If D&D went under, every LGS you know would be in serious trouble. Many would close, though some would survive. I suspect those that survived would really limit the rpg section, and get more minis and boardgames and comics. CCG's would possibly keep a few afloat, if the stores didn't expand into other areas.

Quote from: Soylent Green;427200For what it's worth, I don't like any version of D&D very much.

Same here, and that includes AD&D and Pathfinder: D&D 4e fails because it is... D&D.

I'm not so convinced of that at all.

When I go into a FLGS, I might see one table have D&D players. Another has M:TG. The other 4 or 5 tables? Warhammer 40k and fantasy, mostly.

On special nights there'll be a throng of M:TG players, or maybe Monsterpocalypse, or some other games.

But, for years, Warhammer 40k has dominated the scene, with only a few weeks here and there for fads.

It's already been (dubiously) claimed that Pathfinder is outselling D&D in some markets. The fact that such a claim could be considered, instead of laughed at as a joke, sums up the current situation.

It'd be like saying the New England Patriots was losing to high school football teams--if that was taken seriously, would you honestly claim the Patriots were really a great NFL team?

I don't want it to fail, just wanted it to have its own name ("Essentials" works, I suppose)...but it already has. The FLGS can survive the loss of D&D well enough.

Quote from: danbuter;427375If D&D went under, every LGS you know would be in serious trouble. Many would close, though some would survive. I suspect those that survived would really limit the rpg section, and get more minis and boardgames and comics. CCG's would possibly keep a few afloat, if the stores didn't expand into other areas.

Nonsense, CCGs, Warhammer, and Board Games are all bigger sellers these days.  They'd just find something else to put on that shelf.

Quote from: Doom;427379It'd be like saying the New England Patriots was losing to high school football teams--if that was taken seriously, would you honestly claim the Patriots were really a great NFL team?

No, it's like saying GE was selling more blenders than Amazon sold audiobook copies of the latest novel.

Seanchai

Quote from: Monster Manuel;427186...the answer to a whole lot of unasked questions.

This is why it falls short for me. Maybe there needed to be a revision, rules culling or even a new edition. I don't think the latter was necessary, but when 4e was announced I had more hope than cynicism.

I'm really late to complaining about it, but it's finally reached boiling point for me.

Here's what's wrong with it in my estimation:

Every single rule that moves away from immersion. 3e got this right, and even 2e did. Now we have characters that do things because the rules need someone who can do that thing. Spellcasters are the opposite of interesting.

It just strikes me as an edition that was purely based on killing OGL material. It didn't work in my estimation, but it's nevertheless a bad reason to make a new edition. The higher-ups wanted a new edition as different from the older editions as possible designed to sell secondary services and products like minis, and the writers churned it out. I don't think it was designed to be a good game, so much as a good marketing vehicle.

There are other ways of looking at it.  4e is a well-designed game, but one has to look at what it is designed to do.  The later the generation of the game, the less general and open the design model, and the more specific the game it plays best.
It's not shite, or poorly designed, as long as one wants to play the game it is made for.

However...and this is where it becomes an issue...this IS the best supported, most played, highest-visibility game in the industry.
And losing the toolkit nature of some of the earlier games and narrowing the types of games/player styles/settings that the game is compatable with reduces the possible audience.

One of the reasons so many other games are doing well is this sharpenning of focus by the frontrunner.  D&D4e has become a better heroic strategy/combat game.  
And has also somewhat quit the field in immersive RP.

Quote from: LordVreeg;427387One of the reasons so many other games are doing well is this sharpenning of focus by the frontrunner.  D&D4e has become a better heroic strategy/combat game.  
And has also somewhat quit the field in immersive RP.

Interestingly enough, There is an encounter in the D&D Starter Set dungeon which has the Players fighting chess pieces.

Now chess piece monsters have been in D&D for a long long time, but it really did exemplify that the game is more about heroic strategy/combat than immersive roleplaying.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;427278D&D4 is 30 minutes of fun crammed into four hours.

No, that was 3e.  4e is the same, but they took out the 30 minutes of fun.

RPGPundit

Quote from: LordVreeg;427387There are other ways of looking at it.  4e is a well-designed game, but one has to look at what it is designed to do.  The later the generation of the game, the less general and open the design model, and the more specific the game it plays best.
It's not shite, or poorly designed, as long as one wants to play the game it is made for.

However...and this is where it becomes an issue...this IS the best supported, most played, highest-visibility game in the industry.
And losing the toolkit nature of some of the earlier games and narrowing the types of games/player styles/settings that the game is compatable with reduces the possible audience.

One of the reasons so many other games are doing well is this sharpenning of focus by the frontrunner.  D&D4e has become a better heroic strategy/combat game.  
And has also somewhat quit the field in immersive RP.

I agree that 4e is a well designed game, but as Rodney Dangerfield might say "Designed for what, I have no idea." Seriously though, I played 4e. I pushed aside my initial misgivings and gave it a shot. I played as a player in two campaigns, and ran 5 levels of my own. I actually had fun as a player, as long as I didn't think of it as an RPG in the sense of the kind of RPG I like.  It feels like "D&D Presents: some sort of game". It doesn't feel like D&D to me.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;427522I agree that 4e is a well designed game, but as Rodney Dangerfield might say "Designed for what, I have no idea." Seriously though, I played 4e. I pushed aside my initial misgivings and gave it a shot. I played as a player in two campaigns, and ran 5 levels of my own. I actually had fun as a player, as long as I didn't think of it as an RPG in the sense of the kind of RPG I like.  It feels like "D&D Presents: some sort of game". It doesn't feel like D&D to me.

I left D&D a while ago.
But I know what a game does well and not.  There have been generational changes, some of which I mention.  But that narrowing of scope comes at a cost in other areas.  I think that is what makes it so different for me.  I left D&D to work on skill based rules that were LESS encounter-centric than aD&D and more RP biased.  So while I left D&D, I have bought each succeeding ruleset, and did do a playtest with some friends.  And the direction 4e has gone to specialize is the opposite direction I went.  Therefor, my particular perspective notices the generational changes more than someone who might have been using D&D more for the type of game that it became more focused on.  And perhaps your perspective as well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;427521No, that was 3e.  4e is the same, but they took out the 30 minutes of fun.

RPGPundit

The "30 Minutes of Fun" is a load of hogwash born out of a non-gamer's zinger at watching a bunch of staffers play. What it developed to was an actively destructive motivational slogan when it assumed that only the portion of the game which was "kickin' ass with mechanical support" was the "fun." It's like arguing that movies need to be 90 minutes of CGI action sequences.

Quote from: Cole;427548The "30 Minutes of Fun" is a load of hogwash born out of a non-gamer's zinger at watching a bunch of staffers play. What it developed to was an actively destructive motivational slogan when it assumed that only the portion of the game which was "kickin' ass with mechanical support" was the "fun." It's like arguing that movies need to be 90 minutes of CGI action sequences.

Ditto.

30 minutes of fun for who and who the heck was DMing?

Quote from: Seanchai;427384No, it's like saying GE was selling more blenders than Amazon sold audiobook copies of the latest novel.

Seanchai

Nice try on the spin, but as usual when you 4venge, completely and purposely incorrect.  

I don't think D&D keeps many game shops in business.
Most are kept alive by comics or 40K.