4th Edition's impact and success compared to 3.0/3.5 - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

4th Edition's impact and success compared to 3.0/3.5

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
DarkLordBrannon
Dec 14, 2011 15:45:36 As I'm only familiar with 3.0 and 3.5, I was curious if 4th edition is selling as well as the previous edition and if it really is reaching a broader fanbase? I don't have anything against 4th personally, it's just that I have so much invested in 3.5 (and I'm also heavily into Neverwinter Nights 1&2) I don't as yet feel the need to change. I think my love of multiclassing and building 3.0/3.5 characters is what appeals to me most.
#2
pluisjen
Dec 14, 2011 15:47:50
I think my love of multiclassing and building 3.0/3.5 characters is what appeals to me most.

4e doesn't have much of that. Building characters is a lot more straightforward and being useful is a lot easier, while being super-powerful is practically impossible. So if drawing up characters is your thing, 3.5e is probably better for you.

As for reaching a broader fanbase... I've convinced a lot of people to play 4e with me, people of whom I'm pretty sure I would not be able to play 3.5e due to the high system mastery and time investment requirements. My girlfriend also managed to figure out 4e in about 3 months, while never really "getting" 3e even after playing for 2 years. Most likely, again, due to the required system mastery.
#3
Garthanos
Dec 14, 2011 19:04:21
[ So if drawing up characters is your thing, 3.5e is probably better for you.

Not necessarily I love creating characters and 4e is exactly where I like to do it. When I feel like optimizing (In part because I dont feel guilty that I am going to create a punpun/CoDzilla) or reflavoring (Its more easilly distinguished what I can spice up) its all scrumptious.

Oh and when I create a character in 4e I definitely feel encouraged to be also thinking of them in terms of their place in a team... which gives me more warm fuzzies.
#42
thecasualoblivion
Dec 16, 2011 10:15:23
Casual - you are using the same hostile language that you accuse Einlanzer of using. Not helping your case much. Sounds like you have an axe to grind.

And your point is what? I am hostile, and I have an axe to grind. I freely admit that and unlike a lot of people I don't pretend to be otherwise. It doesn't make me wrong, simply honest.

I don't like it when people pgame gamer politics and pretendto be innocent.

#43
Cyber-Dave
Dec 16, 2011 10:20:33
You can stick me on the list of people who thinks that Einlanzer wrote a fairly even keeled post and thecasualoblivion is going out fighting windmills. I actually find much of thecasualoblivion's second last post to be specious. It is convincing on the surface, but when you go back and compare it to Einlanzer’s post it becomes clear that thecasualoblivion is performing a massive mischaracterization. For example, despite thecasualoblivion’s claim, Einlanzer never calls 4e “butchering.” He says, “The butchering done to the FR setting.” He is complaining about a setting, not an edition. That is not the same thing. He minces no words in stating that he dislikes what was done to that setting. He also states, quite clearly, more than once, that he likes 4e and prefers it to 3e. That is not edtion warring. That is honestly stating your preferences. You are not edition warring when you say that you don't like something an edition has done. You are edition warring when you attack someone for their subjective tastes (the way thecasualoblivion just has).

I also take major issues with the way thecasualoblivion claims that calling 4e “board-gamey” is edition warring. What a total load of hogwash! It is widely acknowledged that 4e falls on the gamist side of the simulation-narrative-game triangle. Einlanzer did not say that 4e is just a board game. He clearly calls it a roleplaying game. He simply stated that it has a board-gamey feel and that some players took issue with that. It seems to me that the intonation merely calls the game more gamist than previous editions of D&D while simultaneously calling upon a critique on the resulting feel of the game that many people have made of 4e. While the bit about it having a board-gamey feel is subjective, his sentiment is widely shared even among the game’s fans.

For that matter, I think it has a board-gamey feel too. That is one of my major problems with 4e. I hate 3e. I like 4e quite a bit. But its board-gamey feel, a subjective feeling induced in me by its heavy reliance on miniatures, boards, square counting, and grid-based tactics (as opposed to narrative bonuses), burnt me out of the edition for quite a lengthy period of time. Only now is my interest in playing another game of 4e starting to pique again, and I still prefer the overall system of WFRPG 3e due to its more map-less/narrative approach (note, many people find that game to be “board-gamey” as well. It seems that I enjoy board-gamey games as 2/3 of my favourite systems, 4e, WFRPG 3e, and Eclipse Phase, are called board-gamey). I am not edition warring when I say that.

I am not going to go over the rest of the issues I have with thecasualoblivion’s post. I don’t really have the time and I don’t care enough. I just wanted to throw in my towel with Einlanzer on this topic.
#44
Dranack
Dec 16, 2011 10:27:04
Casual - you are using the same hostile language that you accuse Einlanzer of using. Not helping your case much. Sounds like you have an axe to grind.

And your point is what? I am hostile, and I have an axe to grind. I freely admit that and unlike a lot of people I don't pretend to be otherwise. It doesn't make me wrong, simply honest.

I don't like it when people pgame gamer politics and pretendto be innocent.

Should we respect your opinion for being hostile and honest? Honesty doesn't give you carte blanche to run over manners.
#45
mellored
Dec 16, 2011 11:25:25 1) 4e sales figures are less then 3.5, but it doesn't include insider. MANY people "buy" the books though it.
2) 4e is more accessable then 3.5. It may have failed to bring alot of D&D'er over, but it has picked up alot of new players.
#46
Vaeron
Dec 16, 2011 12:03:15 There are certain forum members who come into threads they don't like hoping to cause arguments and get the thread closed. It's best not to even engage them, and instead focus on constructive conversation.

The Amazon bestseller list shows how things are selling there, but that of course doesn't include all the sales that take place in game stores. So it's impossible really to know how 4e is selling, but plenty of people do play it.
#47
Garthanos
Dec 16, 2011 12:15:00
There are certain forum members who come into threads they don't like hoping to cause arguments and get the thread closed. It's best not to even engage them, and instead focus on constructive conversation.

The Amazon bestseller list shows how things are selling there, but that of course doesn't include all the sales that take place in game stores. So it's impossible really to know how 4e is selling, but plenty of people do play it.

It also doesnt say how things are selling at Walmart or Target.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 DarkLordBrannon Dec 14, 2011 15:45:36	As I'm only familiar with 3.0 and 3.5, I was curious if 4th edition is selling as well as the previous edition and if it really is reaching a broader fanbase? I don't have anything against 4th personally, it's just that I have so much invested in 3.5 (and I'm also heavily into Neverwinter Nights 1&2) I don't as yet feel the need to change. I think my love of multiclassing and building 3.0/3.5 characters is what appeals to me most.
#2 pluisjen Dec 14, 2011 15:47:50	I think my love of multiclassing and building 3.0/3.5 characters is what appeals to me most. 4e doesn't have much of that. Building characters is a lot more straightforward and being useful is a lot easier, while being super-powerful is practically impossible. So if drawing up characters is your thing, 3.5e is probably better for you. As for reaching a broader fanbase... I've convinced a lot of people to play 4e with me, people of whom I'm pretty sure I would not be able to play 3.5e due to the high system mastery and time investment requirements. My girlfriend also managed to figure out 4e in about 3 months, while never really "getting" 3e even after playing for 2 years. Most likely, again, due to the required system mastery.
#3 Garthanos Dec 14, 2011 19:04:21	[ So if drawing up characters is your thing, 3.5e is probably better for you. Not necessarily I love creating characters and 4e is exactly where I like to do it. When I feel like optimizing (In part because I dont feel guilty that I am going to create a punpun/CoDzilla) or reflavoring (Its more easilly distinguished what I can spice up) its all scrumptious. Oh and when I create a character in 4e I definitely feel encouraged to be also thinking of them in terms of their place in a team... which gives me more warm fuzzies.
#42 thecasualoblivion Dec 16, 2011 10:15:23	Casual - you are using the same hostile language that you accuse Einlanzer of using. Not helping your case much. Sounds like you have an axe to grind. And your point is what? I am hostile, and I have an axe to grind. I freely admit that and unlike a lot of people I don't pretend to be otherwise. It doesn't make me wrong, simply honest. I don't like it when people pgame gamer politics and pretendto be innocent.
#43 Cyber-Dave Dec 16, 2011 10:20:33	You can stick me on the list of people who thinks that Einlanzer wrote a fairly even keeled post and thecasualoblivion is going out fighting windmills. I actually find much of thecasualoblivion's second last post to be specious. It is convincing on the surface, but when you go back and compare it to Einlanzer’s post it becomes clear that thecasualoblivion is performing a massive mischaracterization. For example, despite thecasualoblivion’s claim, Einlanzer never calls 4e “butchering.” He says, “The butchering done to the FR setting.” He is complaining about a setting, not an edition. That is not the same thing. He minces no words in stating that he dislikes what was done to that setting. He also states, quite clearly, more than once, that he likes 4e and prefers it to 3e. That is not edtion warring. That is honestly stating your preferences. You are not edition warring when you say that you don't like something an edition has done. You are edition warring when you attack someone for their subjective tastes (the way thecasualoblivion just has). I also take major issues with the way thecasualoblivion claims that calling 4e “board-gamey” is edition warring. What a total load of hogwash! It is widely acknowledged that 4e falls on the gamist side of the simulation-narrative-game triangle. Einlanzer did not say that 4e is just a board game. He clearly calls it a roleplaying game. He simply stated that it has a board-gamey feel and that some players took issue with that. It seems to me that the intonation merely calls the game more gamist than previous editions of D&D while simultaneously calling upon a critique on the resulting feel of the game that many people have made of 4e. While the bit about it having a board-gamey feel is subjective, his sentiment is widely shared even among the game’s fans. For that matter, I think it has a board-gamey feel too. That is one of my major problems with 4e. I hate 3e. I like 4e quite a bit. But its board-gamey feel, a subjective feeling induced in me by its heavy reliance on miniatures, boards, square counting, and grid-based tactics (as opposed to narrative bonuses), burnt me out of the edition for quite a lengthy period of time. Only now is my interest in playing another game of 4e starting to pique again, and I still prefer the overall system of WFRPG 3e due to its more map-less/narrative approach (note, many people find that game to be “board-gamey” as well. It seems that I enjoy board-gamey games as 2/3 of my favourite systems, 4e, WFRPG 3e, and Eclipse Phase, are called board-gamey). I am not edition warring when I say that. I am not going to go over the rest of the issues I have with thecasualoblivion’s post. I don’t really have the time and I don’t care enough. I just wanted to throw in my towel with Einlanzer on this topic.
#44 Dranack Dec 16, 2011 10:27:04	Casual - you are using the same hostile language that you accuse Einlanzer of using. Not helping your case much. Sounds like you have an axe to grind. And your point is what? I am hostile, and I have an axe to grind. I freely admit that and unlike a lot of people I don't pretend to be otherwise. It doesn't make me wrong, simply honest. I don't like it when people pgame gamer politics and pretendto be innocent. Should we respect your opinion for being hostile and honest? Honesty doesn't give you carte blanche to run over manners.
#45 mellored Dec 16, 2011 11:25:25	1) 4e sales figures are less then 3.5, but it doesn't include insider. MANY people "buy" the books though it. 2) 4e is more accessable then 3.5. It may have failed to bring alot of D&D'er over, but it has picked up alot of new players.
#46 Vaeron Dec 16, 2011 12:03:15	There are certain forum members who come into threads they don't like hoping to cause arguments and get the thread closed. It's best not to even engage them, and instead focus on constructive conversation. The Amazon bestseller list shows how things are selling there, but that of course doesn't include all the sales that take place in game stores. So it's impossible really to know how 4e is selling, but plenty of people do play it.
#47 Garthanos Dec 16, 2011 12:15:00	There are certain forum members who come into threads they don't like hoping to cause arguments and get the thread closed. It's best not to even engage them, and instead focus on constructive conversation. The Amazon bestseller list shows how things are selling there, but that of course doesn't include all the sales that take place in game stores. So it's impossible really to know how 4e is selling, but plenty of people do play it. It also doesnt say how things are selling at Walmart or Target.