TheRPGSite

According to Mike Mearls' latest tweet, ""5e lifetime PHB sales > 3, 3.5, 4 lifetime" "

He clarifies that the 5e D&D Player's Handbook sales since the edition began have outsold the lifetime PHB sales of 4e, and 3.5e, and 3e.  Individually, not collectively (it has not outsold the lifetime sales of all three combined, though at this rate that could happen).  And that is in books sold, not money (money-wise Mearls implies that would be cheating as the 5e PHB sells for more than the others did due to inflation). He also says he doesn't know if it's outsold the 1e or 2e PHB as they have only sketchy records on those sales.

This comes at a time where ICv2 says retail sales of RPG books in general are up by 40% over last year, with 5e D&D leading the way.

Don't get me wrong, 5e is quite playable, but I find it hard to believe all the same. Would love to see actual numbers...though I reckon I'm not alone in that regard.

I am happy for Mike. He's a good guy and I really liked his 3e stuff. I knew he was an innovator back then. So please understand I mean this with all due respect to Mr. Mearls: I don't care.

Let me clarify. I don't care in that 4e was enough of a departure for me, that my group gave up on it after a few sessions. We simply stopped playing for a while. The one guy willing to DM was a big fan of 4e, the rest of us were not. When the rest of us felt like getting together again, we had an extra guy that wanted to game with us and he was familiar with and had books for a game I had never heard of: Castles and Crusades. I read the books, felt it was similar enough to previous editions I had DM'd so I'd run it. I have not looked back since. I love the Siege Engine mechanic and that it kept saves tied to attributes instead of a separate save table. Ascending AC is a bonus, too. 5e may be the one ring of RPGs, but I'll never know, because I found satisfaction in another system, or rather, the older system.

Once I discovered other OSR games. I picked up all the BFRPG books in print and may run a family game for my wife and kids using it. I have all my old B/X, BECMI, and a Rules Cyclopedia from ages 8 to 18 as well, so I may just flat out run D&D the way I remember and loved best. If anyone knows of an OSR conversion of the Scarred Lands campaign, I would probably have my gaming nirvana. If Hasbro/WotC do ever manage to lure me back, it would be with a backward compatible edition, one that ignored 3e and 4e. And I readily admit to liking 3rd edition as an RPG in its own right, but that was the beginning of the fork in the road for me, from the path that left what felt more like D&D into a different game.

The 5E PHB may have outsold the PHB for 3.0, 3.5, and 4E, but as it is in all things, context is key here.

For 3.0, the Open Gaming License made the SRD public, which was a very big deal at the time. While they were initially tucked away in RTF files on WotC's website, it didn't take long before we had them being reposted not only on various websites, but also had third-party publishers releasing them in PDFs and even in print files, often for almost nothing (if not completely free). 3.5 rode this wave as well, thanks to websites like //www.d20srd.org.

For 4E, the DDI was a repository of rules that allowed for all of the content in the PHB - and pretty much everything else for that edition - to be viewed in a one-stop database that could easily be downloaded for offlight use. Even after they turned it into online-only access, it was still something that a lot of players used, to the point of abandoning creating their characters on paper in favor of DDI use.

By contrast, the 5E SRD under the OGL only came out a few months ago, and is not only very incomplete in terms of the material that's been released, but has also been completely overshadowed by the DM's Guild web-store.

So while the 5E PHB may be selling like hotcakes, that doesn't necessarily indicate that more people are making use of it than made use of those rules for earlier editions.

Yeah, I'm kind of shocked by this, because the advent of 3rd edition brought more new players to the table in our area than anything before or since.  I mean, our group itself got an influx of three new players, plus they eventually brought in girlfriends.  

I mean, 5e was swell, but it was more undoing the player drift from 4e in this area, as near as I could tell, rather than actually bringing new players in who buy stuff.  But maybe our area is an outlier.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;912728Yeah, I'm kind of shocked by this, because the advent of 3rd edition brought more new players to the table in our area than anything before or since.  I mean, our group itself got an influx of three new players, plus they eventually brought in girlfriends.  

I mean, 5e was swell, but it was more undoing the player drift from 4e in this area, as near as I could tell, rather than actually bringing new players in who buy stuff.  But maybe our area is an outlier.

For what it is worth (which isn't much) Los Angeles seems filthy with new D&D players playing 5e.  When I was gaming every week at a local game store we had a new player (or three) every week.  We kept splitting tables to accommodate so many players.  They were all 20-somethings or under (some teens even), and most said they saw the game mentioned on TV in things like Community or Big Bang Theory, or mentioned in an article on Boing Boing, or saw it on Critical Role, or heard Wil Weaton mention it, or things like that.  It just seems (again, this is purely anecdotal) D&D has entered popular sub-culture in a strong way with this edition for some reason.

Quote from: Alzrius;912726The 5E PHB may have outsold the PHB for 3.0, 3.5, and 4E, but as it is in all things, context is key here.

For 3.0, the Open Gaming License made the SRD public, which was a very big deal at the time. While they were initially tucked away in RTF files on WotC's website, it didn't take long before we had them being reposted not only on various websites, but also had third-party publishers releasing them in PDFs and even in print files, often for almost nothing (if not completely free). 3.5 rode this wave as well, thanks to websites like //www.d20srd.org.

For 4E, the DDI was a repository of rules that allowed for all of the content in the PHB - and pretty much everything else for that edition - to be viewed in a one-stop database that could easily be downloaded for offlight use. Even after they turned it into online-only access, it was still something that a lot of players used, to the point of abandoning creating their characters on paper in favor of DDI use.

By contrast, the 5E SRD under the OGL only came out a few months ago, and is not only very incomplete in terms of the material that's been released, but has also been completely overshadowed by the DM's Guild web-store.

So while the 5E PHB may be selling like hotcakes, that doesn't necessarily indicate that more people are making use of it than made use of those rules for earlier editions.

The 5e PHB has bee out less than 2 years.  And it's outsold the ENTIRE LIFETIME of sales of each of those editions.  3e SRD was meaningful for some publishers in those first 2 years, but not to most players - in fact it was not functioning very well as an online thing those first 2 years.  Meanwhile, WOTC had a full retail chain in most malls in America through their Wizards of the Coast stores for the first three years of 3e.  d20srd.org came out in late 2006 by the way, three years after 3.5 was released. And the 4e DDI was similarly mostly non-functional for a huge chunk of time in the beginning - it started as 100% nonexistent and then they only had a character generator for the bulk of that first 2 years, with a monster generator for the last few months of those two years, and no "repository of rules" online at all in those two years.

So you're right that context matters, but your dates (and implications) are all wrong.  Those editions didn't have any of those things in their first 1.75 years.  And the 5e PHB just outsold the lifetime sales of each of those PHBs in it's first 1.75 years.

I'm not really surprised.  Fallowing a product for a few years tends to work wonders on its sales.  4e was like New Coke if Coca Cola was the US government and made a law that all water treatment plants could only produce New Coke.

But also, 3 and 3.5 were really designed to answer the complaints other companies always leveled at D&D in their introductions.  It provided more character customizability and a more rigidly defined combat system.  It was very much a game by gamers for gamers.  The people in charge seriously believed that new blood was inconsequential and went around saying so.

4 was a massive shift towards tightly structured tactical play.  It was about as readable as Traveller 5th edition and as bland as a 200 page user's manual for a bread box.  Okay, there are harsher complaints I could level.  It was like D&D by the Avalon Hill Game Company.  If you think I'm being unreasonable, consider, I could have said it was like it was by Leading Edge Games.  Avalon Hill's games were dry reading in small type but they were pretty well editied and designed.

5 tries to be approachable.  There's places where it's over designed or doesn't work too well.  Personally low level magic is over powered but that's less likely to drive away a new player than one crappy spell a day is.  The allocation of cleric and wizard spells is a confusing mess.  There are WAY too many Charisma based casters.  The naval and siege combat rules are kinda there but all spread out and not really in depth enough.  Oh well, what I'm saying is it could be a little cleaner but it's the most approachable and usable version of D&D since Basic and it's got a softer, more survivable first level game.  And it's right at the time when the media is actually testing the water to see if it can talk about D&D in a positive light without causing the end of absolutely everything.  Twenty years from now, we might even be mainstream!

The PHB according to last check on the WOTC site was up to its 6th print run.

The big question is will WOTC keep 5e or will they inevitibly throw it under the wheels of the damn "5 year plan" for a 6e. So save Mearls statement 5e is doing well because if they do drop it for 6e then sure enough they will claim "It didnt sell well" as the excuse.

So gamers like to gobble shit? Who knew?

Maybe people are buying new ones to replace the ones that have fallen apart? ;)

Quote from: Mistwell;912734The 5e PHB has bee out less than 2 years.

"Less than two years"? You need to check again, since the 5E PHB says right inside it "First printing: August 2014." That certainly matches up with the article from Mike Mearls on August 11, 2014 (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/gen-con-bound) saying how the 5E PHB had hit the stores "last Friday."

QuoteAnd it's outsold the ENTIRE LIFETIME of sales of each of those editions.

Yes, and as you admitted, there's a context that needs to be taken into account.

Quote3e SRD was meaningful for some publishers in those first 2 years, but not to most players - in fact it was not functioning very well as an online thing those first 2 years.

It was meaningful for a lot of publishers, and as for "most" players, that's a very loaded term. It was functioning fairly well as an online thing after the first few months, however, once the SRD went up and replaced the initial "gentleman's agreement."

QuoteMeanwhile, WOTC had a full retail chain in most malls in America through their Wizards of the Coast stores for the first three years of 3e.

Yeah, no. The "full retail chain" that was in "most malls in America" consisted of fifty-three (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990504&slug=2958750) stores when WotC bought the chain, and after that they planned to open only one hundred "seasonal" locations. So they didn't have a very large presence to begin with, and even then it seems likely that they sold more Magic and Pokemon than D&D.

Quoted20srd.org came out in late 2006 by the way, three years after 3.5 was released.

Hence why I only used it as an example, since it's the best-known instance of what other sites were doing not just at that time, but up through that point. There were a number of websites that hosted the SRD quite early (often alongside other Open Game Content), but most of them have been abandoned over the years, usually due to not wanting to update after the 3.5 changeover (hence why even most of the longest-lived SRD websites that are around today only date back to early 2004) or were overshadowed by other websites doing the same thing. (This happened even to Open Game Content-repository websites that came later; anyone remember the Grand OGL Wiki (https://web.archive.org/web/20080627130910/http://grandwiki.wikidot.com/)?)

For example, SystemReferenceDocuments.org was up in early 2004 (https://web.archive.org/web/20040324131302/http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/), and is one of the longer-lasting ones today; the same can be said for d20 Resources, which back then was called d20 Exchange (https://web.archive.org/web/20040730050252/http://d20resources.com/). The Open Gaming Foundation website had been up since April of 2000, several months before 3.0 even came out, and was very quick to host the SRD when it was initially released (https://web.archive.org/web/20010419070455/http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/), which makes it admirable for still being around.

QuoteAnd the 4e DDI was similarly mostly non-functional for a huge chunk of time in the beginning - it started as 100% nonexistent and then they only had a character generator for the bulk of that first 2 years, with a monster generator for the last few months of those two years, and no "repository of rules" online at all in those two years.

The character generator was the "repository of rules" that I was referring to; that's what made buying the PHB (and myriad supplemental materials) superfluous for a lot of the 4E players that I knew. They much preferred that to having to buy, haul, and reference a large number of books.

QuoteSo you're right that context matters, but your dates (and implications) are all wrong.  Those editions didn't have any of those things in their first 1.75 years.  And the 5e PHB just outsold the lifetime sales of each of those PHBs in it's first 1.75 years.

Except that we can see that this isn't the case. In the first two years, those editions had all of those things, which help to explain why the 5E PHB is selling at the level that it is.

I want to see the numbers, otherwise it is just talk.

Place me in the "I don't care" group. I have happily snatched the free stuff. Have played and respect what they did with it. Still too fiddly for my tastes. Glad it's been a success, and that we're (hopefully) bringing in new players.

Quote from: Mistwell;912734The 5e PHB has bee out less than 2 years.  And it's outsold the ENTIRE LIFETIME of sales of each of those editions.

Sure. But let's keep in mind what "lifetime" means here: 3.0 sales plummeted in 2002 when 3.5 was announced, so it had a meaningful sales lifetime of 3 years. 3.5 had 4 years. 4th Edition had only 2 years before Essentials was announced (and only 4 years in total before 5E was announced).

So 5E's performance is impressive, but let's not pretend that 2 years isn't, in fact, a substantial fraction of D&D edition's lifetime.

QuoteThose editions didn't have any of those things in their first 1.75 years.

5th Edition PHB had an official release date of August 19th, 2014. I'm not really convinced that 5 days counts as 0.25 years. ;)

Quote from: jeff37923;912762I want to see the numbers, otherwise it is just talk.

I'm always skeptical of sales numbers, it depends on your definition of lifetime.  Some are still selling 4e on the shelf, do those sales still count, or is 4e considered past its shelf life, so those aren't lifetime sales, but undead sales. :p

However, I can totally buy GeekMedia having an effect of bringing in new players that didn't happen with other WotC editions, thus making 5e the first of the WotC editions that even gets in stadium parking lot of TSR numbers.

I'm still pretty sure that WotC has no idea why 4e tanked, or why 5e is doing so well, or where 5e's weak spots are, or how to improve much upon the system.  Outsourcing and crowdsourcing all thier supplemental content seems to be working for them, so I don't know that such understanding is even necessary unless they are working on 6th.

Based on what I am seeing in my neck of the woods, I buy it. I am seeing a lot of younger people adopt 5E and get into RPGs through 5E. I've heard from enough folks that the hobby is having a bit of a boom, that I think that might be part of it too. But this is a solid edition. I haven't started it yet myself, but it is D&D I would play and I think they brought back many of the folks who left over 4E, and won over enough of the 3E people to make a difference. Mearl's recent 'live play' comment makes me a little wary of whether they have a handle on why things have improved (like Krueger said) though.

Honestly if I wasn't running two campaigns of my own game right now, I'd be running 5E Ravenloft. Wouldn't have touched 4E with a ten foot pole and 3E, while I liked it, was missing some of the magic for me. 5E, at least on paper, looks like it gets back at some of the stuff that originally drew me in.

Quote from: Alzrius;912761"Less than two years"? You need to check again, since the 5E PHB says right inside it "First printing: August 2014." That certainly matches up with the article from Mike Mearls on August 11, 2014 (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/gen-con-bound) saying how the 5E PHB had hit the stores "last Friday."

PHB 5e hit stores Aug 19. Less than 2 years old.  And of course the DMG didn't come out until December.

QuoteIt was meaningful for a lot of publishers, and as for "most" players, that's a very loaded term. It was functioning fairly well as an online thing after the first few months, however, once the SRD went up and replaced the initial "gentleman's agreement."

It was far from the first few months.  It was about 2 years in really.

QuoteYeah, no. The "full retail chain" that was in "most malls in America" consisted of fifty-three (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990504&slug=2958750) stores when WotC bought the chain, and after that they planned to open only one hundred "seasonal" locations. So they didn't have a very large presence to begin with, and even then it seems likely that they sold more Magic and Pokemon than D&D.

This is a meaningless quibble.  They had retail stores, a lot of them.  You can argue with someone else about how many but I think we both agree is was a heck of a lot more than they've had for 5e, right?

QuoteHence why I only used it as an example, since it's the best-known instance of what other sites were doing not just at that time, but up through that point. There were a number of websites that hosted the SRD quite early (often alongside other Open Game Content), but most of them have been abandoned over the years, usually due to not wanting to update after the 3.5 changeover (hence why even most of the longest-lived SRD websites that are around today only date back to early 2004) or were overshadowed by other websites doing the same thing. (This happened even to Open Game Content-repository websites that came later; anyone remember the Grand OGL Wiki (https://web.archive.org/web/20080627130910/http://grandwiki.wikidot.com/)?)

My point remains nothing was really fully functional and used until years after publication.

QuoteFor example, SystemReferenceDocuments.org was up in early 2004 (https://web.archive.org/web/20040324131302/http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/), and is one of the longer-lasting ones today; the same can be said for d20 Resources, which back then was called d20 Exchange (https://web.archive.org/web/20040730050252/http://d20resources.com/). The Open Gaming Foundation website had been up since April of 2000, several months before 3.0 even came out, and was very quick to host the SRD when it was initially released (https://web.archive.org/web/20010419070455/http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/), which makes it admirable for still being around.

Baloney.  While your dates are accurate your statement of what they hosted on those dates is total bullshit.  Both were not usable to play the game, allowing one to not buy a PHB, at those dates.  It took years before each was really hosting all the information needed.  Both were serving as just supplements for some data for the first couple of years.

QuoteThe character generator was the "repository of rules" that I was referring to; that's what made buying the PHB (and myriad supplemental materials) superfluous for a lot of the 4E players that I knew. They much preferred that to having to buy, haul, and reference a large number of books.

The character generator was not a "repository of rules".  It had a "repository of rules" which came three years in.  The initial character generator was not really very functional, had tons of errors ad missinf stuff and a LOT of people constantly complaining about it.  To claim people were forgoing buying the 4e PHB in those first two years because of that POS is laughable.  Eventually it got to that point, but not in those first two years.

QuoteExcept that we can see that this isn't the case. In the first two years, those editions had all of those things, which help to explain why the 5E PHB is selling at the level that it is.

No, they did not, you were fibbing greatly for all of them (or forgetting what content was really there early on).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;912772Sure. But let's keep in mind what "lifetime" means here: 3.0 sales plummeted in 2002 when 3.5 was announced, so it had a meaningful sales lifetime of 3 years. 3.5 had 4 years. 4th Edition had only 2 years before Essentials was announced (and only 4 years in total before 5E was announced).

So 5E's performance is impressive, but let's not pretend that 2 years isn't, in fact, a substantial fraction of D&D edition's lifetime.



5th Edition PHB had an official release date of August 19th, 2014. I'm not really convinced that 5 days counts as 0.25 years. ;)

The "1.75" comment was more about the core books as a set, which didn't finish until December.

Quote from: Mistwell;912800The "1.75" comment was more about the core books as a set, which didn't finish until December.

Yes, but the comparison is PHB to PHB. I wonder if sales of the 4E PHB as part of the gift set are being included. I doubt it would make a difference.

But my response to this news remains my default response to 5E news: "Good for WotC; glad they're doing well; still not sold on the need to buy a revision of a game I own in five previous editions and two variants, and that I've found acceptable but not distinctive in actual play." :)

Quote from: Vile;912759Maybe people are buying new ones to replace the ones that have fallen apart? ;)

WOTC will replace for free if you send it in. The first printing PHB had some binding issues fir some. One of the later printing MMs had to be recalled.

I really couldn't care less if WotC and by extension Hasbro are doing well or if the corporations evaporate overnight.

If 5e is selling like hotcakes, and bringing new people in, then that is the good news.  If D&D is actually working as a gateway, that's awesome.  It brings people in, and then they move beyond it. :D

Im curious how well the Starter Set went.

Quote from: Mistwell;912799PHB 5e hit stores Aug 19. Less than 2 years old.  And of course the DMG didn't come out until December.

So now you're claiming that less than a week's difference is "1.75 years"? And how is the DMG relevant when comparing PHB sales across editions? That's leaving aside that a direct quote from Mike Mearls on August 11, 2014 said that the PHB hit the Wizards Play Network stores "last Friday."

QuoteIt was far from the first few months.  It was about 2 years in really.

Are you even bothering to check the links I posted? How was it "2 years" to get the SRD posted when I've already linked to an archived page of the Open Gaming Foundation (https://web.archive.org/web/20010331073145/http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html) - that has the dates for when each part of its local hosting went up - showing that most of it was posted by the end of 2000, with the last few bits being there by the following March?

QuoteThis is a meaningless quibble.  They had retail stores, a lot of them.

I do admire how you're answering my citations with baseless assertions here. Damn good presentation of evidence.

QuoteYou can argue with someone else about how many but I think we both agree is was a heck of a lot more than they've had for 5e, right?

Sure, but you have to take that into context against contemporary things like the aforementioned Wizards Play Network (https://wpn.wizards.com/en/resources/common-questions/all/66), which is a program whereby WotC helps retail outlets that carry their products with promotions to move said products. So the idea that retail sales of 5E PHBs are at some kind of disadvantage compared to when WotC had their direct retail chain selling 3E PHBs is...iffy.

QuoteMy point remains nothing was really fully functional and used until years after publication.

And that point remains wrong.

QuoteBaloney.  While your dates are accurate your statement of what they hosted on those dates is total bullshit.  Both were not usable to play the game, allowing one to not buy a PHB, at those dates.  It took years before each was really hosting all the information needed.  Both were serving as just supplements for some data for the first couple of years.

And again, your assertions in this regard are easily disproven by even a casual glance at the link in question, which unambiguously shows that the SRD was available well within a few months of 3E going live.

QuoteThe character generator was not a "repository of rules".  It had a "repository of rules" which came three years in.  The initial character generator was not really very functional, had tons of errors ad missinf stuff and a LOT of people constantly complaining about it.  To claim people were forgoing buying the 4e PHB in those first two years because of that POS is laughable.  Eventually it got to that point, but not in those first two years.

You seem to have this "two year" rule for a lot of what WotC did, without any sort of data to back it up.

The character generator was certainly buggy at first, but that didn't stop people from using it in lieu of the PHB and other character materials once it got rolling, which was fairly early on. It was the big draw of the DDI in the first place. Just look at this February 2009 (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Finsidernews%2F20090219) update - which is about eight months from 4E's launch date - under the "Recap of the Complete Data Set" header (scroll about halfway down the page). There's already a shit-ton of content there, and that's not taking into account the Compendium or the Monster Builder (which were both live by that point, rather than "three years in"; check out the opening paragraph and the menu in the upper-left corner).

The DDI had a lot of character-building content on it, right out of the gate.

QuoteNo, they did not, you were fibbing greatly for all of them (or forgetting what content was really there early on).

Except that I have evidence to support my claims. Do you?

Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick.  Some of you are so freakin' bitter.  So 5e is doing good.  Let's forget your hatred of WoTC, you know the company that actually saved D&D as a brand from the mismanagement of Lorraine Williams, and can't you all be happy that D&D is still around, so that your little heartbreakers actually get some legitimacy instead of being seen as pathetic attempts at trying to save a dead game?

Wow.

Quote from: Omega;912747If they do drop it for 6e then sure enough they will claim "It didnt sell well" as the excuse.

I don't know if that is necessarily true. We know that there will be a drop off at some point and they could claim that it stopped selling well. They could also claim they made 6e in response to criticisms about 5e's playability or just as a natural evolution of the series. The one thing we should all know for certain is that there will most definitely be a 6th edition. That's how D&D gets its big influx of cash and shows profitability.

Quote from: Harlock;912822I don't know if that is necessarily true. We know that there will be a drop off at some point and they could claim that it stopped selling well. They could also claim they made 6e in response to criticisms about 5e's playability or just as a natural evolution of the series. The one thing we should all know for certain is that there will most definitely be a 6th edition. That's how D&D gets its big influx of cash and shows profitability.

I think after what happened with 4E though, they realize that new editions are also opportunities for other companies to challenge their dominance. I would be very surprised if 6E isn't D&D 5.75

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;912824I think after what happened with 4E though, they realize that new editions are also opportunities for other companies to challenge their dominance. I would be very surprised if 6E isn't D&D 5.75

Now you mention it, I think you might be very right. My biggest complaint with editions 3 to 5 are that they changed the game "too much" (this is obviously a subjective statement) and that they're no longer D&D. As a consequence, I and many others have been left behind by the game (still my subjective opinion here). I, and in the case of others of like mind, we feel that the player base was fractured, and subsequently fractured again, and we have some resentment about that. I do think you are right in that perhaps 5th to 6th may be more akin to the switch from 1st to 2nd editions.

That's nice to hear. It's the only WotC version I'd play, so I guess my tastes are not all that out of sync with the times (if I actually cared, but still, it's nice to hear,). Though it could just be a spike in "nerd culture" (:rolleyes: ) gaining acceptance and this is just lucky circumstance.

If it's bringing fresh blood into the hobby and people are having fun, well, shame on them don't they know there's starving children in the world, you bundle of -ists shitlords!

Sorry, I think I got my Signs of the Times crossed... :p

Where is that +1 button....

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912818Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick.  Some of you are so freakin' bitter.  So 5e is doing good.  Let's forget your hatred of WoTC, you know the company that actually saved D&D as a brand from the mismanagement of Lorraine Williams, and can't you all be happy that D&D is still around, so that your little heartbreakers actually get some legitimacy instead of being seen as pathetic attempts at trying to save a dead game?

Wow.

Very well said.

Quote from: Doom;912836Very well said.

You are aware you are agreeing with the guy who pathologically hates D&D right? :confused:

Quote from: Omega;912839You are aware you are agreeing with the guy who pathologically hates D&D right? :confused:

I do?  AND NO ONE TOLD ME??  WHY AM I THE LAST ONE WHO FINDS OUT ABOUT THESE THINGS???

Less facetiously, I don't hate D&D (pointless to hate something I can change with house rules, in my opinion), I play it, I'm currently DMing this season's Adventure League (my table is hitting The Amber Temple this week, they decided that Argynvolthost was too dangerous for them, and after facing three Revenants, I'd have to agree with them.  Those things are nasty!) and having a grand old time with the game system.

Does this mean I don't have issues with certain parts?  Or have had some less than positive experiences over all? No. Of course not.  No game system is perfect.  It's how willing you are to work with your issues, or change them (assuming you players are willing to.  And my home game is, thankfully) is what really matters.

So to simplify it, let's leave out the absolute statements, OK?  Just because some parts are annoying and I dislike them doesn't mean I hate the whole thing.  Let's leave the absolutes to the SJW trolling.

I'm happy 5e is doing well.  It gives people a game system to play, and ideas for those who may want to try their hand at creating others in similar veins.  Like Labyrinth Lord, Castles and Crusades, Swords and Wizardry, OSRIC, Pathfinder and many, many others that would have been called 'heartbreakers' back in the 90s.  And I rather actually like Beyond The Wall and Scarlet Heroes.

Indeed, it's not hard at all to believe it's done so well. 5th edition has brought Dungeons and Dragons into the mainstream more than any other edition. It's not nerdy to say you play it, it's trendy now. 5th edition has brought the brand into the spotlight more than any previous edition has.

Quote from: Omega;912839You are aware you are agreeing with the guy who pathologically hates D&D right? :confused:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912850So to simplify it, let's leave out the absolute statements, OK?  Just because some parts are annoying and I dislike them doesn't mean I hate the whole thing.  Let's leave the absolutes to the SJW trolling.

Like you did?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912818Let's forget your hatred of WoTC

Physician, heal thyself.

Quote from: Orphan81;912853Indeed, it's not hard at all to believe it's done so well. 5th edition has brought Dungeons and Dragons into the mainstream more than any other edition. It's not nerdy to say you play it, it's trendy now. 5th edition has brought the brand into the spotlight more than any previous edition has.

Ah, but this will be the chicken or egg and the source of endless debate. Did 5e make D&D popular? Or was it the popularity of the culture surrounding it? I honestly don't care either way. More gamers is a good thing, even if they are playing other systems or older editions.

Quote from: Harlock;912860Ah, but this will be the chicken or egg and the source of endless debate. Did 5e make D&D popular? Or was it the popularity of the culture surrounding it? I honestly don't care either way. More gamers is a good thing, even if they are playing other systems or older editions.

No, 5e didn't make D&D popular, D&D was already popular, when various sources of entertainment media used it. The fact certain celebrities were known to play earlier editions (Vin Diesel for one) or that a popular sitcom with a bunch of 'nerds' and 'geeks' used it as a sort of lazy humour vehicle helped put D&D into the mainstream.

Now, as for which edition?  I'd argue that it was likely 3.x that did it.  However, I have no evidence of this, just that I know that several stories involving the mainstream media were talking about D&D before 2014.

Either way, does it matter?  The hobby's no. 1 game is in the forefront of gamers' minds again.

Here's a wrench to throw in the works....

Compare sales of D&D 5e to sales of Pathfinder, that will be a metric worth noting.
.

Quote from: jeff37923;912880Here's a wrench to throw in the works....

Compare sales of D&D 5e to sales of Pathfinder, that will be a metric worth noting.
.

There's no way lifetime 5e sales beat Pathfinder.  Maybe just over the last two year window.

Quote from: jeff37923;912880Here's a wrench to throw in the works....

Compare sales of D&D 5e to sales of Pathfinder, that will be a metric worth noting.
.

Defiantly would be useful in gauge how meany people left Wotc dnd to keep playing what they had been playing.

I found the claim a bit dubious at first, but it's not out of the realm of plausibility. I do see a lot of people playing 5e. I just also see a lot of people still playing 3.5, 1e, and Pathfinder. I suppose if the hard-corish installed fans that stick with their favored variants/editions run about 10% of the population, but on the whole the D&D audience grows by 25%, it could grow and the holdout segment still would seem fairly sizable, but be consistent with the claim.

For that matter, I know many Pathfinder players who purchased a 5e PHB out of curiosity, or who play both games, so there's that too.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;912892I found the claim a bit dubious at first, but it's not out of the realm of plausibility. I do see a lot of people playing 5e. I just also see a lot of people still playing 3.5, 1e, and Pathfinder. I suppose if the hard-corish installed fans that stick with their favored variants/editions run about 10% of the population, but on the whole the D&D audience grows by 25%, it could grow and the holdout segment still would seem fairly sizable, but be consistent with the claim.

For that matter, I know many Pathfinder players who purchased a 5e PHB out of curiosity, or who play both games, so there's that too.

True, there is that.  If 5e is everyone's second favorite D&D, they will blow everyone else out of the water eventually.  Hell, it might be enough simply to be the "Edition That No One Hates".

Quote from: kosmos1214;912891Defiantly would be useful in gauge how meany people left Wotc dnd to keep playing what they had been playing.

It would be fun to know, but I don't think it would be that useful a gauge. There was such a surfeit of 3e product out there one could easily still be playing through much of it without needing to even jump into Pathfinder. Then there are people like me who did indeed leave D&D alone after 4th edition because we found a previous edition or clone we liked, or went to a different system altogether. It would be great to know how fractured the customer base of the franchise is, but without some actual research and bias-free statistics, we'll never know.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;912892For that matter, I know many Pathfinder players who purchased a 5e PHB out of curiosity, or who play both games, so there's that too.

I plan to pick up 5th ed eventually, but at 50 bucks a book, I'm not in a hurry.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;912898I plan to pick up 5th ed eventually, but at 50 bucks a book, I'm not in a hurry.

You can get all three for less than 30 bones a pop with free prime shipping on Amazon at the mo'.

When I look at the player finders for this area it's pretty much all Pathfinder and 5e... there are some mentions of other systems but those are just always the first listed.
Our GM bought the books and was thinking of running it for a bit (having run Pathfinder for the past several years)... but we ended up going with the new Traveller instead.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;912898I plan to pick up 5th ed eventually, but at 50 bucks a book, I'm not in a hurry.

Amazon for around 30$ a book.

I'm surprised 5e PHB has outsold 3.0 PHB, but it's a much more playable game than 3e or 4e and new players generally like it.

Probably part of 5es initial success was the long open playtesting phase. League play has possibly helped too. And a starter set that people actually like and praise fairly often.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912818Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick.  Some of you are so freakin' bitter.  So 5e is doing good.  Let's forget your hatred of WoTC, you know the company that actually saved D&D as a brand from the mismanagement of Lorraine Williams, and can't you all be happy that D&D is still around, so that your little heartbreakers actually get some legitimacy instead of being seen as pathetic attempts at trying to save a dead game?

Agreed. I wonder if this forum will ever lose the sour stink of bitterness that has characterised it, and so many other OSR hangouts, for so long.

Quote from: Orphan81;912853Indeed, it's not hard at all to believe it's done so well. 5th edition has brought Dungeons and Dragons into the mainstream more than any other edition. It's not nerdy to say you play it, it's trendy now. 5th edition has brought the brand into the spotlight more than any previous edition has.

Tabletop gaming has enjoyed a tremendous surge in popularity in the last five or so years. Boardgames with geeky themes are mainstream. It's now socially acceptable for men and women to get together face-to-face to play games at a kitchen table or a boardgame cafe, at an age when they used to abandon nerd activities out of fear of being social outcasts.

Quote from: S'mon;912921I'm surprised 5e PHB has outsold 3.0 PHB, but it's a much more playable game than 3e or 4e and new players generally like it.

The playability is the key. WotC saw the growth of tabletop gaming and realized they needed to get on that boat. But they couldn't do it with a math-heavy min-max tactical skirmish game. They had to return D&D back to its roots as an accessible game that's mainly about the story generated at the table, not the numbers on the character sheets. They got it right, and D&D has grown beyond the hardcore demographic of 19 year old males who have nothing else to do on a Friday night except sit at home with a PHB optimizing feat chains.

Quote from: Harlock;912899You can get all three for less than 30 bones a pop with free prime shipping on Amazon at the mo'.

Yeah, Amazon usually has good deals. It'll have to wait until I have the spare fun money though. And if there's nothing else on my "want" list when I get there. X-Wing wave 9 is upon us. :)

Quote from: CRKrueger;912893True, there is that.  If 5e is everyone's second favorite D&D, they will blow everyone else out of the water eventually.  Hell, it might be enough simply to be the "Edition That No One Hates".

Yup. I personally don't give a shit about numbers. I just want a good game with good rules that I like. 5e is turning out to be exactly as you put it: 2nd bestest.

Quote from: Harlock;912896It would be fun to know, but I don't think it would be that useful a gauge. There was such a surfeit of 3e product out there one could easily still be playing through much of it without needing to even jump into Pathfinder. Then there are people like me who did indeed leave D&D alone after 4th edition because we found a previous edition or clone we liked, or went to a different system altogether. It would be great to know how fractured the customer base of the franchise is, but without some actual research and bias-free statistics, we'll never know.

While true that it would not be a perfect metric it would help to give an idea.
After all there dont seem to be very meany people who are still playing straight 3.5 from what iv seen here and there people seems to have switch for the most part from 3.5 to pf.
Though imho there's not a real reason not to pretty much any thing 3.5 will do pf will do and its a little easier to work with as the rules where up dated and issues where fix and smoothed out.

There were some interesting numbers released by Roll20 about what games are being played on their platform Here (http://blog.roll20.net/).

Quote from: jadrax;913016There were some interesting numbers released by Roll20 about what games are being played on their platform Here (http://blog.roll20.net/).

Huhn, that's interesting.

Quote from: jadrax;913016There were some interesting numbers released by Roll20 about what games are being played on their platform Here (http://blog.roll20.net/).

Since Rolld20 is a platform where you can join people playing the game of your choice, and there are hundreds of games of 3.x, Pathfinder, 4E, etc. available, the notion that 5E is only popular because it's everyone's second choice is false.

Quote from: Haffrung;913034Since Rolld20 is a platform where you can join people playing the game of your choice, and there are hundreds of games of 3.x, Pathfinder, 4E, etc. available, the notion that 5E is only popular because it's everyone's second choice is false.

Actually, it can be.  If everyone who wants to play 3.x (and it's clones) can't find a table, but someone's running 5e, and they know the game, they'll join it.  It's not their first choice, but...


But then again, correlation is not causation.  We just see the numbers, not the reasons behind it.

Number of games to players is interesting. 5e doubled up its nearest competitor. More interesting still, with half as many games, 3.5 has nearly as many players as Pathfinder. And even though Pokemon (seriously? They made an RPG for it!?) had more games than OD&D, OD&D had twice as many players. Take that, Pikachu!

Quote from: Harlock;913041Number of games to players is interesting. 5e doubled up its nearest competitor. More interesting still, with half as many games, 3.5 has nearly as many players as Pathfinder. And even though Pokemon (seriously? They made an RPG for it!?) had more games than OD&D, OD&D had twice as many players. Take that, Pikachu!

From what I can surmise they are playing the Pokemon CCG somehow on it.

Quote from: Omega;913071From what I can surmise they are playing the Pokemon CCG somehow on it.

Well, that's curious. I wonder why M:tG isn't on there if Pokemon is? Probably some licensing issue or another.

Quote from: Doom;912724Don't get me wrong, 5e is quite playable, but I find it hard to believe all the same. Would love to see actual numbers...though I reckon I'm not alone in that regard.

You'd have to talk to Ryan Dancey. He saw what numbers they claimed they sold, what books were returned without covers, and what they had spent on inventory for 1e and 2e when he audited TSR just prior to the WOTC takeover.

Quote from: GameDaddy;913089You'd have to talk to Ryan Dancey. He saw what numbers they claimed they sold, what books were returned without covers, and what they had spent on inventory for 1e and 2e when he audited TSR just prior to the WOTC takeover.

...and then you'd have to believe him.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913099...and then you'd have to believe him.

*jaw drops*

You and I actually agree on something. :D

Quote from: Harlock;913072Well, that's curious. I wonder why M:tG isn't on there if Pokemon is? Probably some licensing issue or another.

Just doing a quick Google search, it seems like there's some sort of homebrew game called Pokemon Tabletop that's pretty popular there.

As far as Magic is concerned, while WotC does love their money (they really, REALLY love money) there are actually some free alternatives to M:tG Online out there that see some use. So if Roll20 did ever offer card games, they probably wouldn't have too much trouble with Magic. Pokemon would be trickier as Nintendo is fanatically protective of their licenses, so I could see Magic being supported before it ever got approved.

Quote from: Brand55;913101Just doing a quick Google search, it seems like there's some sort of homebrew game called Pokemon Tabletop that's pretty popular there.

As far as Magic is concerned, while WotC does love their money (they really, REALLY love money) there are actually some free alternatives to M:tG Online out there that see some use. So if Roll20 did ever offer card games, they probably wouldn't have too much trouble with Magic. Pokemon would be trickier as Nintendo is fanatically protective of their licenses, so I could see Magic being supported before it ever got approved.

Cool. Thanks for the info.

Quote from: Harlock;913072Well, that's curious. I wonder why M:tG isn't on there if Pokemon is? Probably some licensing issue or another.

oops. Turns out it is a fan made RPG.

And someone spotted it too after.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;912892I found the claim a bit dubious at first, but it's not out of the realm of plausibility. I do see a lot of people playing 5e. I just also see a lot of people still playing 3.5, 1e, and Pathfinder. I suppose if the hard-corish installed fans that stick with their favored variants/editions run about 10% of the population, but on the whole the D&D audience grows by 25%, it could grow and the holdout segment still would seem fairly sizable, but be consistent with the claim.

For that matter, I know many Pathfinder players who purchased a 5e PHB out of curiosity, or who play both games, so there's that too.

Games being played =/= game being sold. I imagine there are a fair number of 5e PHBs out there that were purchased but are not being used in play.  Also I wonder if the sales numbers indicate copies purchased by retail customers or copies purchased by retailers through distribution. Product sitting on store shelves would count as "sold" in the second case.

Either way D&D lost me somewhere between 2 and 3.0. These days I am playing Beyond the Wall for my D&D style fix.

To Hasborg all that matters is sales.

Quote from: Mistwell;912722According to Mike Mearls' latest tweet, ""5e lifetime PHB sales > 3, 3.5, 4 lifetime" "

He clarifies that the 5e D&D Player's Handbook sales since the edition began have outsold the lifetime PHB sales of 4e, and 3.5e, and 3e.  Individually, not collectively (it has not outsold the lifetime sales of all three combined, though at this rate that could happen).  And that is in books sold, not money (money-wise Mearls implies that would be cheating as the 5e PHB sells for more than the others did due to inflation). He also says he doesn't know if it's outsold the 1e or 2e PHB as they have only sketchy records on those sales.

This comes at a time where ICv2 says retail sales of RPG books in general are up by 40% over last year, with 5e D&D leading the way.

There's a sucker born every minute.

Quote from: jadrax;913016There were some interesting numbers released by Roll20 about what games are being played on their platform Here (http://blog.roll20.net/).

Thank you for the link.

Quote from: Brand55;913101Just doing a quick Google search, it seems like there's some sort of homebrew game called Pokemon Tabletop that's pretty popular there.

As far as Magic is concerned, while WotC does love their money (they really, REALLY love money) there are actually some free alternatives to M:tG Online out there that see some use. So if Roll20 did ever offer card games, they probably wouldn't have too much trouble with Magic. Pokemon would be trickier as Nintendo is fanatically protective of their licenses, so I could see Magic being supported before it ever got approved.

Well theres never been an official one or it would likely take over.

Quote from: kosmos1214;913311Well theres never been an official one or it would likely take over.

How about this (https://www.amazon.com/41413-POKEMON-JR-ADVENTURE-GAME/dp/B00002CF79), written by Bill "Star Wars" Slavicsek and Stan!, published by WotC in 2000?

I wrote about it on this forum before (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?9042-Will-2008-be-the-Year-of-the-Breakthrough&p=175000&viewfull=1#post175000).

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;913100*jaw drops*

You and I actually agree on something. :D

I seem to recall this happening before, I think this is the second time, or *gasp* maybe even more. :D

Congratulations to WotC. Although sales of core books is only one metric, they've basically succeeded as well as could have been hoped in recovering from the shittastic 4e era.

More game collectors now is all.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;913444More game collectors now is all.

Maybe there are more game collectors now (though in my experience that activity peaked in the late 90s), but even if that's true, it's most certainly not "all." In stores and online, and presumably also in basements and kitchen tables, a shitload of people are playing 5e. I mostly play on Roll20 these days (someone already linked to the Roll20 Q2 stats) -- I play in a weekly Friday night game and DM a weekly Saturday night game. The Friday game's core group and DM have been playing for more than two years, and my Saturday group of six fantastic players will hopefully be my regular gaming group for many years to come, regardless of what game we play.

I tried getting a B/X game running there, but sheer volume of eager and active players makes recruiting good players for 5e vastly easier. For me, there's been a clear resurgence, though how much of that is owed to 5e, how much to the maturation of VTT, and how much to the blossoming of nerd culture and attention to TTRPGs in general, I don't know.

5e is D&D and it's good. No surprise (to me) that people are buying and playing it.

Indeed, it's not just the comeback from the 4e fiasco, but the arguable flourishing that's amazing. I have two tables and a waiting list for my 5e games.

I'll grant 5e has issues, but every version of D&D has issues. You can be bitter about and harass anyone who points out issues...or you can simply acknowledge the thing works, and be happy for WotC, and for D&D.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912893True, there is that.  If 5e is everyone's second favorite D&D, they will blow everyone else out of the water eventually.  Hell, it might be enough simply to be the "Edition That No One Hates".

Yeah, 5e is the only edition I've encountered that fans of 0e, B/X, AD&D, 3.x, and PF are all willing to play together.

It's the only non-TSR version of D&D that I'll play (aside, of course, from the retro-clones that are based on TSR D&D).

Quote from: Doom;913536Indeed, it's not just the comeback from the 4e fiasco, but the arguable flourishing that's amazing. I have two tables and a waiting list for my 5e games.

I'll grant 5e has issues, but every version of D&D has issues. You can be bitter about and harass anyone who points out issues...or you can simply acknowledge the thing works, and be happy for WotC, and for D&D.

When I wear my "Rosy-tinted-Glasses of '86" I can't see anything wrong with my D&D books.

I generally agree with you. I've talked with a couple of my players after venting out dislikes about the game, the offer was tossed about trying 1e/2e for 'auld lang syne' and after thinking about it... Naaaahhhhh. It would be easier to "fix" 5e to our tastes than go back to 1e/2e and re-establish our "Tome o' Houserules"

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;913331How about this (https://www.amazon.com/41413-POKEMON-JR-ADVENTURE-GAME/dp/B00002CF79), written by Bill "Star Wars" Slavicsek and Stan!, published by WotC in 2000?

I wrote about it on this forum before (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?9042-Will-2008-be-the-Year-of-the-Breakthrough&p=175000&viewfull=1#post175000).

I retract my previous statement there was one made.
As a Pokemon fan i rather pride my self of knowing about little tidbits about Pokemon and i have honestly never heard of it before.
And looking it over i can see why its simple which yes has advantages for small kids except that its Pokemon and Pokemon fans have this habit of absorbing information about the universe including the move sets and type advantages which from what i can tell the game dose literally nothing to try and replicate.
The the problems of getting mom or dad to gm only takes the cake.
To be fair the whole bit of trying to help them not have to learn about the universe was clever but not what i would call functional.
As it stand i under stand why iv never heard of it before theres no reason to use it over pta or ptu.

From the "TFTG" point of view - it IS selling better than 4th edition and is generally a popular edition of D&D. I would say it might be equivalent or on par with when we were selling 3rd edition or 3.5 books all the time.
 It's actually moving a bit better than I remember third doing.

Also the Starter Box of 5th edition that is right around 20 bucks is a hell of a deal. Unlike a certain 3.5 starter box - this one is actually good quality and you get a lot of scenario or story meat for your dollar.


- Ed C.

(For the uninitiated - 'TFTG" is my acronym for "Tales From The Gamestore")

On a certain website the fit-pitching and tearing of collars, throwing of ashes on head amidst foot-stomping and cries of 4TH EDITION WAS OBJECTIVELY THE BEST D&D EVER! when 5e was announced and some of its nuances and rule-changes leaked, I bet they're taking this information quite well, which is fine because fuck all of them.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;913602On a certain website the fit-pitching and tearing of collars, throwing of ashes on head amidst foot-stomping and cries of 4TH EDITION WAS OBJECTIVELY THE BEST D&D EVER! when 5e was announced and some of its nuances and rule-changes leaked, I bet they're taking this information quite well, which is fine because fuck all of them.

A certain other website has a 50 page (and still current) thread on how 5e has failed in every conceivable way. Since, you know, 3.0 was the height of human civilization.

Quote from: Akrasia;913540Yeah, 5e is the only edition I've encountered that fans of 0e, B/X, AD&D, 3.x, and PF are all willing to play together..

I think that was the fiendish plot from the get go.  It's palatable, recognizable, and for the most part, inoffensive. Design goal achieved! WotC has discovered RPG vanilla.

QuoteIt's the only non-TSR version of D&D that I'll play (aside, of course, from the retro-clones that are based on TSR D&D)

I bought it, and I would play it, but I'll never run it. Too many great games out there.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;913602On a certain website the fit-pitching and tearing of collars, throwing of ashes on head amidst foot-stomping and cries of 4TH EDITION WAS OBJECTIVELY THE BEST D&D EVER! when 5e was announced and some of its nuances and rule-changes leaked, I bet they're taking this information quite well, which is fine because fuck all of them.

Quote from: Doom;913604A certain other website has a 50 page (and still current) thread on how 5e has failed in every conceivable way. Since, you know, 3.0 was the height of human civilization.

Oh, please tell me at least one of those is Erik Noah's old site. I stopped supporting those fora with my clicks years ago when their objectivity went to seed.

Quote from: Harlock;913610Oh, please tell me at least one of those is Erik Noah's old site. I stopped supporting those fora with my clicks years ago when their objectivity went to seed.

I know not of which site DOOM is talking; I was referring to a site other than enwurld.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;913648I know not of which site DOOM is talking; I was referring to a site other than enwurld.

I'm not all caps--I was Doom before the computer game came out.

Quote from: Doom;913536I'll grant 5e has issues, but every version of D&D has issues.

Agreed, and what I like 5e over the others to date is just how easy it is to modify!  I have a small binder of house rules so far, and they seem to not be that big a deal.  They haven't actually broken much.

I really do like 5e.

Quote from: Harlock;913610Oh, please tell me at least one of those is Erik Noah's old site. I stopped supporting those fora with my clicks years ago when their objectivity went to seed.

I don't know why people think Coy is fucking Clever instead of Annoying As Fuck.

One is the site that hates 5e and loves 4e - RPG.NET
One is the site that hates 5e and loves 3e - THE GAMING DEN

Wow, that wasn't even hard to type.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913711One is the site that hates 5e and loves 3e - THE GAMING DEN

Man the hate for 5e on that site. It so over the top that makes me wonder if people doing weird form of roleplaying.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913711One is the site that hates 5e and loves 4e - RPG.NET

  Although the 'hate' seems to have died down to moderate dislike with some adopters. It's 3.5/PF that comes in for the heaviest criticism over there, IME.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;913602On a certain website the fit-pitching and tearing of collars, throwing of ashes on head amidst foot-stomping and cries of 4TH EDITION WAS OBJECTIVELY THE BEST D&D EVER! when 5e was announced and some of its nuances and rule-changes leaked, I bet they're taking this information quite well, which is fine because fuck all of them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913711I don't know why people think Coy is fucking Clever instead of Annoying As Fuck.

One is the site that hates 5e and loves 4e - RPG.NET
One is the site that hates 5e and loves 3e - THE GAMING DEN

Wow, that wasn't even hard to type.

Thanks! Good to know these things. Saves me time later on.

Quote from: estar;913717Man the hate for 5e on that site. It so over the top that makes me wonder if people doing weird form of roleplaying.

That's my reason for coy...that level of hate can lead into real world violence.

No that's not the site I was referring to, although it does feature Prof. Cirno, Ettin and Halloween Jack.

Anyway, yes, 5e is nifty and while it will never, ever replace 1e or original D&D at my table, I don't mind playing it and I wouldn't mind running it, reading the Dungeon Masters Guide I didn't feel like I was being presented with a list of demands from players who would hold my game hostage until I submitted (3e, 3.5 and 4e), and reading the Players Handbook I didn't feel like I was looking at Advanced Diablo where for each class there is exactly and only precisely one single build to make an Optimal Character and anything else leaves you with a completely broken "build" that cannot possibly succeed just because you chose the "wrong" feats or skills (4e and 3e).

Quote from: thedungeondelver;913792and reading the Players Handbook I didn't feel like I was looking at Advanced Diablo where for each class there is exactly and only precisely one single build to make an Optimal Character and anything else leaves you with a completely broken "build" that cannot possibly succeed just because you chose the "wrong" feats or skills (4e and 5e).

er... 5e's feats are optional, very few, and not used like 3-4es feats, and 5es skills are also very few and more broad purpose and not usually vital to most endeavors since you can still try most unskilled.

Quote from: Omega;913802er... 5e's feats are optional, very few, and not used like 3-4es feats, and 5es skills are also very few and more broad purpose and not usually vital to most endeavors since you can still try most unskilled.

DAMMIT, THAT WAS A TYPO!

I meant 3e and 4e! :(

Quote from: Doom;913791That's my reason for coy...that level of hate can lead into real world violence.

How true. That's what we're not being told about the Milwaukee riots - it actually started as a Twitter war between Pathfinder and 5e fans.

(http://i.imgur.com/lWG3mlFm.jpg)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;913792No that's not the site I was referring to, although it does feature Prof. Cirno, Ettin and Halloween Jack.

Dude, there are people who don't know these things...educate.

He means the other site that loves 4e and hates 5e, Something Awful (in fact they love 4e and hate 5e even more than purple does).

Quote from: kosmos1214;913597As a Pokemon fan i rather pride my self of knowing about little tidbits about Pokemon and i have honestly never heard of it before.

This game is a mystery to me as well. It was pretty much under the radar of the whole fandom because it was a Parker-distributed, mass market item "hidden" among other products. It seems there was only one "wave" of product, and the promised sets 2+ never materialised.
I don't remember how hard it was to order for non-mass market stores, like the typical FLGS. I only remember that I did get it for the game store I was operating back then.

Relevant to this thread is that I remember a quote by an industry insider (or chronist) claiming that the preorders of the Pokemon jr. Adventure Game alone "blew the (then-current?) numbers of D&D out of the water, making it (one of?) the most successful RPGs ever".

Which would be no surprise for me, because it was a small, card game-box that grand parents must have bought in heaps. It didn't look like an RPG at all.

But I don't think it was actually played a lot as an RPG. I believe that kids used the cards to stage simple Pokemon duels, lacking parents willing to GM for them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913711One is the site that hates 5e and loves 4e - RPG.NET

Weird, you can't tell this by visiting.

Quote from: hexgrid;914025Weird, you can't tell this by visiting.

It seems like the moderators have clamped down a bit on the "5e teh suxxors!!" stuff since the official release. I think they might have become worried about the site getting a reputation as "The place where people sit around and grumble about how much they hate D&D".

Quote from: hexgrid;914025Weird, you can't tell this by visiting.

Presumably you weren't visiting a couple years ago. The vitriol aimed at WotC and Next/5E was pretty incredible. During the Next playtest, when the nerdfury at that site over the cancellation of 4E was volcanic, the mods even came out and said 5E didn't have any protection from edition-warring because it wasn't officially published yet. Which shows you where the sympathies of the mod-clique at that site lay.

Quote from: Dimitrios;914045It seems like the moderators have clamped down a bit on the "5e teh suxxors!!" stuff since the official release. I think they might have become worried about the site getting a reputation as "The place where people sit around and grumble about how much they hate D&D".

Pretty much. The nerdfury against 5E got so bad that a lot of posters who were interested in 5E came out and said they would be moving on from RPGnet unless the mods stopped being hypocrites. That must have alarmed someone.

Quote from: Haffrung;914054That must have alarmed someone.

I bet. Whomever gets the money for their advertising would be my first guess.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912890There's no way lifetime 5e sales beat Pathfinder.  Maybe just over the last two year window.

We have this data, roughly (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?493021-2-Years-later-D-amp-D-even-stronger-on-Amazon&p=6964658#post6964658)

Quote from: Zardnaar;6964658If its true out selling the 3.0 PHB is the impressive one. and 3.5 sales were relatively rubbish compared to 3.0 and even 2E. Using the same metrics and guesstimates used on 4E/Pathfinder combined with other sim ilar things like size of RPG market, Amazon rankings etc 5E has been a massive hit.

RPG market 2013 13 million of which Paizo had more than $10 million.
RPG Market now 35 million

We also knew how many core books Paizo sold for PFRPG and the a size of the RPG market at that time (2014). We also know how many 3E and 2E books were sold and some ball park figures for 3.5 and 4E. 3.0 outsold 3.5 by a 2 or 3 to one ratio, 3.5 likely outsold 4E by around 2-1. 3.5 and 4E were the worst selling versions of D&D since OD&D though. OD&D was new though and predated D&D becoming big. The big sellers were.

1E PHB 1.5 million
BECMI Red Box (more than 1E PHB?) 1 million + no one really knows (TSR records were bad)
2E PHB. (750k)
3.0 PHB (500-750k) Accounts vary
3.5 (250-350k)
Pathfinder 250k (circa 2014)
4E mostly like around 100k+DDI.

Sources Erik Mona, Dancey

 So out selling 3.5/4E is not hard in the grand scheme of things in D&D. If Mearls is accurate (with other data hinting heavily he might not be telling porkies) 5E is now the new silver age of D&D in terms of sales beating 3.0 in terms of PHB sales. Its also selling at a rate faster than the 1E books only the BECMI red box set can compete and the 1E PHB had a shelf life of 12 years to get those lifetime sales.

Note 3.0 and 3.5 combined outsold 2E but 2E likely outsold each one individually. 3.0 was heavily front loaded with most sales in the 1st year hence 3.5 coming out so fast as sales dropped off a cliff after the 1st year. 5E might be the 1st edition since 1E to grow the D&D player base. 2E sold less than 1E, 3.0 sold fast but overall likely sold less than 2E (3 years vs 11 though), 3.5 sold less than 3.0, 4E sold less than 3.5.

So yes, 5e PHB outsold Pathfinder core book, given it outsold 3e which itself well outsold Pathfinder core book as of 2014.  Unless you think the last two years (which have not been particularly good years for Pathfinder core book sales, though they have been fine for overall Pathfinder book sales) suddenly surpassed to double or more the prior total sales, then yes 5e PHB has indeed outsold Pathfinder core book sales.

Now as for total book sales, I am fairly sure Pathfinder total book sales surpass 5e total book sales.  The sheer quantity of books Pathfinder has put out should secure that number for years to come.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;913945This game is a mystery to me as well. It was pretty much under the radar of the whole fandom because it was a Parker-distributed, mass market item "hidden" among other products. It seems there was only one "wave" of product, and the promised sets 2+ never materialised.
I don't remember how hard it was to order for non-mass market stores, like the typical FLGS. I only remember that I did get it for the game store I was operating back then.


Relevant to this thread is that I remember a quote by an industry insider (or chronist) claiming that the preorders of the Pokemon jr. Adventure Game alone "blew the (then-current?) numbers of D&D out of the water, making it (one of?) the most successful RPGs ever".

Which would be no surprise for me, because it was a small, card game-box that grand parents must have bought in heaps. It didn't look like an RPG at all.

But I don't think it was actually played a lot as an RPG. I believe that kids used the cards to stage simple Pokemon duels, lacking parents willing to GM for them.

Yes i find it likely that there where loads of copy bought by that parent had no idea it was an rpg.
I also would bet x number also just used to play an rpg them selves like some used the board game.

Quote from: Haffrung;914054Presumably you weren't visiting a couple years ago. The vitriol aimed at WotC and Next/5E was pretty incredible. During the Next playtest, when the nerdfury at that site over the cancellation of 4E was volcanic, the mods even came out and said 5E didn't have any protection from edition-warring because it wasn't officially published yet. Which shows you where the sympathies of the mod-clique at that site lay.

  I think part of it was also that RPGNet was one of the only places online that you could have positive discussion of 4E, so when WotC started pretty clearly throwing it under the bus, you saw a similar reaction to the one that many of the 3E-friendly places had to 4E's marketing.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;914095I think part of it was also that RPGNet was one of the only places online that you could have positive discussion of 4E, so when WotC started pretty clearly throwing it under the bus, you saw a similar reaction to the one that many of the 3E-friendly places had to 4E's marketing.

The hilarious part is that WOTC threw 4e under the bus because of RPG.net and the 4e fans. So more aptly RPG.net threw 4e under the bus.

More people are playing D&D? excellent.

I don't like 5e, but it's a family argument.

Quote from: Omega;914244The hilarious part is that WOTC threw 4e under the bus because of RPG.net and the 4e fans. So more aptly RPG.net threw 4e under the bus.

Curious, and I dont really know the backstory here. Could you elaborate on how the purple site had an effect on 4e being thrown under the bus by WotC?

It's just another conspiracy theory, like Pundit's Swine one, where a bunch of geeks on forums get to pretend their opinions matter to big companies.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914352It's just another conspiracy theory, like Pundit's Swine one, where a bunch of geeks on forums get to pretend their opinions matter to big companies.

Indeed. I expect staff turnover, disappointing sales (not necessarily bad, but almost certainly falling off faster than expected), loss of market share to Pathfinder, and Mearls' conversion to a more OSR mindset had more to do with it.

And WotC always throws the last edition under the bus. That is the most consistent part of their marketing, followed closely by nostalgia for the Gygaxian Age. :)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;914357Indeed. I expect staff turnover, disappointing sales (not necessarily bad, but almost certainly falling off faster than expected), loss of market share to Pathfinder, and Mearls' conversion to a more OSR mindset had more to do with it.

And WotC always throws the last edition under the bus. That is the most consistent part of their marketing, followed closely by nostalgia for the Gygaxian Age. :)

I dunno, 4e died SO fast, though. Essentials essentially nuked the books that came out less than a year earlier, really pissing off the faithful. I saw hobby shops with stacks of 4e books that simply stopped moving. They had lots of books, the sales were there then...they weren't. I doubt the Purple Pusssack really had much to do with it, and strongly suspect WoTC's own mishandling of 4e basically from the start led to WoTC's deciding on a mercy killing.

Quote from: Doom;914376I dunno, 4e died SO fast, though. Essentials essentially nuked the books that came out less than a year earlier, really pissing off the faithful. I saw hobby shops with stacks of 4e books that simply stopped moving. They had lots of books, the sales were there then...they weren't. I doubt the Purple Pusssack really had much to do with it, and strongly suspect WoTC's own mishandling of 4e basically from the start led to WoTC's deciding on a mercy killing.

Might there have been such a falloff in sales, or at least a very sluggish sales the opening months compared to what WotC expected for a new core ruleset, that they felt announcing the Next, opening the playtesting, and being very vocal about killing 4th was their way of at least trying to keep people interested and hopeful about the D&D brand? Was it a measure to stop the bleeding, as it were?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;914357And WotC always throws the last edition under the bus. That is the most consistent part of their marketing, followed closely by nostalgia for the Gygaxian Age. :)

Not really. AD&D is in a way OD&D with many Dragon and Strategic Review articles compiled into one book and oft embellished on. 2e isnt so different from AD&D that its incompatible. They mostly just juggled a few things. Same with O/B/BX/BECMI/RC. Its not until WOTC comes along that we get this insane drive to make each new edition incompatible with the last so they can bleed just one more fan for a re-buy.

Opening sales weren't the issue--the first print run, which was larger than 3E's, sold out in pre-order. But I do suspect sales dropped precipitously for a variety of reasons, and after the market for Essentials disappeared out from under it and no one who really loved 4E was left at WotC, they decided to take a few pages in marketing from Paizo (the open playtest) and let hunger for new D&D product build for a while.

Quote from: Omega;914379Not really. AD&D is in a way OD&D with many Dragon and Strategic Review articles compiled into one book and oft embellished on. 2e isnt so different from AD&D that its incompatible. They mostly just juggled a few things. Same with O/B/BX/BECMI/RC. Its not until WOTC comes along that we get this insane drive to make each new edition incompatible with the last so they can bleed just one more fan for a re-buy.

That's why I specified WotC. :) TSR handled things quite differently, with 1E product kept in print and supported in DRAGON for several years.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;914381That's why I specified WotC. :) TSR handled things quite differently, with 1E product kept in print and supported in DRAGON for several years.

Wow, for a second there I was actually agreeing with Omega. But, you're right, TSR's "hot new edition" didn't necessarily mean all the old stuff was supposed to be burned, and the ashes sold to pay for the new edition's books.

Quote from: Doom;914387Wow, for a second there I was actually agreeing with Omega. But, you're right, TSR's "hot new edition" didn't necessarily mean all the old stuff was supposed to be burned, and the ashes sold to pay for the new edition's books.

Right. And 0-2e/o to RC remained relatively backwards compatible. Gygax even stated that he warned WOTC about this.

Quote from: Omega;914393Right. And 0-2e/o to RC remained relatively backwards compatible. Gygax even stated that he warned WOTC about this.

That's why I am so grateful for the OGL and the OSR movement. I actually have more available (like way more, and a lot of it free or dirt cheap!) as a player of those aforementioned systems now than I did when TSR was publishing D&D. As much as I would like WotC to publish a backward compatible system and maybe even reprint some of the old stuff, things are pretty good where I standing.

Quote from: Omega;914379Its not until WOTC comes along that we get this insane drive to make each new edition incompatible with the last so they can bleed just one more fan for a re-buy.

I think 4e is the exception out of the punch. Afterall the OSR did manage to coax OD&D, AD&D, and B/X out of the d20 SRD. Or another way of looking at it if you don't use feats and skills and allow character arbitrary take levels from other classes what is left is pretty close to how classic D&D was played.

Quote from: Omega;914379Its not until WOTC comes along that we get this insane drive to make each new edition incompatible with the last so they can bleed just one more fan for a re-buy.

I think 4e is the exception out of the punch. Afterall the OSR did manage to coax OD&D, AD&D, and B/X out of the d20 SRD. Or another way of looking at it if you don't use feats and skills and allow character arbitrary take levels from other classes what is left is pretty close to how classic D&D was played.

4e was the exception to the whole thing.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914352It's just another conspiracy theory, like Pundit's Swine one, where a bunch of geeks on forums get to pretend their opinions matter to big companies.

Yeah, I'd like to think that (for example) fans of OD&D and AD&D 1e drove WotC to scrap 4e and start anew with a "lighter, simpler" system in 5e but the reality is the loudest complainers probably rated not even a quiet whisper on WotC's sensors.  I very seriously doubt they looked at Dragonsfoot, KnKA and so on and said "Oh my God we have to re-create a more palatable game or else these greying, gone-to-seed 40+ year old dudes will really shitpost!"

I feel a need to chime in and say "hell yeah!", good on WotC for coming out with a D&D line that a whole bunch of people are willing to pay money for and play.  D&D doesn't have to succeed for the hobby to remain vibrant, but someone has to be succeeding and getting new players to the table.  I don't want to see tabletop role-playing go the way of model trains.  An uncle of mine is big on those; he's in his sixties and he's the kid of his bunch, watching the hobby pass away.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;914474Yeah, I'd like to think that (for example) fans of OD&D and AD&D 1e drove WotC to scrap 4e and start anew with a "lighter, simpler" system in 5e but the reality is the loudest complainers probably rated not even a quiet whisper on WotC's sensors.  I very seriously doubt they looked at Dragonsfoot, KnKA and so on and said "Oh my God we have to re-create a more palatable game or else these greying, gone-to-seed 40+ year old dudes will really shitpost!"

It was more like...
Hasbro: Kill the OGL, people other than us are making money.
WotC: Uh, we can't.
Hasbro: Change D&D so the OGL no longer works.
WotC: Umm, ok, but older players might stay with the older versions.
Hasbro: Then forget all the older players and get the young MMO crowd to play.
WotC: Umm, ok. - Ding! 4th Edition
Hasbro: (Noticing a distinct lack of green rain falling from the sky...)Fix 4e.
WotC: Umm, ok, can we have money to finish the VTT thing?
Hasbro: No
WotC: Umm, ok. - Ding! Essentials
Hasbro: (Noticing a distinct lack of green rain falling from the sky...)Flush 4e.
WotC: Umm, ok.  Could you let us actually try to make an attempt not to fuck it up this time?
Hasbro: Umm, ok.

I don't see the fascination with sales compared to the past. What matters is the now, and D&D5e is doing fine.

Quote from: Skull;914778I don't see the fascination with sales compared to the past. What matters is the now, and D&D5e is doing fine.

Some people like to use it in the "my game is better than your game" arguments. Simmilar to how some use volume of game printed as a "my game is better than your game" argument.

Quote from: Skull;914778I don't see the fascination with sales compared to the past. What matters is the now, and D&D5e is doing fine.

Historical sales can give some indication of popularity of editions but it's obviously not the be all, end all and there are a lot of other factors that should be considered. Some folks use it to justify their opinions on one edition being better than another or one game being better than another.

Quote from: Harlock;914816Historical sales can give some indication of popularity of editions but it's obviously not the be all, end all and there are a lot of other factors that should be considered. Some folks use it to justify their opinions on one edition being better than another or one game being better than another.

The bold part is the ONLY reason it's considered relevant.  Personally, I'm just glad D&D is still around and trying new things.

In related historical news, the final domestic box office sales for the movie Avatar was nearly ten times those of Aliens.  Which one have you rewatched more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT0epw9P7-o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT0epw9P7-o)

Quote from: Ghost;914834In related historical news, the final domestic box office sales for the movie Avatar were nearly ten times those of Aliens.  Which one have you rewatched more?

Thats like comparing Grand Theft Auto to Death Race 2000. Vaugly simmilar themes of cars and a race/chase. But very different movies.

Which in a way is much like comparing the sales of 5e to 3e. Look the same on the surface. But play differently. Not so differently as Aliens and Avatar.

How much foreign presence does 5e have? Last check WOTC denied the longstanding D&D translators in Japan to work on 5e. Does 5e have any foreign version? What about 3 or 4?

Quote from: Omega;914835Thats like comparing Grand Theft Auto to Death Race 2000. Vaugly simmilar themes of cars and a race/chase. But very different movies.

It's like a lot of things. One of the things it's like is comparing two sci-fi movies about aliens made by the same director. One of the movies is older and obviously better and the newer movie made ten times the cash.

Ironically enough for the "moral absolutism and complexity" debate concerning orc children, the much more interesting of these two movies deals with human interactions with a race that cannot be dealt with socially, only militarily. The other movie has members of one race actually becoming members of the other. That didn't make it better, though. It still sucked, but yet outsold its superior predecessor ten to one.

Quote from: Omega;914835How much foreign presence does 5e have? Last check WOTC denied the longstanding D&D translators in Japan to work on 5e. Does 5e have any foreign version? What about 3 or 4?

D&D3 and D&D4 were translated into several languages. There is no foreign version of D&D5, and apparently this is not due to a lack of interest of foreign companies in translating D&D5, but to a deliberate decision of WotC. Why? WotC has given no explanation.

Quote from: Claudius;914983D&D3 and D&D4 were translated into several languages. There is no foreign version of D&D5, and apparently this is not due to a lack of interest of foreign companies in translating D&D5, but to a deliberate decision of WotC. Why? WotC has given no explanation.

Right. WOTC denied the translators in Japan the renewal of their license. No reason was given for that. WOTC marketing once again living up to its horrible reputation.

Which I guess makes 5es success all the more amazing that its done so well despite WOTCs best efforts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

When a product is translated, do the translators reformat everything as well? Also, do the translators do this pro bono? If not, perhaps that's why WotC has denied the translations. As has been noted before, WotC hasn't really spent as much on this edition as they have previous editions. Everything from outsourcing the adventure path (whatever they call it now), to open playtesting, to a dearth of campaign, splat, and expansion books. In fact, looking at official product, I'd say this was the cheapest edition of D&D we've seen since the mid-'70s. I'm not defending WotC per se. I don't even own a single 5th edition book. Just trying to think of a reason they may think it is justified.

Quote from: Omega;914986Right. WOTC denied the translators in Japan the renewal of their license. No reason was given for that. WOTC marketing once again living up to its horrible reputation. Which I guess makes 5es success all the more amazing that its done so well despite WOTCs best efforts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

There could be a lot of contractual reasons why that has nothing to do with anything players care about, such as terms that automatically go into effect should Hasbro decide to do a localized version (and Hasbro doesn't like them any more). In the tech industry I run into this crap all the time.

True. But this was the translation group that had done 3rd and 4th. (Not sure who did O, BX, A and 2nd?) Though it wasnt just Japan. All translation groups were denied.

Quick search shows no reason mentioned as to why. So who knows. But as noted. This IS WOTC we are talking about. All bets are off on there having been a valid reason. They screwed things with 4e German translations according to some statements that they jacked the licensing fee high enough the regulars refused.

WOTC though did allow the translation of the Basic rules and that is up on Hobby Japan's site.

According to Mearls & co there was plans to do (in house?) translations all at once. Whatever that means. But that was like 2 years ago?

One reason I could see as valid reasoning is quality control. And if its in house WOTC gets all the profit instead of a licensing fee.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914534It was more like...
Hasbro: Kill the OGL, people other than us are making money.

Based on everyone I've talked to and everything I've seen, I don't think Hasbro had anything to do with it. Dancey's original plan for 3E was:

1. Get WotC out of the supplement / adventure business (and have the rest of the industry fill those shoes).

2. Produce core-extension "evergreen" products that could be sold in perpetuity and would support a new penumbra of supplemental material.

3. Release D20-compatible games to further extend and capitalize on the network effect.

Three key things happened:

1. WotC's internal culture pushed back on a plan that was basically looking to downsize the development staff because they were, after all, a bunch of developers.

2. The Epic Level Handbook and Psionic Handbook, the first two "evergreen" products, were both poorly designed and collapsed.

3. D20 Star Wars was not only poorly designed but set an incredibly bad template by breaking too much compatibility with the D20 core.

Once Dancey left WotC, the internal culture turned completely against the OGL and the marketing/design strategy it was supposed to be supporting. 3.5 was very transparently designed to break compatibility and enable WotC to re-release their splatbook supplements as full-color hardcovers that could compete in the open market against 3rd party products. This coincided with the evergreen products disappearing and the decision not to add any additional material to the SRD. And the company abandoned basically all plans to continue developing D20 games.

Quote from: Omega;915062True. But this was the translation group that had done 3rd and 4th. (Not sure who did O, BX, A and 2nd?) Though it wasnt just Japan. All translation groups were denied.

This. It's not a matter of obscure contractual reasons, it's just a flat NO to all foreign companies willing to publish D&D5 in other languages.

I made a quick search on the internet and found this, it's an announcement by Devir Iberia (a subsidiary of Devir), stating that WotC decided not to license D&D5 in other languages. In Spanish:

https://www.facebook.com/deviriberia/posts/902799903067822 (https://www.facebook.com/deviriberia/posts/902799903067822)

Quote from: Teodrik;914326Curious, and I dont really know the backstory here. Could you elaborate on how the purple site had an effect on 4e being thrown under the bus by WotC?

I don't think that rpgnet caused WoTC to throw 4e under the bus. 4e was a shitty edition that wasn't really D&D, and that's WHY rpgnet embraced it. It was dumped by WoTC because it was a shitty edition that wasn't really D&D, or more accurately due to the fact that because it was a shitty edition that wasn't really D&D it had terrible terrible sales.

Quote from: Doom;914376I dunno, 4e died SO fast, though.

Again, it didn't die so fast because WoTC decided to kill it; it's the other way around: it's sales were so horrible, and 4e essentially lost 2/3rds of D&D's customer base, so WoTC first tried to release Essentials as a hail-mary move to see if it would revive the franchise, and when that failed miserably because the problem was the shitty, shitty system (a system designed based on the ideas of people who despised D&D in the first place), they scuttled it altogether.

Then they went to get the advice of people with exactly the opposite ideas of those who they had been listening to while designing 4e. That's why 5e was a massive, massive success.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;914380Opening sales weren't the issue--the first print run, which was larger than 3E's, sold out in pre-order.

That was the key: 4e sold well before anyone had the chance to actually read it. Only a few of us had sufficient understanding of what was going on to realize it was going to be a disaster even before the release, most gamers just 'have' to get the new edition.

Quote from: Skull;914778I don't see the fascination with sales compared to the past. What matters is the now, and D&D5e is doing fine.

I don't even care what sales are now. I think this hobby would do just fine if the commercial side of it was flushed right down the toilet.

Quote from: Claudius;914983D&D3 and D&D4 were translated into several languages. There is no foreign version of D&D5, and apparently this is not due to a lack of interest of foreign companies in translating D&D5, but to a deliberate decision of WotC. Why? WotC has given no explanation.

The Spaniards are pretty frantic about how there isn't even a Spanish translation of 5e yet.

Ironically, in south america people don't care very much because they all just use the English books. That might be part of the reason why there isn't one yet, for that matter.

Quote from: RPGPundit;916146(a system designed based on the ideas of people who despised D&D in the first place)

OK, two things.  First, I have to ask, if that's why 4e failed, then why did 1e-2e AD&D do so well?  Both editions were made and published by people who hated D&D.  And second, Mike Mearls hates D&D?  Really?  This is news to me.  He had a big hand in making 4e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916156OK, two things.  First, I have to ask, if that's why 4e failed, then why did 1e-2e AD&D do so well?  Both editions were made and published by people who hated D&D.  And second, Mike Mearls hates D&D?  Really?  This is news to me.  He had a big hand in making 4e.

4es advertising is probably what he means. Some of them were pretty negative to AD&D, BX, etc. Its that negative advertising that turned some away.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916156OK, two things.  First, I have to ask, if that's why 4e failed, then why did 1e-2e AD&D do so well?  Both editions were made and published by people who hated D&D.  And second, Mike Mearls hates D&D?  Really?  This is news to me.  He had a big hand in making 4e.

Regardless of the attitudes of the design teams in both eras. The team in charge of AD&D after Gygax left still kept on using the same system. While AD&D 2e was a different edition it was more or less "cleaned up" version of AD&D. Modules and supplements were easily used in between them as well as with BECMI D&D.

With D&D 4e in contrast, all pretense of compatibility was dropped. Pundit claims it because the designers hated classic D&D and D&D 3.X, my opinion is the extreme example of what happen when somebody who wants to "fix" D&D to make it better has a free hand and that designer narrowly focuses on that vision to exclusion of all.

That type of product can work but not for a publisher aiming to maximize their share of the market. RPGs always been a swiss army knife especially D&D. D&D 4e has specific vision of how to play an RPGs and that vision doesn't appeal as widely as classic D&D and 3.0 did.

Quote from: Omega;9161684es advertising is probably what he means. Some of them were pretty negative to AD&D, BX, etc. Its that negative advertising that turned some away.

The thing is, 3rd Edition advertising was also negative at spots. And 4E's initial ads were actually hardest on 3E. I think there were missteps, but it had more to do with using the same style in a much different environment, and going for dramatic changes when the market was moving in a more conservative direction.

Quote from: RPGPundit;916147That was the key: 4e sold well before anyone had the chance to actually read it. Only a few of us had sufficient understanding of what was going on to realize it was going to be a disaster even before the release, most gamers just 'have' to get the new edition.

To be fair, Wizards was very forthright about what 4E would look like via the Wizards Presents: Races and Classes and Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters books, which were released well in advance of 4E's Core Rulebooks being released (specifically, the two books came out in December of 2007 and January of 2008, respectively). Both books were very forthcoming regarding the changes that were made, and went into some detail about the how's and why's. True, the reasoning was slanted (in that it went on at length about why these changes were "better"), but it put 4E's nature front-and-center for any who cared to look before the edition formally debuted.

Quote from: RPGPundit;916147That was the key: 4e sold well before anyone had the chance to actually read it. Only a few of us had sufficient understanding of what was going on to realize it was going to be a disaster even before the release, most gamers just 'have' to get the new edition.

Raises hand.

I bought the 3 4e core books sight unseen because of course I was going to get them, it was the new edition of D&D. Then I got home and opened them up and was: "huh?...wha?..." I suspect the initial strong sales were driven by quite a few people like me.

Quote from: estar;916173That type of product can work but not for a publisher aiming to maximize their share of the market. RPGs always been a swiss army knife especially D&D. D&D 4e has specific vision of how to play an RPGs and that vision doesn't appeal as widely as classic D&D and 3.0 did.

Pretty much this. I really like 4E. I only started playing it once the D&D Next playtest was in full swing, so I wasn't emotionally invested in its success or failure. The game does what it sets out to do - provide an engaging and carefully calibrated fantasy tactical system - very well. And the Essentials line is the best-presented RPG in terms of ease of use at the table that I've ever played. By far.

But 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.

Quote from: Haffrung;916206Pretty much this. I really like 4E. I only started playing it once the D&D Next playtest was in full swing, so I wasn't emotionally invested in its success or failure. The game does what it sets out to do - provide an engaging and carefully calibrated fantasy tactical system - very well. And the Essentials line is the best-presented RPG in terms of ease of use at the table that I've ever played. By far.

But 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.

   It does have high regard among those who like what it tried to do. I think it's a good game that had parameters that could have worked, but suffered from being done at the wrong time and got hit by a whole bunch of other problems.

   The feeling I got from 4E, following it all the way through the promotion and launch, was that it was trying to a) freshen up the game and b) be the kind of game that people who were sold on it in the fantasy boom of the early- to mid-80s thought they were getting. The problem was, they ran up against a market that wanted D&D to be familiar, and was showing a resurgence of interest in how the game was played and experienced by the initiates in the mid-70s to mid-80s.

   When you combine that with all the other problems it had--requiring heavy investment at the start of the Great Recession, the collapse of DDI, the problems of H1 and the deeper problems it symbolized (a good number of design staff didn't get the game), the alienation of many fans with the withdrawal of licenses, the fact that the core books and many early supplements ranged from difficult-to-read to downright dry, the immediate startup of a competitor who could tap into both compatibility and the hobby's consistent anti-establishment sentiments--it's almost a wonder the game held on as long as it did.

   Most of the complaints I see nowadays are those who think it's not close enough to traditional D&D, those who dislike the heavy investment and slower pace, and Pundit, who is sui generis and whose arrogance and wrath may well be inflamed by sinister preternatural influences.

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 (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotCMarketResearchSummary.html). We also have two analyses of this data, one by Sean K. Reynolds (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html) and another by Steven Conan Trustrum (http://trustrum.com/wotc-market-research/).

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 (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotCMarketResearchSummary.html). We also have two analyses of this data, one by Sean K. Reynolds (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html) and another by Steven Conan Trustrum (http://trustrum.com/wotc-market-research/).

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"

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.  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.

Well it depends on who you ask; I mean, look at the current election.  Some poll or the other came out a couple of weeks ago, and suddenly Trump who had been in the cellar was at +3.  The pollster quickly went to Twitter and said "Oh we sampled that wrong, we'll re-sample it" and did it with Democrats +9 and suddenly Hillary was back out in the lead.  (NOTE: BOTH SIDES DO THIS I DO NOT WANT TO TALK POLITICS I AM ONLY USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE OF CORRUPTING DATA TO FIT A CERTAIN NARRATIVE)

Well, if you have a certain way you want D&D to go and you're a head designer, who are you going to ask about what people do or don't like in D&D?  Those who already like your ideas or those who don't?  

But to return to what I said: if 4e had been released as a "D&D Tactics" game, it might have not been so dismal.  So dreary, and tiresome.  A clean-slate 5e approach (or not, if you think 5e is a throwback game as many 4E WAS OBJECTIVELY THE BEST D&D EVER! people shriek) to the actual RPG and a quick but painless "retirement" of 4e nee "D&D tactics" might have served gamers better.

Oh and the public flogging of whomever created the 4e ad campaign.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916384Am 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.

Also don't forget that 1999 we didn't have anything close to the amount of social media that we enjoy today. Facebook, YouTube, plethora of on-line forums (I understand they existed in 99, just not to the extend as they do now or even in 08') and things like Amazon reviews. Heck Paizo forums already had a Ban 4e/WotC threads going on even before 4e came out as a system. And if anyone was interested in looking at what 4e had to offer, you didn't need to go to the store to look at the book or even play it to see if it was "good" or not. You could get all your review strictly from what people were saying on YouTube or read the reviews on Amazon. They were not good nor were they, IMO, great representations of what the game was or could do.

Now that doesn't mean that 4e and WotC doesn't deserve a LOAD of criticism, because it does, it's just that I feel a good portion of people's perspective about the game (That it's an MMO on paper, for example) was usually an ill-formed opinion formed primarily by the interior design of the book and hear-say by the larger online community. WotC DID do a lot of stupid stuff to help alienate their fans, from cutting Dungeon/Dragon print to a completely on-line subscription done ONLY in house, to the promises of a VTT (regardless if it was due to a tragic affair), to a dumb video featuring a french guy bashing on previous editions, and a completely terrible GSL that no 3PP in their right might would touch. Then there was the Dungeons and Dragons Insider which, even though I'm still a subscriber to, didn't help their product sales in the least. All any group had to do was pay one of their friends a few bucks a month ($2-$4) and you had instant access to ALL classes, races, templates, monsters, traps, etc. plus the Character Builder AND DM tools that helps create more monsters. I mean I could save up to 20 some characters in 1 account (more if I exported them onto the computer) without ever touching a book. Think about what would've happened to 3rd Edition of EVERY single resources was available online with a single subscription and you didn't have to buy one book! How exactly would that have grown their sales?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916384What 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.

Yeah, that's been my experiences too. We want change, but only so much or only specific things or the ENTIRE thing is terrible!!! 4e did a LOT of stuff to "fix" perceived problems that the previous edition created. Fighters and non-magical classes in general were terrible after 7th level and item dependent throughout and 4e changed the game to fix that. Spell casters were terribly overpowered with too many spells and 4e fixed that. People wanted to play uncommon races like half-dragons, Drow, Minotaurs, and Vampires and 4e fixed it so that these options were more inline with traditional ones like humans and dwarves. And then there's the tactical gameplay that, at least in my experiences, is pretty similar to 3rd Edition. I mean the encounter layout has been pretty much the same since 3.5 adventures and haven't changed over much with 4e.  But obviously the fixes, even though they were asked for, weren't liked when they were applied. But maybe 5e has hit the nail on the head in balancing the "Fixes" with maintaining tradition.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;916442Well it depends on who you ask; I mean, look at the current election.  Some poll or the other came out a couple of weeks ago, and suddenly Trump who had been in the cellar was at +3.  The pollster quickly went to Twitter and said "Oh we sampled that wrong, we'll re-sample it" and did it with Democrats +9 and suddenly Hillary was back out in the lead.  (NOTE: BOTH SIDES DO THIS I DO NOT WANT TO TALK POLITICS I AM ONLY USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE OF CORRUPTING DATA TO FIT A CERTAIN NARRATIVE)

Well, if you have a certain way you want D&D to go and you're a head designer, who are you going to ask about what people do or don't like in D&D?  Those who already like your ideas or those who don't?  

But to return to what I said: if 4e had been released as a "D&D Tactics" game, it might have not been so dismal.  So dreary, and tiresome.  A clean-slate 5e approach (or not, if you think 5e is a throwback game as many 4E WAS OBJECTIVELY THE BEST D&D EVER! people shriek) to the actual RPG and a quick but painless "retirement" of 4e nee "D&D tactics" might have served gamers better.

Oh and the public flogging of whomever created the 4e ad campaign.

I think that idea might have flown. Unfortunately, I think many at WotC/Hasbro may have felt that the OGL had already split the market more than they wanted and that 4e was an attempt to rein some of that in. That is pure speculation on my part, however.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;916442But to return to what I said: if 4e had been released as a "D&D Tactics" game, it might have not been so dismal.  So dreary, and tiresome.  

Nah, what really needed to happen was 4e released as a computer game. The whole thing was built from the ground up to be a computer game, all that complexity that made table play such a drag would have been trivially handled by a computer.

That's easily the biggest sin of 4e: no 4e based computer games.

Quote from: Doom;916478Nah, what really needed to happen was 4e released as a computer game. The whole thing was built from the ground up to be a computer game, all that complexity that made table play such a drag would have been trivially handled by a computer.

That's easily the biggest sin of 4e: no 4e based computer games.

Yeah, IDGI.  TSR handed D&D off to SSI, the D&D games sold like hotcakes, the Baldur's Gate series was probably one of the best received RPGs ever, and so on, but I don't think there have been 1/10th of the number of computer games based on 3e as there were on 1e and 2e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916384Am 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.



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.

Does what you said in any way shape or form relate, cross-reference or mention in any way a version of an RPG published by TSR?  Yes, so according to Brady's Law, by definition, you are wrong.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;916520Yeah, IDGI.  TSR handed D&D off to SSI, the D&D games sold like hotcakes, the Baldur's Gate series was probably one of the best received RPGs ever, and so on, but I don't think there have been 1/10th of the number of computer games based on 3e as there were on 1e and 2e.

Thats partially because near the end TSR partialed out the IP to a couple of PC and console game makers. WOTC had to sort that out and 16 years later is STILL sorting out some of the aftermath.

SSI stopped making the D&D games because TSR upped the licensing fee. Least thats what SSI staff told us way back.

So you had one company with Birthright, one with Ravenloft, one with Dark Sun, one with Dragon Dice, and on and on. And in at least one case they licesnsed off the same IP to two different companies which got them in some trouble.

Quote from: CRKrueger;916526Does what you said in any way shape or form relate, cross-reference or mention in any way a version of an RPG published by TSR?  Yes, so according to Brady's Law, by definition, you are wrong.

Actually hes covering alot of eras in that post and is right on several points.

Surveys may say people want change. The proof is the customers dont. Otherwise we would not have the numerous stories of campaigns lasting years, or DMs running the same system for decades.

And yeah there is/was a faction in OSR who were pretty nutty. Gronan's mentioned his run ins with them. Others have mentioned it too. But I dont think the whole OSR community is like that no more than I think the whole of the OSR community are flat out thieves and crooks. Some are. but thats not representative of the whole.

So we still have only three brown books in the RPG Industry made by TSR...oh no wait.  Kinda looks like people may have welcomed some change somewhere along the line, huh?  Some people stay in the same job, or stay married to the same person their entire adult lives, others may not, but neither one has to have anything to do with "wanting change", which is such a vague term as to be meaningless.  

If you don't like a game, then those people who play it are hanging onto it trying to recapture their youth and some golden age, the fools.
If you like a game, then those people who try a different game are chasing the new thing, trying to prove they're still young and find some golden age, the fools.

Or, humans just like things, or not like things, or feel like trying things, or don't feel like trying things.

Whichever.

Channeling the ghost of Chris today?

I'm going to be honest CRKrueger, I can sense the snark, but I can't even tell who it's directed at.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;916561I'm going to be honest CRKrueger, I can sense the snark, but I can't even tell who it's directed at.

Directed at...The concept of..."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."

No one can like or dislike anything anymore, motive is always suspect.  Yeah there's grumpy old bastards, and there's fashionable hipsters, and then there's everyone in between.  Hell, even the groggiest of grognards, Old Geezer himself, has played Dungeon World.

The OSR can't just be people who said, "You know what, 3,3.5,4 they made a whole bunch of changes.  There was nothing really wrong with the older game, hey, let's still play it."  There always has to be the "right way it was done back then" bullshit, the "OSR Taliban" or "D&D Talmud" crap, the "Gygaxian Worship" horseshit, all the petty little sneering dismissals Gamers need to use to distinguish themselves as a higher form of geek.

Quote from: Omega;916549Channeling the ghost of Chris today?

I dunno, look at the industry, the success of 5th and tell me that the "Proof" is that customers don't want change.  FFG didn't repackage West End Games' d6 system for Star Wars - doesn't really seem to be hurting them, does it?

There are people who play one game only, there are people who try every new game.

"Surveys may say people want change. The proof is the customers dont." is just one of those False Common Wisdom things that gets bandied about without thinking too hard.  If I play in your campaign for 10 years it's because your campaign is good, if I leave it's because it's not.  Neither has anything to do with any specific "desire for change".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916384Am 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.

You are right and wrong. Forums didn't take off until after the release of 3e. Before that it was newsgroups, gopher, ftp sites, AOL, and custom built websites. Seeded from all the stuff done on dial-up Compuserve, Genie, and AoL.

I regularly participated back then and there was plenty of roleplaying discussion among those who were on-line. And it was enough that TSR took notice and behaved like an ass.

Traveller fandom also made every use of the early internet as well.

Quote from: Harlock;916474I think that idea might have flown. Unfortunately, I think many at WotC/Hasbro may have felt that the OGL had already split the market more than they wanted and that 4e was an attempt to rein some of that in. That is pure speculation on my part, however.

The reliable antedotes I have seen was that there was a faction within Wizards design staff during the 3e era that HATED the OGL . They got the upper hand when 4e was developed. Apparently not everybody at Wizards was on board with Dancey and Atkinson and their vision of the RPG industry.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916384And 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.

Horseshit, show me where it is a cult.

Quote from: CRKrueger;916566"Surveys may say people want change. The proof is the customers dont." is just one of those False Common Wisdom things that gets bandied about without thinking too hard.  If I play in your campaign for 10 years it's because your campaign is good, if I leave it's because it's not.  Neither has anything to do with any specific "desire for change".

Right. The fact that 3e, a major overhaul of the system, was enthusiastically received by the majority of gamers and ushered in a new golden age for D&D doesn't exactly support the contention that we're a bunch of stick-in-the-muds who refuse to try anything new. When I started to move away from 3e (first to Castles and Crusades and then to AD&D and OSR stuff) it was because of issues that we noticed after a few years of playing, not because 3e wasn't the Pure Primordial True D&D.

Quote from: CRKrueger;916563The OSR can't just be people who said, "You know what, 3,3.5,4 they made a whole bunch of changes.  There was nothing really wrong with the older game, hey, let's still play it."  There always has to be the "right way it was done back then" bullshit, the "OSR Taliban" or "D&D Talmud" crap, the "Gygaxian Worship" horseshit,

So if I am reading this correctly, you are upset the instead of the OSR simply being a fandom of a specific style of gaming and rules which support it, it instead seems to be a form of tribalism, complete with loyalty oaths and a sense of superiority towards those outside of ones own tribe? Correct?

Quoteall the petty little sneering dismissals Gamers need to use to distinguish themselves as a higher form of geek.

Well yes. That's true and will always be the case. Since nothing makes gamers happier than alienating those who we should be seeking as allies. Rome has us surrounded and is starving us out. Nothing better to do than break into each other's grain stores and burn them. :-P

Quote from: Willie the Duck;916593So if I am reading this correctly, you are upset the instead of the OSR simply being a fandom of a specific style of gaming and rules which support it, it instead seems to be a form of tribalism, complete with loyalty oaths and a sense of superiority towards those outside of ones own tribe? Correct?

No...railing against the idiotic narrative that the OSR is some form of grumpy old bastard tribal cult worshipping Gygax and consulting the old texts like some Talmudic Taliban.

That's just the K&KA. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;916598That's just the K&KA. :D

Grumpy yes talmudic not so much. That occurs over on the OD&D discussion Forum and the Ruins of Mirkhill forum. And those two are probably the most polite out the entire OSR.

Also K&KA has mellowed out considerably over the years.

Talking about grumpy tribalist OSR crowd. Man you should've seen the FORGE people on this side of the pond when OSR became cool amongst the indie game purists , and them later discovering the "Old School Manifesto"... and proclaimed Raggi the One True Lord and Saviour just months after having raged againt the "offensive sexism" of LotFP. And people claiming "You know B/X D&D is not TRUE D&D, according to The Manifesto, TRUE D&D don't have spot checks".
��

Quote from: CRKrueger;916563Directed at...The concept of..."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."

No one can like or dislike anything anymore, motive is always suspect.  Yeah there's grumpy old bastards, and there's fashionable hipsters, and then there's everyone in between.  Hell, even the groggiest of grognards, Old Geezer himself, has played Dungeon World.

The OSR can't just be people who said, "You know what, 3,3.5,4 they made a whole bunch of changes.  There was nothing really wrong with the older game, hey, let's still play it."  There always has to be the "right way it was done back then" bullshit, the "OSR Taliban" or "D&D Talmud" crap, the "Gygaxian Worship" horseshit, all the petty little sneering dismissals Gamers need to use to distinguish themselves as a higher form of geek.

Preach it. It's the thing I hate most about our shared hobby; people thinking their game, their style, their choices are better because that's what they prefer and by golly it must be better for everyone else. People can't seem to leave each other alone and support their choices, instead they have to criticize everyone who is different.

Quote from: CRKrueger;916566I dunno, look at the industry, the success of 5th and tell me that the "Proof" is that customers don't want change.  FFG didn't repackage West End Games' d6 system for Star Wars - doesn't really seem to be hurting them, does it?

There are people who play one game only, there are people who try every new game.

"Surveys may say people want change. The proof is the customers dont." is just one of those False Common Wisdom things that gets bandied about without thinking too hard.  If I play in your campaign for 10 years it's because your campaign is good, if I leave it's because it's not.  Neither has anything to do with any specific "desire for change".

When the surveys say what they want, and only when they want it. Yes. We've seen this used time and again.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;916156OK, two things.  First, I have to ask, if that's why 4e failed, then why did 1e-2e AD&D do so well?  Both editions were made and published by people who hated D&D.  And second, Mike Mearls hates D&D?  Really?  This is news to me.  He had a big hand in making 4e.

Mike Mearls doesn't hate D&D. He wasn't behind the 4e design, by the time he was in charge it was already a done thing. And the people I was referring to as 'despising D&D' were the Forge gang. I think you know that, though.

1e was Gygax. He didn't hate D&D.  2e was created at the time that TSR was being run by someone who didn't give a fuck about D&D one way or the other, but the people who actually designed 2e's rules didn't hate D&D.  2e's eventually failings (not really as a rule-set but as a product) were due to the work of said person who didn't give a fuck about D&D and who had zero ideas and contempt for gamers.

Quote from: RPGPundit;9172102e's eventually failings (not really as a rule-set but as a product) were due to the work of said person who didn't give a fuck about D&D and who had zero ideas and contempt for gamers.

Oh Loraine had ideas. They just happened to be ideas to line her pockets specifically. Not TSRs. First thing she did when taken on to help TSR was give herself a pay raise. She used TSRs printing to put out a Buck Rogers coffee table compilation that she got the royalties on from TSR. She allmost certainly got the royalties on the two BR RPGs, PC games, comics and novels as well.