far are similar to the sales of January regarding 3e supplements.
> 
> It may sound pretty bad because one may think that the 3e supplement sales in January or February should have been pretty limited considering the tour of promoting the new edition -even worse (and perhaps by an order of magnitude) if what he says is to be taken with outmost precision, since there were not any new 3e supplements produced means that the sales account for the sales of the older books only.







Roman said:


> I would like to take the time to thank Chris Pramas for sharing this with us. Sure, his sources are somewhat anecdotal, but they seem like very large anecdotes (large chains), which means they are probably somewhat indicative of the overall situation. Thanks for sharing this with us, Chris, most of the time we hear very little on this important topic from sources that have access to reliable or at least somewhat reliable information.




Interestingly enough, there is info that directly contradicts this. 

USA Top 150 list. The core books from 3.0, 3.5 and 4e all figure there. Now, I am not going to argue back and forth about those numbers, and which are bigger. 

However, all things equal. The core books (from the past 3(2) editions) are all represented there. 

Yet, the only supplements I have been able to find on the same list, is the FR player's Guide and the Adventurer's Vault. If they were selling that poorly, wouldn't logic dictate that at least some 3.x supplements had found their way to the same list?

I guess the counter argument will be that book sales have been awesome until the day 4e was released, and suddenly the whole marked imploded, making it possible and it's supplements to get on the list.. To that, I give you : Occam's Razor

Of course, maybe it's just my google-fu that is weak.



thecasualoblivion said:


> The above statement assumes that 4E isn't selling well. I disagree with that assumption.




Enough said.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 4, 2008)

I think 4e has a pretty interesting purchasing dynamic, mostly due to the DDI, and the compendium in particular.

I DM a 4e game. I like 4e a lot. The only books I own for it are the gift set. All the other books have looked awesome, and had a lot of awesome inside. But most of what I need, as a DM, is included in the compendium in my DDI subscription.

I don't really have a huge incentive to go out and buy any of the physical books.

Also as a DM, I feel less inclined to buy things like Martial Power, as while useful for making NPCs, the stuff in there isn't really as useful to me, as it is to a player.  

I'll probably buy Manual of The Planes. I'm guessing most/all of the info in there won't hit the compendium.  I also want to get a DM's screen. Just haven't gotten to the store lately.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Yet, the only supplements I have been able to find on the same list, is the FR player's Guide and the Adventurer's Vault. If they were selling that poorly, wouldn't logic dictate that at least some 3.x supplements had found their way to the same list?




USATODAY takes account online retailers that perhaps Pramas' contact was not considering them. Also perhaps previous editions sold more supplements on hobby trade than book trade in respect say to adventurer's vault.


----------



## La Bete (Dec 4, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The above statement assumes that 4E isn't selling well. I disagree with that assumption.




Instead of people claiming that people are buying 4e but not playing it, we're back to claiming 4e isn't selling? interesting....


----------



## doctorhook (Dec 4, 2008)

If 4E were to flop at this point, I will become a 4on 4life.

This game truly rocks! I think so, and all of the people I play with think so too! If others don't like it, or think it's a bad game, well then, forget about them; they aren't a part of my group.

All this talk of 4E having one foot in the grave is completely contrary to my experiences. I actually have trouble comprehending the root of all this negativity, passive-aggressive hostility, and plain-ol' "aggressive hostility", because it's so foreign to what I have experienced with 4E.


----------



## Set (Dec 4, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> If 4E were to flop at this point, I will become a 4on 4life.
> 
> This game truly rocks! I think so, and all of the people I play with think so too! If others don't like it, or think it's a bad game, well then, forget about them; they aren't a part of my group.
> 
> All this talk of 4E having one foot in the grave is completely contrary to my experiences. I actually have trouble comprehending the root of all this negativity, passive-aggressive hostility, and plain-ol' "aggressive hostility", because it's so foreign to what I have experienced with 4E.




To whom in this thread are you responding?

I see a bunch of posts talking about anecdotal sales figures, best-seller lists and the success/non-success of the DDI and GSL. Not one post has accused 4E of being a 'bad game,' as you say (although there was a veiled implication that it wasn't marketed as well as it could have been, and many suggestions that the economy sucks, which could be considered 'negativity,' although I don't see anyone blaming the price of oil on Hasbro or 4th edition...).

The most 'negative' stuff I've seen are some posters *defending* 4E and claiming that Chris Pramas has some evil agenda and biasing his data to make 4E look bad, because, uh, well, no reason really, since he's releasing a 4E product as we speak, and has shifted away from 3rd edition to support True20 and M&M and *has no reason to bash 4E, since it would be counter his own market position!*

What sort of whacky unhinged conspiracy theory is this? Chris Pramas is trying to sell us a 4E product, and so he's telling us that 4E sucks? Why on earth would he do that? And he didn't anyway.

Yeesh. The drama.

Some dude heard from some distributers that 4E was selling about as well as 3E. Wow. That's like fighting words, apparently, to compare a companies latest product with it's best-selling previous product! Heaven forfend he's said something *really* controversial, like that 4E hasn't made WotC as much money as they've made off of Magic: the Gathering!


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> USATODAY takes account online retailers that perhaps Pramas' contact was not considering them.




Considering the evidence of 4e selling a lot of books through the web, wouldn't that make this contact's comments fairly irrelevant? Not to mention stupid.

"Oh wait, people actually buy books at this amazon.com place?"

:: for the "source", if that is the case.


----------



## Vendark (Dec 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Yet, the only supplements I have been able to find on the same list, is the FR player's Guide and the Adventurer's Vault. If they were selling that poorly, wouldn't logic dictate that at least some 3.x supplements had found their way to the same list?




The 3.5 Magic Item Compendium made the list, which isn't surprising, given how useful it was. But it charted about 35 spots lower than the Adventurer's Vault.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 4, 2008)

Online sales really don't matter to the topic. Yes, 4e books are sold online, but so were the same 3.5 books that they are being compared to.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 4, 2008)

I think some posters may be a little confused. 

Its possible to _like _4E, and _hence_ wonder how its doing and why it doesn't have the buzz or takeup that, being a good game, it should. 

Pramas is, of course, right when he notes:



> some people who hate 4E want to crow about its failure and some people who love 4E want to exalt in its success




But we don't all have to do that.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 4, 2008)

Set said:


> To whom in this thread are you responding?
> 
> I see a bunch of posts talking about anecdotal sales figures, best-seller lists and the success/non-success of the DDI and GSL. Not one post has accused 4E of being a 'bad game,' as you say (although there was a veiled implication that it wasn't marketed as well as it could have been, and many suggestions that the economy sucks, which could be considered 'negativity,' although I don't see anyone blaming the price of oil on Hasbro or 4th edition...).
> 
> ...




He mentioned passive agressive people. I would call posting a thread about Chris Pramas saying that distributors and gaming stores reporting a lack of 4E sales with the unspoken intent of posting this as proof that people don't like 4E and that its failing, as well as agreeing with the OP, passive agressive.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 4, 2008)

Vendark said:


> The 3.5 Magic Item Compendium made the list, which isn't surprising, given how useful it was. But it charted about 35 spots lower than the Adventurer's Vault.




Ah yeah, I knew there was something I had previously seen there, that I couldn't find again. Thanks.



Darkwolf71 said:


> Online sales really don't matter to the topic. Yes, 4e books are sold online, but so were the same 3.5 books that they are being compared to.




Except that the fact that 4e core gift set made the yearly top 100 list on amazon could indicate that 4e sells more over the net than previous editions. In which case, it would matter. 

/shrug


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Considering the evidence of 4e selling a lot of books through the web, wouldn't that make this contact's comments fairly irrelevant? Not to mention stupid.
> 
> "Oh wait, people actually buy books at this amazon.com place?"
> 
> :: for the "source", if that is the case.




No, considering we are speculating and still do not know if online sellers were taken into consideration or not we can not call anyone stupid. Furthermore perhaps Avs Vault and FR guide sold well but the rest have not in such a way that makes that persons claim still valid. 
USATODAY list does not prove anything really. It is an indication that these two books sold well and this is perhaps encouraging but there is also the possibility that even if every book sells well Wotc's business plan will fail. It could be that they have a special agreement with Amazon and due to rising printing costs not profitable anymore, it could be the significance of a failure of DDI or whatever else. 
I personaly think there is some risk ahead regarding D&D's success and its future the way some fans or even 3pp could have been envisioning it -and this risk is also reflected in Pramas' post to: even if you think his intentions are antagonistic I doubt he would dare to mislead people in a spirit of negativeness of the success of the leading flag product of the market. Chances are that it would hurt him in the long run.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> Its possible to _like _4E, and _hence_ wonder how its doing and *why it doesn't have the buzz or takeup that, being a good game, it should. *



Pramas already told you the reason. It is because it is not such a good game in the end:


> While brand power is important (and D&D has plenty of it), it's ultimately the play experience of the fans that will tell the story.



And as he said some will make sure there is unrest about statements of this kind.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> No, considering we are speculating and still do not know if online sellers were taken into consideration or not we can not call anyone stupid. Furthermore perhaps Avs Vault and FR guide sold well but the rest have not in such a way that makes that persons claim still valid.
> USATODAY list does not prove anything really. It is an indication that these two books sold well and this is perhaps encouraging but there is also the possibility that even if every book sells well Wotc's business plan will fail. It could be that they have a special agreement with Amazon and due to rising printing costs not profitable anymore, it could be the significance of a failure of DDI or whatever else.
> I personaly think there is some risk ahead regarding D&D's success and its future the way some fans or even 3pp could have been envisioning it -and this risk is also reflected in Pramas' post to: even if you think his intentions are antagonistic I doubt he would dare to mislead people in a spirit of negativeness of the success of the leading flag product of the market. Chances are that it would hurt him in the long run.




Personally, I don't think Pramas was being antagonistic at all. People in this thread on the other hand...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 4, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> I think some posters may be a little confused.
> 
> But we don't all have to do that.



Gee, why do you want to make everything complicated. Why can't we just have two groups of people, and it's us vs them?! No wonder some posters are confused if you make it so difficult to know friend from foe! 






> Except that the fact that 4e core gift set made the yearly top 100 list on amazon could indicate that 4e sells more over the net than previous editions. In which case, it would matter.



Amazon has offered low prices, and it has become really important over the past years. It was just starting around 3.0, but now it is _the_ online market place for ... well, next to everything that you don't buy used, I suppose. 
And really, ordering online has become very convenient, too, and there are more people online these days.

But whether this means 4E is selling better, worse or the same... Well, I really don't know. Too much variables have changed.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Except that the fact that 4e core gift set made the yearly top 100 list on amazon could indicate that 4e sells more over the net than previous editions. In which case, it would matter.
> 
> /shrug



Pramas' sources were _specifically_ talking about supplements, not the core books.


----------



## Vendark (Dec 4, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> Pramas' sources were _specifically_ talking about supplements, not the core books.




If more people are buying the core books online than were in the past, it follows that more people may be buying the supplements online as well.

There has to be something that accounts for the fact that Pramas' sources are contradicted by the actual sales charting data that is available to us. A shift toward online sales might explain it.

Of course, Pramas' sources just being flat-out wrong would also account for it.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 4, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> He mentioned passive agressive people. I would call posting a thread about Chris Pramas saying that distributors and gaming stores reporting a lack of 4E sales with the unspoken intent of posting this as proof that people don't like 4E and that its failing, as well as agreeing with the OP, passive agressive.



Not to mention the title of the thread...

"Are 4e supplements experiencing lower than expected sales?" is different than "Does 4e have staying power?".  The latter at the very least insinuates that, if 4e supplements aren't selling as well as expected or as well as 3e supplements, it's because the game itself isn't popular or good.


----------



## Campbell (Dec 4, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> Online sales really don't matter to the topic. Yes, 4e books are sold online, but so were the same 3.5 books that they are being compared to.




I'm not sure online sales can be so easily dismissed when we're talking about sales figures. That would only be a safe bet if the online sales of 3e and 4e were statistically identical. Although I haven't seen any data that is specific to the RPG industry, online sales have been trending up in respect to their market share of the retail space. Between Q4 2006 and Q4 2007 online sales experienced 17-21% growth. While current projections show a loss of 2% over the same period between Q4 2007 and Q4 2008, it is nothing like the November to November sales drops in same store sales we're seeing from the likes of solid retail performers like Target (10%), Macy's (13%), Nordstrom (16%), and Gap (10%). 

Still, it does look like in store sales of 4e supplements are not quite where they should be, and the digital initiative has been a mess.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 4, 2008)

Vendark said:


> the actual sales charting data that is available to us



What is that?


----------



## Herschel (Dec 4, 2008)

Harr said:


> Certain people who are in position of authority don't get to take the position of "just sharing opinion", since their opinion is viewed as more informed than most, and the sharing of it can have significant impact on people's opinions and behavior. For someone like Chris Pramas to be "just sharing opinion" is disingenuous, since he knows perfectly well (as do we) that many people will take his opinion to be either fact or indicative of the facts.




Who is Chris Pramas and why do I care what he thinks any more than anyone else on this board or at my local game store?

Herschel - you're new to the boards, and may not have seen our FAQ. Please note that we don't call fellow posters names, as we try to discuss things politely and respectfully on these boards. --Eridanis

Yeah, I'm not there yet either.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 4, 2008)

Online sales at Amazon, IMO, were spearheaded by selling the Core Gift set for $60. That was a discount too high to ignore, and got a lot of attention. They've been selling later books at around a 33% discount, which has done a lot to keep people shopping at Amazon, again IMO. Given that Amazon sales are not a part of any predictors available to the public, I would call any speculation on the success/lack of success for 4E just that, speculation. WotC has said 4E was selling well, and there is nothing beyond speculation to dispute that.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 4, 2008)

Vendark said:


> There has to be something that accounts for the fact that Pramas' sources are contradicted by the *actual sales charting data* that is available to us.




Source? Or are you just blowing smoke?
Yeah, you don't need to answer that.

I am _not_ saying that 4e is tanking, I don't think Pramas was really saying that either, I'm just commenting that his sources and my anecdotal experience (givin up-thread) happen to agree.


----------



## Herschel (Dec 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Except that the fact that 4e core gift set made the yearly top 100 list on amazon could indicate that 4e sells more over the net than previous editions. In which case, it would matter.




Also look at the trend where more people shop online and those that do do a higher percentage online each year, in many cases. Can't say I like it, but I did buy the core set from Amazon for a Christmas Gift for my son. I like the box configuration, even though I bought the three loose for myself from my FLGS. I buy as much local as I can and am a big supporter of local game stores but I do dip in to the online pool at times myself. As we see even on this board MANY people only equate value as price, and online can usually offer better prices.


----------



## Vendark (Dec 4, 2008)

xechnao said:


> What is that?




USA Today's Best Selling database, which at least gives an idea how books performed relative to other books on the market. Consider that 4E has only been on the market 6 months and has had two supplements chart, whereas 3.X was on the market 7 or 8 years and appears to have had only one supplement chart; it suggests that 4E supplements are actually performing quite well in the current market.

They may still be underperforming their hopes for raw sales numbers, but if so that would likely be down to the market rather than the product.


----------



## Aeolius (Dec 4, 2008)

Granted, some of the initial sales of the 4e core books were by people who then chose not to play the newer edition. I bought the 4e books, took a look, and decided not to use them. (I keep them prisoner in a dark cold place)


----------



## Herschel (Dec 4, 2008)

Aeolius said:


> Granted, some of the initial sales of the 4e core books were by people who then chose not to play the newer edition. I bought the 4e books, took a look, and decided not to use them. (I keep them prisoner in a dark cold place)





My ex (and her soul) lives in North Carolina now? Who knew!


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 4, 2008)

I am going to leave this debate again I think. We did it for like 30 pages just a few weeks ago, and I have no desire to repeat that again. I feel like Shirley Valentine in these threads.

Have fun.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 4, 2008)

Aeolius said:


> Granted, some of the initial sales of the 4e core books were by people who then chose not to play the newer edition. I bought the 4e books, took a look, and decided not to use them.



Yeah, but doesn't this happen to a lot of gaming books? I own
- Exalted 2E. Will never play it, at least not unless I find a very different group (and like it there  )
- Warhammer 40K Dark Heresy. Doubt I ever play it.
- Traveller. Maybe will play it.
- MonteCooks World of Darkness. Interesting to read. Will never play it.
- Startrek Players Guide. Never played it, never will. More a fan-buy then anything else.
- Starwars SAGA. Doesn't look like we get to play that anytime soon, even if I'd love to.
These are books I bought and considered we might _perhaps_ play them, but most likely not. 

- Shadowrun 3E and 4E. Played 3E more then 4E, neither at the moment.
- Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2E. Played it a little, but not anymore, and it doesn't look as if we will be going back anytime soon...
- Das Schwarze Auge. I played it, still don't like it.
- Starwars Revised Edition. Definitely never again.
These are core books we actually played with, but most likely won't go back to. Few perks, some flaws, nah, let's go back to something else. D&D, Torg, Iron Heroes...

I hope we'll get back to a little Shadowrun 4, but it doesn't look like it.



> (I keep them prisoner in a dark cold place)


----------



## billd91 (Dec 4, 2008)

People sure are making a lot of assumptions out of very little data.

The USA Today best seller list is based on reports from certain stores and, as quoted from their site:



			
				USATODAY.com said:
			
		

> Reporting stores include: Amazon.com, B. Dalton Bookseller, Barnes & Noble.com, Barnes & Noble Inc., Books-A-Million.com, Books-A-Million and Bookland, Borders Books & Music, Bookstar, Bookstop, Brentano's, Davis Kidd Booksellers (Nashville, Jackson, Memphis in Tenn.), Doubleday Book Shops, Hudson Booksellers, Joseph-Beth Booksellers (Lexington, Ky.; Cincinnati, Cleveland), Powell's Books (Portland, Ore.), Powells.com, R.J. Julia Booksellers (Madison, Conn.), Schuler Books & Music (Grand Rapids, Mich.), Target, Tattered Cover Book Store (Denver), Waldenbooks.




Yes, some big hitters there. But we know very little about what proportion these mix with when it comes to reporting D&D books. It's quite possible that good USA Today best seller rankings do not conflict at all with Pramas's informants, even if they are represented in the very same list. It could be that the market has shifted toward getting new D&D books from Amazon and away from the outlets they know about. It could be that the market hasn't really shifted but that there are segments of it where 4e doesn't have legs. 

About all we can really infer, if they are correct in what they told Pramas, is that there are segments of the market where 3e supplements, several years into the product, are selling as well as the new shiny. That could be because 3e still has life left in it. It could be because 4e isn't doing it for some people who tend to shop at those outlets. It could be because the outlets also serve omelettes on alternate Thursdays and, as everyone knows, that favors the sale of 3e supplements...


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 4, 2008)

billd91 said:


> People sure are making a lot of assumptions out of very little data.
> 
> The USA Today best seller list is based on reports from certain stores and, as quoted from their site:
> 
> ...




In other words, its all speculation. This is not news.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 4, 2008)

billd91 said:


> About all we can really infer, if they are correct in what they told Pramas, is that there are segments of the market where 3e supplements, several years into the product, are selling as well as the new shiny. That could be because 3e still has life left in it. It could be because 4e isn't doing it for some people who tend to shop at those outlets. It could be because the outlets also serve omelettes on alternate Thursdays and, as everyone knows, that favors the sale of 3e supplements...




Actually based on what was quoted, we can tell that there are segments of the market where suppliments for the new shiney are selling at the same rate as supliments for the old shiney were selling at the begining of the year.

It says nothing about how well suppliments for the old shiney are doing currently, nor whether or not the new shiney is selling well, or poorly. (Unless we know for a fact the old shiney was selling well or poorly at the begining of the year.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 5, 2008)

Y'know, the online thing that Jack99 pointed out IS a good point (though Jack99's particular wording of the case is a little boinked).

If Pramas's sources are ol' fashioned bricks-n-mortar folks, it is limited information.

In addition, the whole "multiple streams of revenue" (DDI) is a good point. 

I think it's probably still not enough information to give a full picture. It's still interesting information, and it certainly indicates that 4e supplements might not be doing so hot, but the market might still be figuring out Amazon and the DDI and such. 

I'ma go read more WFRP2 and mull this over....


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 5, 2008)

Actually I think the most interesting piece of data is the least surprising.

Namely, that 4e Supplement sales might be a little disapointing.

You can argue with the veracity of that data, but if you take it at face value it makes a lot of sense.

I mean could anyone argue that the supplement release patter for 4E - and this is disregarding 3rd party sales which I don't think anyone can argue are a shadow of 3E's - is much slower and more deliberate than the initial supplement release pattern for the last edition.

We've had two setting books, two lines of adventures, one creature feature, one item book, and one class supplement.  Along with some associated paraphenalia that's all she wrote.

Now some of that is just new edition anemia.  You look at the 3e supplements for last year and you had a much more developed line from the backlog of titles alone.

But I also wonder if this isn't a result of deliberate strategy on WotCs part.  I mean, Martial Power is a much better supplement than it's 3e equivalent and even where the line is weak it ain't bad.  The FR player's guide could be called thin and incomplete, but the races and one class are both very interesting and it had two pretty sweet new mechanics with the spell scared multi-class only class structure and the regional benefits.  So on the whole I think we're seeing a much more consistent line than we have in the past and one that certainly seems to be aiming for a long term strategy in terms of growing the market and saving the base.


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 5, 2008)

It's too early for this to really be applicable, but I wonder how much WotC's attempt to merge "Core" with "supplements" will have in this regard. 

They've said before that they don't want people to just think of the 4E PHB, DMG, and MM as being the "Core" rulebooks, but while I can understand why they'd want to do this - to make later releases seem more necessary - that sort of viewpoint seems like it'd make a lot of newcomers, particularly casual players, less inclined to play because it makes them feel like their game is incomplete without every single 4E book WotC puts out.

I wonder how much effect that's having on people (not) purchasing 4E books.


----------



## Korgoth (Dec 5, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I am not a fan of 4e. But nonetheless I hope sales are fairly brisk. I think it's important that WotC do well financially, for the sake of the industry,




I snipped the rest not because it was unreasonable but simply because I want to consider that last bit, "the sake of the industry". For my money the best products for D&D (OD&D itself, many of the gems of Judge's Guild, some of TSR's enduring classic modules) came out before there was an "industry".

As someone who sees the products of "the industry" as mediocre (a judgment with a substantial subjective component; YMMV) I find myself wondering if the industry's health is even in my best interest.

D&D was made great by the hobbyists who tinkered with light, flexible rules concepts to each create their own vision of the game. The genius of the garage, if you will. For me, _if_ Pramas' comments identify a lack of "legs" for 4E (and that's a big "if", obviously), this whole thing might possibly presage the end of the industry, which I think might be a very good thing for the creative content of the role playing hobby (though also a very regretable thing for those whose livelihoods are derived from said industry).

Of course it's all speculation at this point anyhow: IF 4E is going to bomb, and IF that means D&D goes away, and IF that means that the industry folds along with it, etc. I'm not exactly going to lay down a wager on those odds. But if it went that way, I think it could be a great thing for the hobby. The great stuff coming out in the Old School Renaissance (private print runs, print on demand services like Lulu, electronic publishing, online community, etc.) bears out the reasonability of the latter claim.


----------



## garyh (Dec 5, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> It's too early for this to really be applicable, but I wonder how much WotC's attempt to merge "Core" with "supplements" will have in this regard.
> 
> They've said before that they don't want people to just think of the 4E PHB, DMG, and MM as being the "Core" rulebooks, but while I can understand why they'd want to do this - to make later releases seem more necessary - that sort of viewpoint seems like it'd make a lot of newcomers, particularly casual players, less inclined to play because it makes them feel like their game is incomplete without every single 4E book WotC puts out.
> 
> I wonder how much effect that's having on people (not) purchasing 4E books.




I don't get this argument.  I would imagine the new-to-the-game player is going to pick up the PHB1, maybe the MM1 and DMG1 if they're going to run a game, and not even really be aware of the expansions or that they're "missing" anything.  After all, the game plays just fine with the first trio.  It's _us_, the hardcore message board types, that are likely to feel as if our game is "incomplete" because we don't own _Draconomicon VII - Pseudo-Natural Wyrms of Faerun_.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:


> Actually I think the most interesting piece of data is the least surprising.






Dr. Strangemonkey said:


> Namely, that 4e Supplement sales might be a little disapointing.
> 
> You can argue with the veracity of that data, but if you take it at face value it makes a lot of sense.
> 
> ...




I agree with nearly everything you said above…




Dr. Strangemonkey said:


> But I also wonder if this isn't a result of deliberate strategy on WotCs part. I mean, Martial Power is a much better supplement than it's 3e equivalent and even where the line is weak it ain't bad. The FR player's guide could be called thin and incomplete, but the races and one class are both very interesting and it had two pretty sweet new mechanics with the spell scared multi-class only class structure and the regional benefits. So on the whole I think we're seeing a much more consistent line than we have in the past and one that certainly seems to be aiming for a long term strategy in terms of growing the market and saving the base.



 
Now, I disagree with some of this. I won’t debate whether 3e/3.5/4e supplements are/were “better” as everyone has a right to their oppinion… but I see a totally different reasoning in the sourcebook anemia (as well as the shortening of page count, generous whitespace and super large font of the released books)… DDI. WotC would rather the majority of it’s customer base be signed into a subscription model, for material thay cannot preview before they buy and with an auto-renew than to depend on them purchasing sourcebooks, and I think the problems with the GSL as well as the snail pace of sourcebooks were purposefully implemented to push customers towards subscribing to get content.


----------



## Filcher (Dec 5, 2008)

garyh said:


> It's _us_, the hardcore message board types, that are likely to feel as if our game is "incomplete" because we don't own _Draconomicon VII - Pseudo-Natural Wyrms of Faerun_.




Hehehe. So true. 

Not to add the the argument or not, but if 4E did succeed in capturing a younger audience (one without ready income) winter should be a big time, as mom and dad tick off those Christmas lists.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Dec 5, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> It's too early for this to really be applicable, but I wonder how much WotC's attempt to merge "Core" with "supplements" will have in this regard.
> 
> They've said before that they don't want people to just think of the 4E PHB, DMG, and MM as being the "Core" rulebooks, but while I can understand why they'd want to do this - to make later releases seem more necessary - that sort of viewpoint seems like it'd make a lot of newcomers, particularly casual players, less inclined to play because it makes them feel like their game is incomplete without every single 4E book WotC puts out.
> 
> I wonder how much effect that's having on people (not) purchasing 4E books.




This is a BIG part of what kept me, and every player I know, away from 4th edition.

With 3rd edition we felt we had a complete, though somewhat bland, game with 3 books.

With 4th edition it feels like WotC deliberately spread out what should be core info into many books, so that you don't have a complete game without a full set of books.  At the same time, missing rules are first previewed and released via DDI in order to drum up interest in what should be a completely optional tool for loyal customers.


----------



## Lacyon (Dec 5, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> Of course it's all speculation at this point anyhow: IF 4E is going to bomb, and IF that means D&D goes away, and IF that means that the industry folds along with it, etc. I'm not exactly going to lay down a wager on those odds. But if it went that way, I think it could be a great thing for the hobby. The great stuff coming out in the Old School Renaissance (private print runs, print on demand services like Lulu, electronic publishing, online community, etc.) bears out the reasonability of the latter claim.




While such an eventuality would almost certainly make it easier for you to _find_ the material that makes it appeal to you, I would argue that the great stuff coming out of the Old School Renaissance bears out the relative _un_reasonability of your claim that it would be great for "the hobby". 

The genius of the garage is still there, just around the corner, for those to whom it holds great appeal. Knocking down the car dealership in front might make the garage easier to see from the street, but isn't going to make the garage more appealing to those who don't already like it.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Dec 5, 2008)

garyh said:


> I don't get this argument.  I would imagine the new-to-the-game player is going to pick up the PHB1, maybe the MM1 and DMG1 if they're going to run a game, and not even really be aware of the expansions or that they're "missing" anything.  After all, the game plays just fine with the first trio.  It's _us_, the hardcore message board types, that are likely to feel as if our game is "incomplete" because we don't own _Draconomicon VII - Pseudo-Natural Wyrms of Faerun_.




My group has played a few sessions using the PHB, DMG and MM for 4th edition and feel that the game is not complete.  It feels like a rushed product with a dearth of "real" options for players.

Yes there are lots of nifty powers and divergent paths for character classes, but these options felt too "gamist" and narrowly focused (damage boosts and positioning abilities) to hold any long-term interest for us.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Dec 5, 2008)

Alzrius said:


> It's too early for this to really be applicable, but I wonder how much WotC's attempt to merge "Core" with "supplements" will have in this regard.
> 
> They've said before that they don't want people to just think of the 4E PHB, DMG, and MM as being the "Core" rulebooks, but while I can understand why they'd want to do this - to make later releases seem more necessary - that sort of viewpoint seems like it'd make a lot of newcomers, particularly casual players, less inclined to play because it makes them feel like their game is incomplete without every single 4E book WotC puts out.
> 
> I wonder how much effect that's having on people (not) purchasing 4E books.




I think this is a strategy that's not going to work in the long run. Regardless of the fact that WOTC is now saying "Everybook is Core!", I believe that most consumers will still view the initial books as "core" and everything that follows a "supplement". 

Players that didn't feel like (or couldn't afford) to buy every supplement in 3E aren't suddenly going to start snapping up all the extras in 4E. And the problem with that is that if those that buy the core 3 feel like the game is incomplete, they're not necessarily going to buy all the extras to get the rest of the game...they're going to give up and go to something else. 

I don't know if that's the majority of the fan-base reaching a level where they realize they don't need every extra, or if it's perceived quality, economy, or what.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 5, 2008)

To certain posters:

Its not nice to be insulted in your own thread. 

And its pretty stupid to refer to someone who has posted so much 4E news, and is clearly a fan of the game, as its "passive agressive" enemy.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 5, 2008)

Was Basic D&D complete?

Was the AD&D 1E/2E core 3 complete?

4E has more character choices than all three of these by a longshot.


----------



## garyh (Dec 5, 2008)

cperkins said:


> My group has played a few sessions using the PHB, DMG and MM for 4th edition and feel that the game is not complete.  It feels like a rushed product with a dearth of "real" options for players.
> 
> Yes there are lots of nifty powers and divergent paths for character classes, but these options felt too "gamist" and narrowly focused (damage boosts and positioning abilities) to hold any long-term interest for us.




I miss half-orcs and barbarians, too, but I like tieflings, eladrin, dragonborn, warlords, and warlocks, so I still feel like I have a lot of interesting options.  Also, I like tactical combat, and don't really think much (any) about the whole gamist/simulationist/narrative debate, so take that for what it's worth.

When 2e came out and TSR removed half-orcs and assassins, where there this many "incomplete" complaints?  Maybe I'll find out in (un)reason's "Reading Dragon Magazine" thread.  



thecasualoblivion said:


> Was Basic D&D complete?
> 
> Was the AD&D 1E/2E core 3 complete?
> 
> 4E has more character choices than all three of these by a longshot.




Exactly.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Dec 5, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Was Basic D&D complete?
> 
> Was the AD&D 1E/2E core 3 complete?
> 
> 4E has more character choices than all three of these by a longshot.




I guess my years of playing 3rd edition, Castles & Crusades, and the other d20 OGL games I have played (Conan, Iron Heroes, Mutants & Masterminds, and a few others) spoiled me.  Each game covered the bases it needed to cover with the "core books".  4th edition didn't.

For its time AD&D worked for me with just the core books.  Could I go back to playing it?  Probably not, but new editions are about going forward not backwards.  4th edition felt like a big step backwards... 

Please don't get me wrong.  If 4th edition "does it" for you, that's great.  It just hasn't "done it" for me or any gamer than I know personally (and there are quiet a few).


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Was Basic D&D complete?
> 
> Was the AD&D 1E/2E core 3 complete?
> 
> 4E has more character choices than all three of these by a longshot.




You know, I think it would be much more interesting to compare D&D 4e to other rpg's made within the past 5 years rather than versions of itself released over 25 years ago.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 5, 2008)

> Players that didn't feel like (or couldn't afford) to buy every supplement in 3E aren't suddenly going to start snapping up all the extras in 4E. And the problem with that is that if those that buy the core 3 feel like the game is incomplete, they're not necessarily going to buy all the extras to get the rest of the game...they're going to give up and go to something else.




This is the Completist's Dilemma. It seems like, for 4e, Wizards in banking in a big way on players being completists. "They'll buy minis for the powers! They'll buy DDI for the compendium! They'll buy every supplement because it's core! Gotta catch 'em all!"

But if players don't feel like they can ever truly complete the collection (I...I can't afford all that!) they're more likely just to not even try and collect part of it (I don't want an incomplete product!). 

Certainly, I'm a little in this category. I'm trying to be more fair to them, but in my book, if I've Gotta Catch 'em All, I'll leave that to the trufans and go play *Ars Magica*. I don't need D&D to have fun.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 5, 2008)

Imaro said:


> You know, I think it would be much more interesting to compare D&D 4e to other rpg's made within the past 5 years rather than versions of itself released over 25 years ago.




I'd suspect that most of them have more than 4 potions. I could be wrong.

As a publisher of 4e material, I feel confident saying that 4e, as released in the 3 core books, is far from complete. WotC intentionally designed it to not be complete in 3 books for marketing purposes. They have been open about that, so I don't see the point in claiming the game is complete. It's not. It was never supposed to have been. It's supposed to be incomplete to get people to buy more, and keep buying.

People need to chill about sales numbers and "intent" when talking about them. We publishers talk about numbers a lot of the time, but not normally in public, just because of these types of reactions. Talking sales isn't an attack on the game, the market, the people behind the game, the company behind the game, the people that like the game, blah blah blah blah blah.

It's business for us. Trying to get the best information possible helps one make better personal decisions. I appreciate Chris's willingness to put up with a lot of whargarbl to add to my information pool.

Information which matches what I've previously managed to gather about the situation. Unlike most people here, I've actually got money riding on the success of 4e and I don't want to hear fairy-fart unicorn stories anymore than I want to hear doom-and-gloom troll-fart stories about the performance of the line.

joe b.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 5, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> I feel confident saying that 4e, as released in the 3 core books, is far from complete.




Interestingly enough we've been playing the game with just the 3 "core" books and it feels rather complete for use.

The only thing that seems lacking is rituals.

So even that is a matter of perspective.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 5, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> I don't want to hear fairy-fart unicorn stories anymore than I want to hear doom-and-gloom troll-fart stories
> 
> joe b.



Hehehehe... HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

That's awesome.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 5, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But if players don't feel like they can ever truly complete the collection (I...I can't afford all that!) they're more likely just to not even try and collect part of it (I don't want an incomplete product!).




This is what stopped me from buying Planescape back in the day, and it is a factor in my not adopting 4E yet.  Not the biggest one, since I'm perfectly capable of culling the herd from a book perspective, but its a consideration.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2008)

D'karr said:


> Interestingly enough we've been playing the game with just the 3 "core" books and it feels rather complete for use.






D'karr said:


> The only thing that seems lacking is rituals.
> 
> So even that is a matter of perspective.




“Feels” complete compared to what? If your DM (or if you are the DM) is adding or reskinning stuff in the game such as potions, magic items, rituals, new monsters, etc…then that really doesn’t speak to the completeness of the game. I’ll be honest it doesn’t “feel” or seem complete to me when I compare it to having spent an equal amount of money on other games (Including the 3.5 core set)… in other words, IMHO, it is not $104.85 complete, in any way shape or form. But then opinions differ, YMMV and all that.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 5, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> Information which matches what I've previously managed to gather about the situation.




Yeah, but if you followed the thread this information spill creates a bit of confusion to the fans.
What we get out of this:

1)Amazon becomes the station point of trade for D&D
or
2)4e is not performing great, possibly even bellow average

So which one do you think is it? Honestly and as objectively as possible


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 5, 2008)

Imaro said:


> You know, I think it would be much more interesting to compare D&D 4e to other rpg's made within the past 5 years rather than versions of itself released over 25 years ago.






cperkins said:


> I guess my years of playing 3rd edition, Castles & Crusades, and the other d20 OGL games I have played (Conan, Iron Heroes, Mutants & Masterminds, and a few others) spoiled me.  Each game covered the bases it needed to cover with the "core books".  4th edition didn't.
> 
> For its time AD&D worked for me with just the core books.  Could I go back to playing it?  Probably not, but new editions are about going forward not backwards.  4th edition felt like a big step backwards...
> 
> Please don't get me wrong.  If 4th edition "does it" for you, that's great.  It just hasn't "done it" for me or any gamer than I know personally (and there are quiet a few).






Imaro said:


> You know, I think it would be much more interesting to compare D&D 4e to other rpg's made within the past 5 years rather than versions of itself released over 25 years ago.




Lets compare to games I'm most familiar with:

1. Vampire: the Requiem--There are five Vampire clans, and the differences are cosmetic more than anything, combined with five political factions. You have a point buy system to customize characters, but between class, race, abilities, feats, skills, powers, items, and paragon/epic there is more room to customize 4E.

2. 3E D&D. In 3E core there are 11 classes to 4E's 8. Both editions have race, class, abilities, skills, feats, powers/spells, items, and Paragon/Epic. lets look at a few:

Race--4E has one more race than 3E in the PHB, for what that's worth. 4E's races tend to remain relevant throughout the entire game where 3E's fade away after the first few levels. 4E has racial feats to specialize further in your race. The monster manuals of both editions have monster races, but I would heavily argue that dropping LA and ECL gives 4E more bang for the buck. Advantage: 4E

Class--4E has eight classes to 3E's eleven. In terms of choices though, 4E's eight classes all give a substantial amount of options, while in 3E it is split between Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Sorcerer getting piles of options and Barbarian, Fighter(core feats do little to nothing--Fighter needs his splats), Monk, Paladin, Ranger and Rogue getting little to no options. In addition, balance issues make many 3E classes(particularly the Monk, but including Bard, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger) unattractive choices in core only. Overall, 3E has incredibly deep options along four paths(Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Wizard/Sorcerer sharing the same path), and six other classes who don't go far beyond "pick a class". 4E on the other hand takes the options available for the Spellcasters and splits them between eight classes. Each class gets less than a 3E spellcasting class, and the options are spread over the entire. In addition, 4E has removed the bad choices, so there is more bang for the buck in the available choices. While there may be less powers/rituals than there were 3E spells, when you remove the stupid choices 4E comes out at least equal. Advantage: Push

Multiclassing--3E had the ability to choose any class to gain a level in, but this didn't exactly work well in practice(without prestige classes). Doing anything less than taking full levels in a spellcasting class gimped your character, and in core good results tended to be limited to adding Barbarian, Fighter and to a lesser extent Ranger levels to nonspellcasting classes. In 4E, multiclassing through feats and Paragon Paths doesn't promise as much as 3E did, but it works. Some classes have more synergy with ability scores, but you can make a viable character out of any two of the eight classes in the PHB. Advantage: 4E


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 5, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Yeah, but if you followed the thread this information spill creates a bit of confusion to the fans.
> What we get out of this:
> 
> 1)Amazon becomes the station point of trade for D&D
> ...




1)Amazon becomes the station point of trade for D&D

Buying the core 3 for $61(its now $68) with free shipping instead of $105 plus tax  is difficult to ignore. Further 4E material tends to be sold with a 30% or so discount. Again, hard to ignore.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 5, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Yeah, but if you followed the thread this information spill creates a bit of confusion to the fans.
> What we get out of this:
> 
> 1)Amazon becomes the station point of trade for D&D
> ...




As politely as I can be, I don't say in public or in any permanent medium. Fans don't need to hear from me about any products other than Expeditious Retreat Press products. I only spoke up here because I don't think Chris deserves any disparagement.

Fans need to distance themselves from caring about sales numbers and just play what they like. There's nothing better about playing a well-selling game because it sells well, just like there's nothing better about playing an indie game just because it's indie.

joe b.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 5, 2008)

xechnao said:


> 1)Amazon becomes the station point of trade for D&D
> or
> 2)4e is not performing great, possibly even bellow average



1) The problem with the Amazon angle is that 3.5 books were also being sold online, it's not as if 4e created this side effect of the virtual market place. There very well could be 'more' folks buying online, but I doubt if it is more by a signifigant amount.

OTOH

2) Not as well as expected does not equate to 'below average' or even 'not great', neccissarily.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 5, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> 1) The problem with the Amazon angle is that 3.5 books were also being sold online, it's not as if 4e created this side effect of the virtual market place. There very well could be 'more' folks buying online, but I doubt if it is more by a signifigant amount.




While 3E books were sold on Amazon, there was nothing that could compare to the big "event" of selling preorders for the 4E core set for $61.


----------



## Thasmodious (Dec 5, 2008)

Just to summarize - the OP wonders if 4e has legs and what the sales looks like based on anecdotal statements by a 3PP.  

There is bickering.

The data we do have access to, such as the USA Bestsellers information, shows 4e supplements kicking the snot out of 3e supplements, and the 4e core beating the 3e core.  This is data of national sales from the largest retailers in the country.  Some posters label this as "irrelevant" while arguing that anecdotal evidence presented by others mirrors their own experiences.  Strangely, these posters are not 4e fans.  

Then joe b. sums it up nicely here:



> Fans need to distance themselves from caring about sales numbers and just play what they like. There's nothing better about playing a well-selling game because it sells well, just like there's nothing better about playing an indie game just because it's indie.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 5, 2008)

Thasmodious said:


> Just to summarize - the OP wonders if 4e has legs and what the sales looks like based on anecdotal statements by a 3PP.
> 
> There is bickering.
> 
> ...




You sir have won the internet.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Lets compare to games I'm most familiar with:






thecasualoblivion said:


> thecasualoblivion said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Vampire: the Requiem--There are five Vampire clans, and the differences are cosmetic more than anything, combined with five political factions. You have a point buy system to customize characters, but between class, race, abilities, feats, skills, powers, items, and paragon/epic there is more room to customize 4E.
> ...


----------



## xechnao (Dec 5, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> There's nothing better about playing a well-selling game because it sells well, just like there's nothing better about playing an indie game just because it's indie.
> 
> joe b.




This is true. But how much value does it have?


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 5, 2008)

xechnao said:


> This is true. But how much value does it have?




$0.02



joe b.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 5, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> As politely as I can be, I don't say in public or in any permanent medium. Fans don't need to hear from me about any products other than Expeditious Retreat Press products. I only spoke up here because I don't think Chris deserves any disparagement.
> 
> Fans need to distance themselves from caring about sales numbers and just play what they like. There's nothing better about playing a well-selling game because it sells well, just like there's nothing better about playing an indie game just because it's indie.
> 
> joe b.




Playing a popular game has value in that you can walk into a strange gaming store in a strange city, play M:tG for a few days, and after talking to the local geeks easily find a game of the current edition of D&D to join. Finding a group running some indie game or older editions of D&D is going to be a lot harder.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 2. 3E D&D. In 3E core there are 11 classes to 4E's 8. Both editions have race, class, abilities, skills, feats, powers/spells, items, and Paragon/Epic. lets look at a few:






thecasualoblivion said:


> Race--4E has one more race than 3E in the PHB, for what that's worth. 4E's races tend to remain relevant throughout the entire game where 3E's fade away after the first few levels. 4E has racial feats to specialize further in your race. The monster manuals of both editions have monster races, but I would heavily argue that dropping LA and ECL gives 4E more bang for the buck. Advantage: 4E




Uhm, even though many of the handful of races we get for 4e in the MM…are wonky, power wise, at best when matched up with the PHB races? Yeah much better than ECL or LA… Or did you just decide to skip that since it doesn’t support your argument. In fact this makes the advantage definitely with 3e since it has enough low level monsters that can be used without any problem to outdistance 4e. Advantage: 3e




thecasualoblivion said:


> Class--4E has eight classes to 3E's eleven. In terms of choices though, 4E's eight classes all give a substantial amount of options, while in 3E it is split between Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Sorcerer getting piles of options and Barbarian, Fighter(core feats do little to nothing--Fighter needs his splats), Monk, Paladin, Ranger and Rogue getting little to no options. In addition, balance issues make many 3E classes(particularly the Monk, but including Bard, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger) unattractive choices in core only. Overall, 3E has incredibly deep options along four paths(Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Wizard/Sorcerer sharing the same path), and six other classes who don't go far beyond "pick a class". 4E on the other hand takes the options available for the Spellcasters and splits them between eight classes. Each class gets less than a 3E spellcasting class, and the options are spread over the entire. In addition, 4E has removed the bad choices, so there is more bang for the buck in the available choices. While there may be less powers/rituals than there were 3E spells, when you remove the stupid choices 4E comes out at least equal. Advantage: Push



 
I will also note that many people are now starting to find that certain powers are objectively better than others that a class can choose, so I really wish people would stop touting the powers as all equal options when they aren’t. How can a sub-par choice in 3e equate to no choice but one in 4e is still viable? It’s even becoming debatable that some classes are less effective in their roles than others (Warlock vs. Ranger). So let’s give the game a little more time before we start declaring how viable it is option wise.




thecasualoblivion said:


> Multiclassing--3E had the ability to choose any class to gain a level in, but this didn't exactly work well in practice(without prestige classes). Doing anything less than taking full levels in a spellcasting class gimped your character, and in core good results tended to be limited to adding Barbarian, Fighter and to a lesser extent Ranger levels to nonspellcasting classes. In 4E, multiclassing through feats and Paragon Paths doesn't promise as much as 3E did, but it works. Some classes have more synergy with ability scores, but you can make a viable character out of any two of the eight classes in the PHB. Advantage: 4E



 
Again, jumping the gun…Tell me what benefit a squishy, low hp controller has in trying to multi-class into fighter or paladin classes. Will he be able to be an effective defender? Or is he basically worthless in that role?


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 5, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Playing a popular game has value in that you can walk into a strange gaming store in a strange city, play M:tG for a few days, and after talking to the local geeks easily find a game of the current edition of D&D to join. Finding a group running some indie game or older editions of D&D is going to be a lot harder.




I don't think anyone's saying that 4e isn't popular. If so, that's a bit foolish. 4e is a very popular game. What people want with sales figures is to determine if its more or less popular than what's come before, which, IMO, is something else entirely unrelated to ease of gaming group acquisition.

joe b.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 5, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> I appreciate Chris's willingness to put up with a lot of *whargarbl *to add to my information pool.




I learned a new word today.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 5, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> $0.02
> 
> 
> 
> joe b.



 ​


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 5, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> While 3E books were sold on Amazon, there was nothing that could compare to the big "event" of selling preorders for the 4E core set for $61.



Yes, I was one of the 'orphins' who waited several weeks to get my Amazon preorder, I know. But _again_, the topic is specifically about comparing 4e supplement sales to 3.5 supplement sales.



Thasmodious said:


> Just to summarize - the OP wonders if 4e has legs and what the sales looks like based on anecdotal statements by a 3PP.
> 
> There is bickering.
> 
> ...



Fun Fact that has nothing to do with topic since it is about 'core' books: Your database also shows some 3e core books (MM... I think, I did this check late last night) kicking the snot out of it's 4e version. By staying on the list two weeks vs. one and peaking at 53ish vs. 132 or so.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 5, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> I don't think anyone's saying that 4e isn't popular. If so, that's a bit foolish. 4e is a very popular game. What people want with sales figures is to determine if its more or less popular than what's come before, which, IMO, is something else entirely unrelated to ease of gaming group acquisition.
> 
> joe b.




Sales figures have a strong correlation with gaming group acquisition. Gaming group acquisition has value.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 5, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is the Completist's Dilemma. It seems like, for 4e, Wizards in banking in a big way on players being completists. "They'll buy minis for the powers! They'll buy DDI for the compendium! They'll buy every supplement because it's core! Gotta catch 'em all!"




I find your view on this interesting... Because it's just seems like such a different way to think about things then I tend to...

You seem to see it as if WoTC was somehow able to force us to buy more products.

Whereas I fall into the category of feeling WoTC is attempting to supply the demand of its fan base.

Players want an online database of the rules elements. WoTC attempts to supply that.

Players want minis. WoTC attempts to supply that.

Players want new suppliments for their game. WoTC attempts to supply that.

One big thing I think we're seeing is that YES 4e was designed with not just the thought that there might be suppliments, but the knowledge that players WANT and expect them. (And they want and expect them on a regular basis.) So the game needs to be designed with that idea in mind. The game needs to be able to have new material add to it and change it, without that new material causing the original system to break down.




> Certainly, I'm a little in this category. I'm trying to be more fair to them, but in my book, if I've Gotta Catch 'em All, I'll leave that to the trufans and go play *Ars Magica*. I don't need D&D to have fun.




This made me smile... It sounds like something you hear people say about drugs and alchohol. "I don't need to drink to have fun!"


----------



## xechnao (Dec 5, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> 2) Not as well as expected does not equate to 'below average' or even 'not great', neccissarily.




Nah, I doubt they had really unrealistic expectations and I doubt they did not have some minimum of growth expectations that has to do with their book sales. 

OTOH what I figure out after the latest posts it is rather even more probable that the problem seems to be number 2 than number 1.


----------



## garyh (Dec 5, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> Fun Fact that has nothing to do with topic since it is about 'core' books: Your database also shows some 3e core books (MM... I think, I did this check late last night) kicking the snot out of it's 4e version. By staying on the list two weeks vs. one and peaking at 53ish vs. 132 or so.




3e's core books came out staggered, so there was no (immediate, at least) gift set to compare to.  Compare the 4e gift set + MM totals to the 3e MM totals to get a better picture.

I don't think 3.5 had a prominent gift set, either, but I could be wrong.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 5, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm, even though many of the handful of races we get for 4e in the MM…are wonky, power wise, at best when matched up with the PHB races?




Which is why they are explicitly there for DM use for NPCs, not for PC use. It says it right in the book.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 5, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Sales figures have a strong correlation with gaming group acquisition. Gaming group acquisition has value.




Sales figures and "Is it popular enough so I can find a group" are two very different things, IMO. The first is unimportant for fans if the second is experientially true. I don't suspect that people who want to play 4e are having any harder a time finding a 4e group then people back in 2001 who wanted to play 3e had any difficulty in finding a 3e gaming group. Moreover, unless one has the context within which to place an actual sales figure, that number is useless. Fans don't know the business and can't place numbers in context.

In my experience, many fans are only interested in sales numbers so they can use them to beat up other fans with. Many people seem to find a sense of identity, importance and superiority in knowing that the game they enjoy is selling better than that *other* game. Just like some fans find the same thing by playing "indie" games just because they're indie or other fans take pleasure in the fact that a new edition of a game isn't selling as well as the edition they like did.

It's because of people like the above, that I generally don't talk business with fans. Many gamers aren't like the above, but quite a few are and they tend to be very vocal and seem almost bent on spoiling the hobby for those of us who just want to play.

joe b.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 5, 2008)

garyh said:


> 3e's core books came out staggered, so there was no (immediate, at least) gift set to compare to.  Compare the 4e gift set + MM totals to the 3e MM totals to get a better picture.
> 
> I don't think 3.5 had a prominent gift set, either, but I could be wrong.



Good point, and also another reason that the core books aren't really a good benchmark for the topic. Direct comparisons are difficult at best.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 5, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> Moreover, unless one has the context within which to place an actual sales figure, that number is useless. Fans don't know the business and can't place numbers in context.
> 
> 
> joe b.




It is a question of probabilities. Regarding sales for example in people's minds there are probabilities regarding kinds of relations. The more informed one is about the business the better he can guess the future of certain results but even the function of this "betterness" is also probabilistic too up to a subjective point.


----------



## Thasmodious (Dec 5, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Again, jumping the gun…Tell me what benefit a squishy, low hp controller has in trying to multi-class into fighter or paladin classes. Will he be able to be an effective defender? Or is he basically worthless in that role?




Are you kidding?  4e pulled off the wizard/fighter, whereas 3e never did.  By your last two questions it seems you might not understand 4e multiclassing well.  Multiclassing is not about acquiring a second role, its about gaining benefits from another class.  The benefits for a squishy, low hp controller are many.  First squishy and low hp are relative.  They can still take a few hits, have 2 less starting hp than strikers, and 1 less per level, a lot of which can be mitigated by toughness (a very viable choice for a wizard/fighter).  With a focus on close burst spells, a good str, and an armor feat or two, the wizard/fighter is in great shape.  With utilities like expeditious retreat and dimension door they can stay as mobile as strikers or with shield, blur and mirror image they can get a big boost to AC (on top of their light armor and high INT).  

And it plays well.  My dwarf wizard/fighter is a load of win.  He added crushing blow to his powers at 4th level, wields a craghammer and a wand.  He loves to charge into the middle of large groups, drop a color spray and a thunderwave, smack the big bad with crushing blow, then E-retreat or D-door away if needed.  And he's more than once stood over the fallen defender and battered away on a big bad, using thunderwave to clean house if he gets surrounded.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 5, 2008)

Imaro said:


> You know, I think it would be much more interesting to compare D&D 4e to other rpg's made within the past 5 years rather than versions of itself released over 25 years ago.




Ok we'll compaire the abilities and options of a 3e cleric to those of a 4e cleric.

*Weapons/Armor*

3e Cleric

Simple weapons and all armor and shields

Plus if you choose war domain you gain a weapon proficiency = to your god's weapon of choice.

4e Cleric

Simple weapons and Cloth leather, hide, or chainmail.

*Alignment*

3e Cleric

Must be within one step of his god's alignment.

4e Cleric

Can be of any alignment. (Opening up the option to play a priest that is attempting to subvert the faith in some way, or believes his vision is the true vision of the faith etc...) 

*Special abilities*

3e Cleric

Turn Undead

4e Cleric

Channel Divinity which lets them use Turn undead or Divine fortune. In addtion there are feats that allow the cleric to add additional uses to the channel divinity power.

*Spells*

3e Cleric

Access to divine spells. 

4e Cleric

Access to all rituals. (Though he'll probably be better at the more divine focused ones he still has access to ALL rituals.)


It would appear that most of the options that would otherwise be static in 3e are now open to being modified or changed in core 4e then they were in core 3e. 

1 priest will not automatically look anything like another in terms of abilities or things it does on a regular basis.


----------



## doctorhook (Dec 5, 2008)

Imaro: I got rid of your weird formatting for my reply.



Imaro said:


> Uhm, even though many of the handful of races we get for 4e in the MM…are wonky, power wise, at best when matched up with the PHB races? Yeah much better than ECL or LA… Or did you just decide to skip that since it doesn’t support your argument. In fact this makes the advantage definitely with 3e since it has enough low level monsters that can be used without any problem to outdistance 4e. Advantage: 3e



"Broken" in 3.5E is more substantial than "broken" in 4E. In 4E, a mildly-wonky, not-intended-for-player-use-but-being-used-regardless race (for example, the Kobold) will not break your game. In 3.5E, playing a LA/ECL race as a spellcaster will make you noticeably less effective against appropriate-level monsters if the LA is +1; if the LA is +2 or greater, you will outclassed by the monsters of your level. The advantage remains with 4E.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I will also note that many people are now starting to find that certain powers are objectively better than others that a class can choose, so I really wish people would stop touting the powers as all equal options when they aren’t. How can a sub-par choice in 3e equate to no choice but one in 4e is still viable? It’s even becoming debatable that some classes are less effective in their roles than others (Warlock vs. Ranger). So let’s give the game a little more time before we start declaring how viable it is option wise.



Yes, there are some powers which are objectively better than others, in both 3.5E and 4E. That said, again, being "broken" in 3.5E is a lot worse than being "broken" in 4E. Keeping this in mind, 4E never puts you in a "no choice but one" situation that could invalidate your character. Here, 4E is at least equal to 3.5E. (In fact, in this regard, 4E is a heck of a lot better than 3.5E, if you factor in 3.5E's metamagic.)

As for "class X" is better than "class Y", once more it's worth pointing out that brokenness is relative. If 4E's Warlocks are worse than it's Rangers (and I've seen scant evidence that they objectively are), they're still leagues more balanced than 3.5E's Clerics, Druids, and Wizards compared to 3.5E's Fighters, Monks, and Paladins. How much more time do we need? 3.5E can break itself without even leaving the _Player's Handbook_; the term "CoDzilla" is a testament to 3.5E's brokenness. Advantage is 4E, by a mile. 



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Again, jumping the gun…Tell me what benefit a squishy, low hp controller has in trying to multi-class into fighter or paladin classes. Will he be able to be an effective defender? Or is he basically worthless in that role?



He won't be an effective Defender. He will be an effective Controller, with a limited capacity to Defend. In 4E, a character's primary role is determined by that character's primary class, and effectiveness in that role is a function of being a member of that class, rather than the choices made within that class. Thus, in 4E, a Wizard who multiclasses as a Paladin remains effective as a Wizard, and gains a limited scope of the Paladin's capabilities.

OTOH, in 3.5E, a Paladin in a dungeon-crawl campaign could choose to specialize in mounted combat, effectively throwing away his opportunities to become more effective in the game. In 3.5E, a Rogue can choose just about whatever options he likes, and regardless, one of his best class features will remain entirely ineffective against a major portion of the monsters he encounters. In 3.5E, a Wizard (or a Cleric, or a Druid, or a Sorcerer) couldn't multiclass either as a Paladin or _anything_ else without shooting themselves in the foot. Advantage? Obviously 4E.

Throw all the stones you like at 4E's wooden walls, Imaro; it won't stop 3.5E from being built from glass.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Which is why they are explicitly there for DM use for NPCs, not for PC use. It says it right in the book.





Really Mourn...no, I mean Really!  Because I wasn't the one who asserted they were there to be played as PC races.  Read the post I was resoponding to.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Imaro: I got rid of your weird formatting for my reply.
> 
> "Broken" in 3.5E is more substantial than "broken" in 4E. In 4E, a mildly-wonky, not-intended-for-player-use-but-being-used-regardless race (for example, the Kobold) will not break your game. In 3.5E, playing a LA/ECL race as a spellcaster will make you noticeably less effective against appropriate-level monsters if the LA is +1; if the LA is +2 or greater, you will outclassed by the monsters of your level. The advantage remains with 4E.
> 
> ...





Uhm, no one's throwing stones at 4e... but when you discuss options and you say one editions options "don't count" because they aren't balanced... but the others do... well there's a disparity there.  Cover it up with "degrees" of "brokeness" all you want.  Either you're arguing options should only count if they're balanced or you're arguing options are options.


  Remember it took years for many of the "broken" things to be identified in 3.5 let's give 4e some more time.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Dec 5, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Lets compare to games I'm most familiar with:
> 
> Stuff...
> 
> ...




I'm glad you feel that way... really.  If you were gaming with one of my groups or the one that my brother is in, I'd feel bad for you because you would be in a tough spot as the ONLY person with any interest in playing 4th edition.

Sadly, your assertion that "4E has removed the bad choices, so there is more bang for the buck in the available choices" doesn't hold up for those I know.  For us it feels like 4E has removed far too many options, things we thought were good choices, with the intention of slowly adding them back in bit by bit for a less-than-nominal fee.


----------



## delericho (Dec 5, 2008)

garyh said:


> When 2e came out and TSR removed half-orcs and assassins, where there this many "incomplete" complaints?




There were certainly a large number of complaints in the Forum section of Dragon magazine at the time. However, whether there were as many is very difficult to say - there was no internet at the time, so nowhere near the sort of analysis, discussion and complaint that is seen these days.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 5, 2008)

delericho said:


> There were certainly a large number of complaints in the Forum section of Dragon magazine at the time. However, whether there were as many is very difficult to say - there was no internet at the time, so nowhere near the sort of analysis, discussion and complaint that is seen these days.




Man.... you know what's sad?

When I was a kid, and I got my Dragon magazine I used to look at all the stuff in the forums section and skip past it thinking: "Man who are these weirdos that spend all that time arguing about this crap?"

I've turned into a weirdo!


----------



## delericho (Dec 5, 2008)

Scribble said:


> 4e Cleric
> 
> Can be of any alignment. (Opening up the option to play a priest that is attempting to subvert the faith in some way, or believes his vision is the true vision of the faith etc...)




This is incorrect. Page 62 of the PHB:

"You must choose a deity compatible with your alignment: Good clerics serve good deities, lawful good clerics serve lawful good deities, and so on."

So, 4e Clerics actually have less alignment freedom than do 3e Clerics.

That said, the 4e alignment rules contain no mention whatsoever of changing alignment, and the Cleric write-up does say that once you are a Cleric you are forever a Cleric. What this all actually means is undefined. It is entirely possible, therefore, that:

1) Clerics can change alignment entirely at the whim of the PC, and suffer no consequences.

2) Clerics (and other PCs) can act in any manner they want without risking an alignment shift. If the player chooses to change his character's declared alignment, this may or may not require that he also change deity.

3) Since alignment represents nothing more than a metaphysical 'team' (per page 19, "In a cosmic sense, it's the team you believe in and fight for most strongly."), your Lawful Good Cleric can quite happily indulge his habit of burning down orphanages in his spare time, just so long as he stands ready to execute genocide on any passing Orcs at a moment's notice.

Presumably, how you interpret this will depend on the tastes of the group, and how ridiculously they wish to interpret the rules.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 5, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Uhm, no one's throwing stones at 4e... but when you discuss options and you say one editions options "don't count" because they aren't balanced... but the others do... well there's a disparity there.  Cover it up with "degrees" of "brokeness" all you want.  Either you're arguing options should only count if they're balanced or you're arguing options are options.
> 
> 
> Remember it took years for many of the "broken" things to be identified in 3.5 let's give 4e some more time.




One of the things I think 4e has going for it in terms of "broken" vrs "Not broken" is since most of the powers and abilities of a given class come in the form of the "powers" selected, it's much easier to repair classes that are discovered to have gotten the shaft.

If we find out say, the Warlock powers just aren't up to snuff, they can later use this collected data to release a new host of powers that bring the warlock more in line with the other classes. By doing so the warlock still continues to be a valid class throughout the life of the game.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Man.... you know what's sad?
> 
> When I was a kid, and I got my Dragon magazine I used to look at all the stuff in the forums section and skip past it thinking: "Man who are these weirdos that spend all that time arguing about this crap?"
> 
> I've turned into a weirdo!




If I wasn't at work... I'd drink to that...LOL, You and me both.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 5, 2008)

Scribble said:


> One of the things I think 4e has going for it in terms of "broken" vrs "Not broken" is since most of the powers and abilities of a given class come in the form of the "powers" selected, it's much easier to repair classes that are discovered to have gotten the shaft.
> 
> If we find out say, the Warlock powers just aren't up to snuff, they can later use this collected data to release a new host of powers that bring the warlock more in line with the other classes. By doing so the warlock still continues to be a valid class throughout the life of the game.





Yep, that could be the case...as long as your willing to subscribe to DDI to get em.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 5, 2008)

delericho said:


> This is incorrect. Page 62 of the PHB:
> 
> "You must choose a deity compatible with your alignment: Good clerics serve good deities, lawful good clerics serve lawful good deities, and so on."
> 
> So, 4e Clerics actually have less alignment freedom than do 3e Clerics.




Sorry I mispoke about that. Yep if you choose to make yourself an alignment then your deity must match. 4e clerics, however, have the "unaligned" option. If you choose to be unaligned you can worship who or whatever you want. 

Also since your powers come from being made a cleric, and not the divine being itself, you can use them in any fashion you wish. Again you can be a fallen cleric using powers of a "good" god for evil.


----------



## delericho (Dec 5, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Yep, that could be the case...as long as your willing to subscribe to DDI to get em.




Well, that or pick up "Arcane Power X", or whatever the equivalent book is called. Really, I don't see how that's any different from previous editions.

Except that 4e is heavily discussed online, and new powers will no doubt become available here and on other boards. In that regard, 4e is in a stronger position than any prior edition except 3.X.

(And, the powers structure does give it an advantage over even 3.X. For that edition, spellcasters could be patched with new spells, and the Fighter with feats, but a similar patch for the Monk or the Rogue would be extremely hard to implement.)


----------



## delericho (Dec 5, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Yep if you choose to make yourself an alignment then your deity must match. 4e clerics, however, have the "unaligned" option. If you choose to be unaligned you can worship who or whatever you want.




Indeed. Oddly, 4e Paladins don't have the same option - Unaligned paladins can only serve Unaligned deities, and Unaligned deities will only accept Unaligned paladins.

(This means Paladins also have more alignment options than has ever previously been the case. Sadly, I was massively in favour of LG-only Paladins, even at the expense of losing them as a base class. Still, I can accept that I was very much in the minority there - it's probably a strength, rather than a weakness of 4e that Paladins can be of any alignment.)


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 5, 2008)

There is no mechanical enforcement on cleric or paladin alignment, so a paladin or cleric can change alignment and not lose his powers, since the deity no longer directly grants them. That's the scariest thing about heretics and apostates.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Dec 5, 2008)

Interestingly, the Amazon sales ranks of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and the 3.5 Player's Handbook are almost the same.

Right now:
Player's Handbook is 34,361  (leading by  1,637)
Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide is 35,998

I know it is apples to oranges in a sense (core versus supplement)...but they're both today's figures.

Given:


> The ranking does not depend upon the actual number of books sold, but rather, on a comparison against the sales figures of the other 9,999 books within that same hour. Simultaneously, a trending calculation is applied to arrive at a computerized sales trajectory. So, hypothetically, a book that held a ranking of 2,000 at 2pm and 3,000 at 3pm, might hold a 4,000 ranking at 4pm, even if it actually sold MORE books between 3-4 than it did between 2-3.
> Books with rankings between 10,000 and 100,000 are recalculated once a day, rather than once an hour. Current projections, as well as historic sales information play a key role in these calculations. In fact, the predictive nature of the Amazon ranking system is what makes it possible for a newly-released book to outrank an older established title, even though the actual sales figures for the latter far exceed the former.



(from this site: Navigating the Amazon Sales Ranking | WebProNews)

So assuming that 3.5 has been dead for a while now, shouldn't we expect recent sales to indicate that one of the major recent supplements was doing a bit better than the 3.5 player handbook?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 5, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I find your view on this interesting... Because it's just seems like such a different way to think about things then I tend to...
> 
> You seem to see it as if WoTC was somehow able to force us to buy more products.




Of course not. That would be patently silly. You seem to think I am a gibbering idiot. That I imagine Mike Mearls sitting in his dark tower on his throne of bones from those who have been layed off, petting his cat, and laughing evilly as his Mind Control Helmet sparks with black lightning.

I'm not an idiot and WotC can't control our minds.

What WotC *can* do is tap into the collector's mindset. It's an advertising technique: by buying more things, you will feel better! By buying more books, you will have a more complete game! Without all the books, well, you aren't having ALL THE FUN, are you?! I guess in as much as any advertising/marketing technique is mind control, this is, but it's hardly maniacal or consistent.

Not everyone has a collector's mindset, but I'd wager there are a lot of gamers that are susceptible to it (do you own more D&D supplements right now than you've ever used at the table? CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'RE A COLLECTOR!). It's not inherently bad, and it's not inherently evil to try and capitalize on it (indeed, it's a little silly to NOT try to capitalize on it), but if you capitalize on it, it can reach a breaking point. 

Heck, this was part of the reason 2e is decried: so many people felt their games were incomplete without the different rules references hidden in various 2e books. "Argh! This book mentions a supplement I don't have! So useless!"

That's why 3e's decision to blatantly NOT do that was so refreshing, even if they moved away from it a bit at the end. 



> Whereas I fall into the category of feeling WoTC is attempting to supply the demand of its fan base.




I never said they weren't trying to do that. I just said they were tapping into the collector's mindset as an attempt to get people to buy more books. It's pretty unrelated.



> Players want an online database of the rules elements. WoTC attempts to supply that.




I think 3e was chugging along just fine with the SRD and sites like d20SRD.com. Totally legal, totally awesome sites. Totally things that WotC kicked to the curb in favor of the fee-based DDI. "Ah! They're giving away things we could charge for! Gotta stop that!"

The big thing about it is that it is for _completists_. If you want all the rules in a convenient index, give us $6 (per month), or else no, you can't have that. You can game without it. But, you know, you don't have have EVERYTHING then.



> Players want minis. WoTC attempts to supply that.




Hard-wiring minis into the game and giving them minis-exclusive powers isn't responding to "players want minis." It's responding to "how can we sell more minis?" You can produce and sell little pieces of plastic without dipping into the "Gotta Catch 'em All!" 



> Players want new suppliments for their game. WoTC attempts to supply that.




By calling them "core," they are tapping into that collector's mindset. "All these books are essential for REAL D&D! If you play D&D without them, you're playing some sort of jury-rigged, half-arsed D&D that obviously isn't up to snuff with our Platinum Edition Insider All Core Books Exclusive Membership. And you don't have $30 this month? Aww..."

I mean, those are pretty cartoonish hyperbole, and I don't think WotC is literally saying any of that, but to someone who has a collector's mindset, who wants to have a "complete" game or nothing, each additional purchase is a burden, so if there are going to be a lot of additional purchases needed to complete the game, they'll just go do something else. 



> One big thing I think we're seeing is that YES 4e was designed with not just the thought that there might be suppliments, but the knowledge that players WANT and expect them. (And they want and expect them on a regular basis.) So the game needs to be designed with that idea in mind. The game needs to be able to have new material add to it and change it, without that new material causing the original system to break down.




New material is all well and good, but by making new material _required_ (even just by implication and branding) you trigger that collector's mindset, which says "I need everything that is required." If they can't GET everything that is required, they'll just abandon the whole thing.



> This made me smile... It sounds like something you hear people say about drugs and alchohol. "I don't need to drink to have fun!"




If you *do* need to drink to have fun, I don't think I'm the one with the problem.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Of course not. That would be patently silly. You seem to think I am a gibbering idiot. That I imagine Mike Mearls sitting in his dark tower on his throne of bones from those who have been layed off, petting his cat, and laughing evilly as his Mind Control Helmet sparks with black lightning.
> 
> I'm not an idiot and WotC can't control our minds.




Please don't accuse me of doing something I never did. Never once did I call you an idiot or even mean to imply it.

I'm pointing out a different way we view things, nothing more.




> What WotC *can* do is tap into the collector's mindset. It's an advertising technique: by buying more things, you will feel better! By buying more books, you will have a more complete game! Without all the books, well, you aren't having ALL THE FUN, are you?! I guess in as much as any advertising/marketing technique is mind control, this is, but it's hardly maniacal or consistent.




And I'll point to it again.

You seem to view it as, WoTC feels if they make a game collectible, people will want to collect it.

Wheas I see people already wanted to collect things for their game.

We want source books, we want extra options, we want new feats powers, spells. Wizards is simply supplying that demand.



> That's why 3e's decision to blatantly NOT do that was so refreshing, even if they moved away from it a bit at the end.




3e added expansion suppliments from the very begining. How exactly did it move away from this?




> I think 3e was chugging along just fine with the SRD and sites like d20SRD.com. Totally legal, totally awesome sites. Totally things that WotC kicked to the curb in favor of the fee-based DDI. "Ah! They're giving away things we could charge for! Gotta stop that!"




Again, it interests me. You feel WoTC was motivated by seeing others giving away their stuff for free...

I feel they were motivated by seeing how popular the digital tools were, and wanting to offer digital tools. Yes, to make money, which is what businesses do.



> The big thing about it is that it is for _completists_. If you want all the rules in a convenient index, give us $6 (per month), or else no, you can't have that. You can game without it. But, you know, you don't have have EVERYTHING then.




I've never once had a "complete" set of game books, even in my heyday of buying books. The DDI is still great for me, not so I can "catch em all" but because it makes adventure prep 10x easier for me. 



> Hard-wiring minis into the game and giving them minis-exclusive powers isn't responding to "players want minis." It's responding to "how can we sell more minis?" You can produce and sell little pieces of plastic without dipping into the "Gotta Catch 'em All!"




Again we come from a difefrent perspective on this.

Sure you can sell little plastic minis... Offer extra stuff with those little plastic minis and their more attractive... What's wrong with that?

People want minis. People want minis more when they have bonus stuff in them.




> By calling them "core," they are tapping into that collector's mindset. "All these books are essential for REAL D&D! If you play D&D without them, you're playing some sort of jury-rigged, half-arsed D&D that obviously isn't up to snuff with our Platinum Edition Insider All Core Books Exclusive Membership. And you don't have $30 this month? Aww..."
> 
> I mean, those are pretty cartoonish hyperbole, and I don't think WotC is literally saying any of that, but to someone who has a collector's mindset, who wants to have a "complete" game or nothing, each additional purchase is a burden, so if there are going to be a lot of additional purchases needed to complete the game, they'll just go do something else.




I've collected various things over the years. Anytime I collected things, it was because it was something I liked. It was never a "burden." I wanted the things, so I colelcted them. This argument seems very strange to me.

People also collect D&D books even when they're not listed as "core." have you seen the number of people happy they can "complete" their set chea[ply now that 3e stuff has gone on sale in most places???



> New material is all well and good, but by making new material _required_ (even just by implication and branding) you trigger that collector's mindset, which says "I need everything that is required." If they can't GET everything that is required, they'll just abandon the whole thing.




Core and required are different things.



> If you *do* need to drink to have fun, I don't think I'm the one with the problem.




It's just a similar statement I've heard people say regarding substances. Just made me smile to see D&D as an addictive substance.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 6, 2008)

Imaro said:


> If I wasn't at work... I'd drink to that...LOL, You and me both.




Funny how that happens eh?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 6, 2008)

Let's recap.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> You seem to see it as if WoTC was somehow able to force us to buy more products.






			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm not an idiot and WotC can't control our minds.






			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Please don't accuse me of doing something I never did. Never once did I call you an idiot or even mean to imply it.
> 
> I'm pointing out a different way we view things, nothing more.




Later...



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> You seem to view it as, WoTC feels if they make a game collectible, people will want to collect it.




Please don't accuse me of doing something I never did. Never once did I say WotC thinks that they are *creating* a collector's mindset or even mean to imply it.

I'm pointing out that they are using a marketing device that has a potential backfire, nothing more.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Wheas I see people already wanted to collect things for their game.
> 
> We want source books, we want extra options, we want new feats powers, spells. Wizards is simply supplying that demand.




We want supplements, extra options, new feats, powers, and spells...4e gives us a never-ending Core, minis with powers attached to them, and a GSL designed to make you pay for a WotC-exclusive database. One does not necessarily follow from the others. 3e gave us 3 core books, a well-received system of minis, and a wide open OGL and, by all accounts, did _very well_. 

Wizards is creating a greater demand by tapping into the completist's mindset. They, quite rationally, want 4e to do even better!

I mean, that's the point. That's _smart business_ even. Creating greater demand for products that don't seem to be selling very well means they might sell better, and thus everyone makes more money! 

But it does have a potential breaking point. By trying desperately to create greater demand, you can, in fact, flip the switch and create much less demand. If I've gotta catch 'em all, I'll just play something less demanding.

4e is quite obviously trying to drive up demand by increasing the perceived value of these books (calling them "core") and the minis (powers!) and the DDI (the only place you can get a full index of monsters!). It's a good move, but, for some consumers (perhaps many?) it can easily go too far. Once you know that it's impossible for you to complete your collection, you _stop collecting all together_. If I can never have all the pokemans, why would I even bother leaving Professor Oak's place with my Squirtle? Why pay $70 for an incomplete game that I'll never be able to complete? 

That's not a universal thought, but I'd argue that it's stronger than normal amongst gamers (who all own shelves of things they own for pure collecting joy that they never really use). 

It's a risky move. It can backfire if pushed too far. It's not even clear that 4e has pushed enough people too far, but it is, by direct anecdote, pushing some people too far. 



> 3e added expansion suppliments from the very begining. How exactly did it move away from this?




There were only ever 3 core books, and, it was implied, you would not NEED to own one supplement to use another. Everything would reference the core, and only the core. You could skip three years' worth of rules and buy a single book in year 4 and with that book and the 3 core books, you would have a complete game. Everything was optional.

4e is trying to remove the "optional" idea in order to drive up sales.

It's not a bad idea, but it can backfire (and it has in a few cases). 



> I feel they were motivated by seeing how popular the digital tools were, and wanting to offer digital tools. Yes, to make money, which is what businesses do.




d20srd.com DID make WotC money. The SRD that they gave away for free DID make WotC money. In a very indirect fashion, but it DID make WotC money.

They want to make more, which is a pretty good idea, but in order to do that, they took away something, and gave us nothing. Now we're paying for something we used to get for free. That's a pitfall of this. The appearance is of someone giving us a ball to play with and then, once we've been having fun for a while, taking the ball back, showing us an EVEN BETTER ball, and saying "Give me a dollar if you want to rent it."



> I've never once had a "complete" set of game books, even in my heyday of buying books. The DDI is still great for me, not so I can "catch em all" but because it makes adventure prep 10x easier for me.




Sure. But it also appeals to the completists because they can get everything without having to buy the books and the minis and the assorted accessories. 



> People also collect D&D books even when they're not listed as "core." have you seen the number of people happy they can "complete" their set chea[ply now that 3e stuff has gone on sale in most places???




Right. "More Core" just means that there should be more of those people and they will have to buy more things to be "complete," and hopefully before the edition ends. Some people viewed their collection as compelte at 3 books. 4e hates that idea.



> Sure you can sell little plastic minis... Offer extra stuff with those little plastic minis and their more attractive... What's wrong with that?
> 
> People want minis. People want minis more when they have bonus stuff in them.




Nothing is wrong with WotC wanting to make people want minis more.

But it can backfire when people who buy every splatbook learn that they won't have a complete collection without the minis, too, but can't afford that, and so stop buying minis, and even stop buying splatbooks, because if they're going to have to suffer with being incompolete, they don't need them, either. 



> Core and required are different things.




Hahahaha, I don't think the Coasties would support that view. 



> It's just a similar statement I've heard people say regarding substances. Just made me smile to see D&D as an addictive substance.




You might be surprised about how far psychological addiction might go in explaining "Cat Piss Men," man.


----------



## garyh (Dec 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> d20srd.com DID make WotC money. The SRD that they gave away for free DID make WotC money. In a very indirect fashion, but it DID make WotC money.
> 
> They want to make more, which is a pretty good idea, but in order to do that, they took away something, and gave us nothing. Now we're paying for something we used to get for free. That's a pitfall of this. The appearance is of someone giving us a ball to play with and then, once we've been having fun for a while, taking the ball back, showing us an EVEN BETTER ball, and saying "Give me a dollar if you want to rent it."




d20srd.org was/is GREAT.  The thing is, it never grew past core (plus psionics and some UA stuff).  For 4e, yeah, they're selling something similar, but that new product is ALWAYS updated with every book, and you get a bunch of other neat things with it like magazines and a character builder.

That's value.  And a lot of people, including myself, are happy to rent that better ball.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 6, 2008)

> d20srd.org was/is GREAT. The thing is, it never grew past core (plus psionics and some UA stuff). For 4e, yeah, they're selling something similar, but that new product is ALWAYS updated with every book, and you get a bunch of other neat things with it like magazines and a character builder.




Well, the SRD can't grow past core. It's not allowed. That's the d20 license in a nutshell: use only the SRD + your own stuff. The SRD, in effect _defines what is core_. 



> That's value. And a lot of people, including myself, are happy to rent that better ball.




And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that renting a better ball + buying books + buying minis + buying dungeon tiles + buying adventures might not be something that every D&D player can do, and that by making all of them "required" (even if in name or suggestion only), you risk a binary decision: people will either buy all of it, or NONE of it. In at least some people, this has happened in 4e. It might be something that the designers should look at when figuring out how to make 5e even better.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Dec 6, 2008)

I do not know if any of the quoted statistics or numbers are true for anything. The only thing I know is what's going on here locally. At our University roleplaying society initially there was a big rush to play 4e, currently there is one game of 4e running, and the rest who are playing D&D are doing so with 3e.

I don't know if that is indicatve of anything at all, it may be that it's just that people here have lots of 3e material they can use immediately to hand and things may change as more 4e replacement material comes out. (They do have a LOT of 3e material to draw upon.)

It's still early days.


----------



## Betote (Dec 6, 2008)

garyh said:


> When 2e came out and TSR removed half-orcs and assassins, where there this many "incomplete" complaints?




There are still people who claim this. In fact, comparing 4e-3.x changes to 2e-1e ones does a very weak favor to 4e 

Is 4e a complete game with just the 3 core books? Yes, it is.
Has 4e got the same options as 3.x for PCs with just the 3 core books? No, it hasn't.

But still, RC has way too fewer options for PCs than 3.x and it's still a damn good complete game.


----------



## Aeolius (Dec 6, 2008)

Betote said:


> In fact, comparing 4e-3.x changes to 2e-1e ones does a very weak favor to 4e




   Only to those second generation leap-grognards who skipped from 2e to 4e, not to the first generation leap-grognards who skipped from 1e to 3e.


----------



## der_kluge (Dec 6, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I am not a fan of 4e. But nonetheless I hope sales are fairly brisk. I think it's important that WotC do well financially, for the sake of the *industry*, and I think it's also important that people keep playing games and having a good time, for the sake of the hobby.




I think the *industry* needs WoTC about as much as a fish needs a bicycle.

And all this economic pandering aside - could it be that a lot of people just hate 4th edition and *gasp* aren't buying it?  There's definitely a lot of anecdotal evidence here to support that theory.

Personally, I give WoTC 6-10 years before they are bankrupt and are out of business. But that might be optimistic.


----------



## sjmiller (Dec 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, the SRD can't grow past core. It's not allowed. That's the d20 license in a nutshell: use only the SRD + your own stuff. The SRD, in effect _defines what is core_.



Actually, to be a little picky, that is the OGL in a nutshell.  The  d20 license is a different, and soon to be quite dead, license entirely.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 6, 2008)

> Personally, I give WoTC 6-10 years before they are bankrupt and are out of business. But that might be optimistic.




If you're basing that on anecdotal information, I think you're not giving the Coasties enough credit. 4e is a success, but there is a chance it might not be as big a success as hoped. That doesn't risk bankruptcy, really. And they've got MUCH bigger fish than D&D even in their little pond (Magic, Pokemon).


----------



## der_kluge (Dec 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If you're basing that on anecdotal information, I think you're not giving the Coasties enough credit. 4e is a success, but there is a chance it might not be as big a success as hoped. That doesn't risk bankruptcy, really. And they've got MUCH bigger fish than D&D even in their little pond (Magic, Pokemon).




If you think kids will still be playing M:tG and Pokemon 6, or even 10 years from now, you've got a lot more faith in their attention spans than I do.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 6, 2008)

der_kluge said:


> If you think kids will still be playing M:tG and Pokemon 6, or even 10 years from now, you've got a lot more faith in their attention spans than I do.



Yeah, I mean Magic has only been around for _15 years_ now. I know many gamers said the same as you did when the game first became popular way back when. But it's 15 years later, and it's still going.

Pokemon, as a licensed brand, I can see disappearing the near-short term future, possibly. But there's no reason to think the same of MtG.


----------



## Dragon Snack (Dec 6, 2008)

In addition to pumping out M:tG, WotC has it's Avalon Hill and Star Wars licenses (and they're doing Heroscape now, right?).  They may sink D&D*, but I don't see them going anywhere.


*Put your knee back in place, I think _IF_ D&D tanks, it will be the DDI that does that job (for a myriad of reasons) and not the ruleset itself.  I'm more than willing to admit that 4.0 is selling well.  In fact, some of the last 3.5 supplements probably had some pretty good sales (Rules Compendium).  So while there is a bias in his statement, I don't think Pramas is saying exactly what people are reading into it (on both sides).  He is, after all, getting ready to suckle from the 4.0 sow himself...


----------



## M.L. Martin (Dec 6, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Pokemon, as a licensed brand, I can see disappearing the near-short term future, possibly. But there's no reason to think the same of MtG.




  Wizards lost Pokemon years ago. I think it's still got a player base, but it's no longer a base supporting WotC.


----------



## Pramas (Dec 6, 2008)

Well, this has turned into quite the thread. I obviously can't comment on every post, but let me make a few points:

1. I want D&D to attract a lot of new players so there will be more gamers to sell RPGs to. When I comment on 4E's level of success or acqusition strategy, this is where I'm coming from. D&D is the gateway through which most roleplayers enter the hobby, so it's in the best of anyone selling RPGs for it to remain strong. 

2. I'm not worried about 4E failing. If this thing had crashed and burned on release, that would already be apparent. Clearly it has had some success. The questions are how much, how sustainable is it, and can it grow the hobby beyond that of the third edition era?

3. Large publishers usually sell to online stores like Amazon through the book trade. That's how WotC did it when I was there and that's how GR does it too. 

4. My sources were talking about 4E as a whole selling in well and then slowing down quickly. In addition to that commentary, one of them noted that new 4E supplements were selling at about the same level as latter day 3E supplements. The expectation was that the new products for a new edition would sell a lot better than books released 7-8 years into third edition. 

5. Even were 4E to somehow fail, WotC would soldier on as long as Magic keeps selling. That's the real profit center of the company (Pokemon left the company 5 or so years ago). WotC's nightmare is not going out of business, but Hasbro shutting down the Renton office, laying off most of the employees, relocating a small staff of people to Rhode Island to pump out Magic sets, and hanging on to brands like D&D to use as licensing assets. Unless sales really go to hell, this is extremely unlikely. 

6. I'd be careful about drawing conclusions from my original post. I've heard a few things from some interesting sources, but I don't pretend to know the full picture. The people with that info will be keeping it to themselves.

Have a happy weekend, everyone. Go and play some games; I know I will!


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 6, 2008)

Pramas said:


> Well, this has turned into quite the thread. I obviously can't comment on every post, but let me make a few points:
> 
> 2. I'm not worried about 4E failing. If this thing had crashed and burned on release, that would already be apparent. Clearly it has had some success. The questions are how much, how sustainable is it, and can it grow the hobby beyond that of the third edition era?




This is an interesting question, so we'll take it apart:

1. How Much--Hard to say at this point, aside from the fact that 4E is the center of attention and getting nearly all the press. Love it or leave it, it is casting a large shadow.

2. Sustainable--I don't see 4E sustaining itself as being an issue. It is theoretically possible for 4E to lack the success of 3E, but I don't think theres any danger of it not being able to sustain itself.

3. Growing the hobby--This one's the real trick. This thought implies that its D&D's responsibility to help grow the hobby, as opposed to serving itself and the D&D community. The OGL movement created by 3E involved D&D taking on the mantle of "being the leader" and trying to build a new future for RPGdom. In this regard, I think 4E will not live up to the standard set by 3E. 4E will not  inspire the creative burst that accompanied 3E, and 4E will not directly grow the hobby beyond merely being a good game and being worthy of the title. I don't think 4E was designed or intended to do such things, which 3E was designed to do. The masters of D&D decided that a change was in order, and that it was more important to take care of D&D than to lead the industry. I don't think 3E necessarily succeeded in its lofty goals. While the OGL spawned a new industry in the RPG world, it didn't grow the hobby as much as supplant non-d20 systems and realign the RPG world around D&D, the d20 system, and the OGL. Many new books and ideas became available, but how much of this was growth and how much of it was simply increasing the options for existing gamers? Many doomsayers have been saying the hobby was shrinking since before 4E was released. I can understand Mr. Pramas' concern, as he is one of the highlights of the OGL movement, and D&D certainly is not taking the leadership role in supporting the hobby and the OGL like it has in the past. On a final note, I mentioned before about D&D deciding to take care of its own house as opposed to supporting the industry. My thoughts on this would be that the OGL and all its myriad creations created a dilution of the fanbase not unlike what happened with 2E AD&D and the millions of settings TSR published for it. While this splintering of the brand didn't occur in house and involve squandering resources like it did during 2E, the explosion of D&D/d20/OGL into every nook and cranny weakened the brand name by blurring or destroying the line between what is and isn't D&D to the point where it was difficult to determine the difference, and built up some unrealistic expectations among D&D/d20/OGL about what D&D was supposed to be.




Pramas said:


> 4. My sources were talking about 4E as a whole selling in well and then slowing down quickly. In addition to that commentary, one of them noted that new 4E supplements were selling at about the same level as latter day 3E supplements. The expectation was that the new products for a new edition would sell a lot better than books released 7-8 years into third edition.




One of the complaints leveled against 4E is that the new edition was introduced to soon, while the previous edition was still popular and very much alive. As the game was popular and very much alive(which I believe was true), I would expect the sales of 3E towards the end to be respectable, and merely matching those sales not that much of an indictment. The Core books always outsell the supplements. Have RPG supplements for major games ever sold as well as the core books? Its been a while since we've had fresh new core books, and supplements are going to look bad compared to them. 4E is releasing books at a slower, more careful pace, and it doesn't have a back library of supplements that newly introduced players will want(like the Complete series, Spell Compendium, Psionics, ect.). Including that back library of titles, which were still being bought up to and after the release of 4E is going to color the interpretation of things. In addition, 4E is taking the risky and ambitious step of writing books solely for DMs or Players. 4E's emphasis on balance has prompted many DM's to allow players to use rules from supplements like Martial Power and the Forgotten Realms Players Guide without the DM owning or even having read those books, which would have been unthinkable to a responsible DM during 3E. The lack of player information in books like the FRCG and Draconomicon(and future supplements like Dungeon Delve and Open Grave) means that players can skip these books. Writing books for players or DMs only is going to affect the sales of those books, though the idea is to better serve the game by doing so. If I were to speculate, I'd say that the sales of supplements for 4E vary wildly. I'd imagine that the adventures, Draconomicon, FRCG, and Manual of Planes sell at a modest rate while the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, Martial Power, and especially Adventurer's Vault sell very well. The big test for 4E supplements will be seing how well PHB2 sells.


----------



## Mark (Dec 7, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This thought implies that its D&D's responsibility to help grow the hobby





No, it doesn't.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 7, 2008)

Mark said:


> No, it doesn't.




Doesn't it? The OGL was an idealistic experiment with that very thought in mind. Making D&D open source, with the intent to combine the popularity of D&D with allowing everybody to use the system to produce new things with the general idea that this would grow the hobby. 3rd parties would be allowed to produce new D&D material, offering far more than WotC could ever produce on its own, while entirely new games based around the D&D framework blazed new trails, and finally the most popular RPG in the hobby would serve as a gateway to these new games and supplements thanks to the familiarity of them all sharing fundamental mechanics. 

Looking at the original comment, what was said was "...and can it grow the hobby beyond that of the third edition era?" Why say that if D&D being able to grow the hobby isn't important or relevent, especially considering that 3E and the OGL were based around that idea? Couldn't it also be argued that what is most important for D&D is for it to be D&D?


----------



## Mark (Dec 7, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Doesn't it?





Nope.  A side effect of a market leader's position is not the same as a responsibility.  Nor should Chris be saddled with the idea that he implied such.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Dec 7, 2008)

Mark said:


> Nope.  A side effect of a market leader's position is not the same as a responsibility.  Nor should Chris be saddled with the idea that he implied such.




It's a responsibility when your market is slowly dying since people think that Playing World of Warcraft is more of a viable hobby then picking up a role playing book.

After all, the current WoW advertising campaign is telling me one thing:  Playing World of Warcraft is cool, hell even Ozzy Osborn, Mini me, and Mr. T does it.  What are we getting from WoTC dealing with DnD?  NOTHING!  

As being the only company in the pen and paper RPG field that can afford to advertise on national telivision, shouldn't WoTC try to I don't know,  make DnD look cool and try to improve the public perception about playing it so that people won't be so put off by it?


----------



## RefinedBean (Dec 7, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:


> It's a responsibility when your market is slowly dying since people think that Playing World of Warcraft is more of a viable hobby then picking up a role playing book.




Sweet mercy.  It's WotC's responsibility to protect the entire industry from losing ground to online RPGs?  That's a tough battle.

People think that playing World of Warcraft is a viable hobby because it IS a viable hobby.  There's nothing WotC or any other company can do about that.


----------



## Mark (Dec 7, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:


> It's a responsibility (. . .)





Are you joking?


----------



## DandD (Dec 7, 2008)

Mark said:


> Are you joking?



If he was joking, I see no smiley like that one  around in his post.


----------



## Mark (Dec 7, 2008)

DandD said:


> If he was joking, I see no smiley like that one  around in his post.





He might be posting deadpan.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 7, 2008)

So the OGL is a responsibility in order to keep interest in D&D in this flailing industry. Is that is what is being said?


----------



## xechnao (Dec 7, 2008)

justanobody said:


> So the OGL is a responsibility in order to keep interest in D&D in this flailing industry. Is that is what is being said?




hem hem


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 7, 2008)

I'm sure the folks at WotC have set their "recruitment" budget and made plans to attract gamers to D&D.  However, those decisions were probably tempered by the market conditions (including the competition from online play), and therefore efforts will not exceed what is already planned unless the returns on their original investment pass expectations.  

In other words, it is what it is.  WotC will follow the money, and likely not waste time on anything that doesn't provide strong revenue (including recruitment efforts).  They seem to have lost some of their player base with 4E - can they overcome and surpass that with new recruits?  Somehow I don't think tabletop roleplaying gaming will be growing at any significant rate, and I don't think 4E will grow the hobby at all unless something in DDI (as yet unrealized) will spark interest.  The game (3.5 and 4E for that matter), comparitively, takes too long to play, and is too slow for the potential new player that could otherwise go online and play instantly - no prep time required - no trying to coordinate schedues with other gamers - and no need to spend hundreds of dollars on gaming materials.

I really don't think our hobby *can* grow significantly at this point.  It's likely a new tabletop RPG can only hope to steal away players from other tabletop RPGs.  I think increased speed of play is likely to be the number one design goal if 5E ever gets made.

If I were to make 5E, my mantra would be the options of 3.x combined with 1E speed of play.  A tall order to be sure.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 7, 2008)

justanobody said:


> So the OGL is a responsibility in order to keep interest in D&D in this flailing industry. Is that is what is being said?




I wouldn't word it that way. I would word it as: The OGL was an idealistic attempt to grow interest in RPGs. I also wouldn't call our hobby a flailing industry. It is a niche hobby for geeks, some of whom perceive it as flailing/failing because it can't seem to rise beyond that, which doesn't jive with the level of enthusiasm some people hold.


----------



## Zil (Dec 7, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> If I were to make 5E, my mantra would be the options of 3.x combined with 1E speed of play.  A tall order to be sure.



So where did the game go wrong in terms of slowing down game play?   I know that back in 1E days I used to run massive high level combats with high level wizards (or magic-users - I was so glad when they finally changed the class name) and hordes of creatures without batting an eye.  Today I can't imagine running those old scenarios with anything near the same speed (in 3E or 4E).   

What is causing the game to slow down?   Some say it is because of the vast multiplication in options, but that can't be all that there is to it.  I used to run 1E games with a lot of high level wizards and outer planar creatures as opponents so they had options galore.  In fact, outer planar creatures tended to have far fewer options once you move from 2E to 3E and then on to 4E.   

Or is it all just a symptom of us old-timers who started with 1E or earlier getting older and no longer being able to juggle complicated combat.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 7, 2008)

Zil said:


> So where did the game go wrong in terms of slowing down game play?




I guess it is the combat minis system -movement, flanking, opportunity attacks etch.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 7, 2008)

Zil said:


> So where did the game go wrong in terms of slowing down game play?




Combat just takes too long in 3.x and 4E.

The extensive rules for implications of movement on the battlefield, and the focus on the visual combat grid are, in my opinion, the main problems for speed.   The problem is, I love the grid and the rules for movement on the battlefield - I just hate the time it takes to resolve encounters.  How do you keep the options and shorten the time?  No idea.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 7, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> Combat just takes too long in 3.x and 4E.
> 
> The extensive rules for implications of movement on the battlefield, and the focus on the visual combat grid are, in my opinion, the main problems for speed.   The problem is, I love the grid and the rules for movement on the battlefield - I just hate the time it takes to resolve encounters.  How do you keep the options and shorten the time?  No idea.




Dave, what would you think about having options that do not use the grid?


----------



## joethelawyer (Dec 7, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> Combat just takes too long in 3.x and 4E.
> 
> The extensive rules for implications of movement on the battlefield, and the focus on the visual combat grid are, in my opinion, the main problems for speed.   The problem is, I love the grid and the rules for movement on the battlefield - I just hate the time it takes to resolve encounters.  How do you keep the options and shorten the time?  No idea.





easy.  eliminate attacks of opportunity rules and any combat move whose result may create one for either side of the combat.

eliminate flanking rules and anything to do with giving any bonuses to anyone for flanking, including eliminating giving thieves the ability to flank and backstab in battle. 

eliminate every combat move other than swinging a weapon at someone.  this means eliminating trip, grapple, and all the rest of those listed in the combat section.  

lastly, give one attack per round to everyone except fighters who get 2 at 10th level.

that ought to do it.  we have implemented all of those rules in our game except the one giving everyone one attack per round, and our combats are faster than most i think.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 7, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> easy.  eliminate attacks of opportunity rules and any combat move whose result may create one for either side of the combat.
> 
> eliminate flanking rules and anything to do with giving any bonuses to anyone for flanking, including eliminating giving thieves the ability to flank and backstab in battle.
> 
> ...




Why on earth didnt you stay with 1st or 2nd edition? Sounds like that's what you want to play.


----------



## joethelawyer (Dec 7, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Why on earth didnt you stay with 1st or 2nd edition? Sounds like that's what you want to play.




yeah, but the rest of the group doesn't.  what you are seeing is the end result of my insidious 2 yr long campaign to nerf the crap out of our 3.0 rules-based game to get the melee back to old school style.  it helps that the guys i play with aren't that into learning the rules to see what it is they could actually do.  

the other side of it is that i like playing wizards.  though i heavily nerfed teleporting, scrying, polymorphing, flying, and buffing spells, i did like the expansion of the wizard in 3.0.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 7, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> yeah, but the rest of the group doesn't. ....  it helps that the guys i play with aren't that into learning the rules to see what it is they could actually do.



So why do they want to specificaly play 3e?


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 7, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> yeah, but the rest of the group doesn't.  what you are seeing is the end result of my insidious 2 yr long campaign to nerf the crap out of our 3.0 rules-based game to get the melee back to old school style.  it helps that the guys i play with aren't that into learning the rules to see what it is they could actually do.



 Okay. Makes sense.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Dec 7, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> Combat just takes too long in 3.x and 4E.
> 
> The extensive rules for implications of movement on the battlefield, and the focus on the visual combat grid are, in my opinion, the main problems for speed.   The problem is, I love the grid and the rules for movement on the battlefield - I just hate the time it takes to resolve encounters.  How do you keep the options and shorten the time?  No idea.




You know, a computer might be able to handle a lot of that for you and take the strain out of all those calculations, heck they may even be able to run virtual 'avatars' of your characters so you can actually see what's going on and give your imagination a bit of a rest too. I wonder if such a thing would ever catch on? 

Sorry, i couldn't resist tangential thoughts on a Sunday evening. Also mildy self-amusing thoughts like 3e -> WoW, WoW -> 4e cross my mind, for no good or substantiated reason.

A friend of mine at roleplay this afternoon told me there are 11 million WoW players, another in our game was off to play straight after our session (and so skipping the evening session). It seems an interesting mix of digital and tabletop these days.


----------



## joethelawyer (Dec 7, 2008)

xechnao said:


> So why do they want to specificaly play 3e?




because they dont want to play something considered "old."  i have them believing that 3.5 is just minor tweaks to 3.0. 

i headed off the 4.0 thing in advance after i read it i slammed it.  and honestly it wouldn't fit our play style.


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 7, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Dave, what would you think about having options that do not use the grid?




It depends on the options, I suppose.

Thinking about it - significant problems might simply be moving on the grid and determining area of effect for spells and effects, rather than the grid itself.  I know my games have slowed down when determining where to place that fireball or counting squares to see how far I can move.  Also, when summoning, where to put the creatures that arrive, etc.

Edit - on the other hand, removing the grid completely would accomplish two things: one, it would speed play, and two, it would lower the cost barrier to entry for playing the game.  A DM wouldn't need minis or a battle mat, not to mention things like tiles, counters, or dungeon dressing (these last three things are completely optional anyway, of course).



joethelawyer said:


> easy.  eliminate attacks of opportunity rules and any combat move whose result may create one for either side of the combat.
> 
> eliminate flanking rules and anything to do with giving any bonuses to anyone for flanking, including eliminating giving thieves the ability to flank and backstab in battle.
> 
> ...




I don't think attacks of opportunity, flanking, tripping, and grappling are really the problem - and I think you could do all of them without the grid.

I don't really have an opinion on the iteritive attacks - I could take 'em or leave 'em.


----------



## Roman (Dec 7, 2008)

Pramas said:


> Well, this has turned into quite the thread. I obviously can't comment on every post, but let me make a few points:
> 
> 1. I want D&D to attract a lot of new players so there will be more gamers to sell RPGs to. When I comment on 4E's level of success or acqusition strategy, this is where I'm coming from. D&D is the gateway through which most roleplayers enter the hobby, so it's in the best of anyone selling RPGs for it to remain strong.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the additional clarification. I guess I cannot help being interested in industry matters, such as sales and so on, so I always appreciate when somebody with better information than I have chimes in - even if the information is not the full picture.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 7, 2008)

I think there is a difference between staying power and appeal to players that will buy 3PP products.

I don't think ENWorld has changed much, but I think the 4E fan base *as a whole* is different than the 3E fan base was.  Thus the relatively similar ENWorld portion represents a different slice of the whole now.

I think 4E succeeded at its goal of appealing to a wider target audience.  In that sense it has decent staying power.  

I think that the wider and less "gamer to the core" audience is less inclined to buy supplements and far less inclined to buy non-WotC supplements.  I also think that they are less likely to stay engaged long term as other new things come along.  In that sense it has lesser staying power.  The reality that this doesn't apply to ENWorlders in general is simply a function of how ENWorld's representation of the whole has changed.  (And I'm not saying it was more representative before, just that this detail is amongst the specific differences between then and now).

IMO the game itself, as a direct function of its simplicity, will have a much more rapid been-there-done-that factor.  But I don't think that impacts any trends so far.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 8, 2008)

Removed pointless ad hominem attack. Keep it civil, please. - Eridanis


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Dec 8, 2008)

joethelawyer said:


> easy. eliminate attacks of opportunity rules and any combat move whose result may create one for either side of the combat.
> 
> eliminate flanking rules and anything to do with giving any bonuses to anyone for flanking, including eliminating giving thieves the ability to flank and backstab in battle.
> 
> ...




Seriously, have you given True20 a try?


----------

