Quote from: Armchair Gamer;916218the problems of H1 and the deeper problems it symbolized (a good number of design staff didn't get the game)...

Yes, I should have added another problem:

C) The publication of official modules that were far better suited to earlier editions of the game, with many moderately-challenging combats densely packed in a dungeon environment, than a game where combat should be the climax of a series of roleplaying and in-game challenges. Combat in 4E should be a very big deal. WotC really messed it up by supporting 4E with so many monster-motel style dungeons that would only turn combat into a grind.

I think if Wizards of the Coast had released 4e as "D&D Tactics" ("It's not a new D&D - it's an expanded wargame that uses some familiar and a lot of new D&D mechanics!") to test the waters for its viability, kept 3e in a "frozen" state, and focused on what they wanted the new edition to be, based on feedback about people's feelings on "D&D Tactics" and ongoing feedback of 3e that might have served them better, and people might not have hated on 4e so bad.

Of course, the problem with that is you wind up with the Osborne Effect - you tell people, "Something brand new is coming very soon" and they go "Oh, OK, I won't bother buying this" and 4e (nee "D&D Tactics") winds up an even more abysmal failure.

Quote from: Haffrung;916206But it's a system that A) Offers a fundamentally different experience from traditional D&D, and B) Is far less flexible in the kind of game you play with it than traditional D&D. Commercially, 4E was a huge gamble, and a huge fail. Doesn't make it a bad game. IMHO, if it had been marketed by a different company with a different name, it would be highly regarded in the hobby.

I think 4e is a great RPG in of itself. It one of the best at presenting a combat system with a wealth of tactical details in a format that most people can easily grasp. Beyond combat however you have a system that is about as lite as OD&D itself. I told one friend, well with 4e you going to get GURPS style combat where you will able to quickly learn all the things you can do but it is OD&D for everything else in the campaign.

How fast did 4e take to develop the rather toxic side of its fanbase?

Quote from: Omega;916264How fast did 4e take to develop the rather toxic side of its fanbase?

It was already there. People who thought early editions of D&D were incoherent or imbalanced were happy to finally have an edition that suited their preferences.

Of course every edition and playstyle has a toxic side of its fanbase. Bitter non-gamers, theory-wanks, and garden variety misanthropes champion all kinds of games.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;916232I think if Wizards of the Coast had released 4e as "D&D Tactics" ("It's not a new D&D - it's an expanded wargame that uses some familiar and a lot of new D&D mechanics!") to test the waters for its viability, kept 3e in a "frozen" state, and focused on what they wanted the new edition to be, based on feedback about people's feelings on "D&D Tactics" and ongoing feedback of 3e that might have served them better, and people might not have hated on 4e so bad.

Thing is, Wizard's of The Coast apparently ran a customer survey about what players disliked the most, and according to them, the Vancian system was the top rated thing that people wanted to change.

Except, as Pathfinder sales proved, they didn't.  But Wizard's not being mind readers went along with the survey, as well as Hasbro's mandate to make a profitable venture and made 4e.  Between the OGL and the Internet, there was no way in hell that 4e was ever going to succeed.

But then...  If the OGL and Internet existed during the 2e era, 3e would have flopped.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916275But then...  If the OGL and Internet existed during the 2e era, 3e would have flopped.

Can you elaborate on this please?

Quote from: Haffrung;916271It was already there. People who thought early editions of D&D were incoherent or imbalanced were happy to finally have an edition that suited their preferences.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916275Thing is, Wizard's of The Coast apparently ran a customer survey about what players disliked the most, and according to them, the Vancian system was the top rated thing that people wanted to change.

This. I was at Gen Con in 2007 when 4E was announced. I went to a Wizards panel where they said, among other things, that the game would not have Vancian spellcasting, and I remember being utterly flabbergasted as the room burst into applause at that announcement.

...and that wasn't even the most horrifying panel on 4E that WotC hosted (the one about permissions for third-party publishers was an utter nightmare).

Quote from: Doom;916279Can you elaborate on this please?

Near the end of its lifespan Loraine era TSR was well known  as "They Sue Regularly". Because they did. And TSR was bleeding themselves out doing it. And bleeding out other companies too in the process. All while half the industry was happily slitting every artery they could find trying to ride the CCG craze.

Chris is though wrong about the internet not being there. TSR was doing like some other publishers, Palladium and Steve Jackson for example, and C&Ding fansites and other material. It wasnt till near the end that TSR loosened up its grip some. But the damage was done.

Had an OGL been out for 2e then fans and publishers would have resisted 3e as being too "Not D&D" and fought back with OGL type product. That wasnt going to happen though as licensing out the D&D property was about all that was holding up Loraine's house of cards. No way she was going to let the commoners have it either.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916275Thing is, Wizard's of The Coast apparently ran a customer survey about what players disliked the most, and according to them, the Vancian system was the top rated thing that people wanted to change.

Except, as Pathfinder sales proved, they didn't.

Customer surveys can be dangerous tools if not used carefully. They can leave you thinking that you know a lot more than you actually do. The whole 4e saga strikes me as an object lesson in the dangers of catering too heavily to a narrow subset of your hard core fans. I wonder how the pre-4e market research was being conducted.

Quote from: Dimitrios;916365Customer surveys can be dangerous tools if not used carefully. They can leave you thinking that you know a lot more than you actually do. The whole 4e saga strikes me as an object lesson in the dangers of catering too heavily to a narrow subset of your hard core fans. I wonder how the pre-4e market research was being conducted.

Interestingly, we do have marketing research from right before Third Edition was released. Specifically, we have the old Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0. We also have two analyses of this data, one by Sean K. Reynolds and another by Steven Conan Trustrum.

Quote from: Omega;916317Near the end of its lifespan Loraine era TSR was well known  as "They Sue Regularly". Because they did. And TSR was bleeding themselves out doing it. And bleeding out other companies too in the process. All while half the industry was happily slitting every artery they could find trying to ride the CCG craze.

Chris is though wrong about the internet not being there. TSR was doing like some other publishers, Palladium and Steve Jackson for example, and C&Ding fansites and other material. It wasnt till near the end that TSR loosened up its grip some. But the damage was done.

Am I?  Honest question, because as I remember it, forums and discussions didn't really take off until midway of 3e's life span, and there was a lot of resistance on-line about 4e on a lot of forums, and if that atmosphere had existed just ten years earlier, in 2e's lifespan, I'm thinking we might have had the same thing that happened with 4e with 3e.  I could, of course, be wrong and this is nothing but supposition after all.

Quote from: Omega;916317Had an OGL been out for 2e then fans and publishers would have resisted 3e as being too "Not D&D" and fought back with OGL type product. That wasnt going to happen though as licensing out the D&D property was about all that was holding up Loraine's house of cards. No way she was going to let the commoners have it either.

What I'm saying is that I've noticed among people and gamers especially, we say we want change and 'innovation', but whenever we're presented with something that's different than what we know, we push back and hard.  I personally think, along with the fact that we can find more people who agree with us now, because of the ubiquity of information through the power of the intertoobs, that this was what really killed 4e.

And really, what do you all think the OSR really is?  A bunch of people who think that their way of playing is/was 'the right way it was done back then' and wanted to share that with potentially like-minded people.  The fact that in some places it's become something like a cult only reinforces my belief.

But, I could be wrong.

Quote from: Alzrius;916379Interestingly, we do have marketing research from right before Third Edition was released. Specifically, we have the old Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0. We also have two analyses of this data, one by Sean K. Reynolds and another by Steven Conan Trustrum.

I work in a cancer statistics department. Misuse of statistics haven't changed much in 16 years, even in science.

Quote from: Tod13;916388I work in a cancer statistics department. Misuse of statistics haven't changed much in 16 years, even in science.

Yeah, that's pretty much what Steven's analysis comes down to.

Quote from: Alzrius;916420Yeah, that's pretty much what Steven's analysis comes down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbODigCZqL8

Q: "Three patients per group or in total?"
A: "Yes"