But game appreciation is empirical!
There is absolutely no reason for any 3rd party company to switch to 4e - most especially Paizo - WotC has made it abundantly clear that they want full control of anything produced under the 4e banner, and no company in its right mind will agree to that, considering that at least ½ the current fanbase intend on sticking with 3e.
That's a bold claim. Do you have a source? I hope you're not just going by the results of Paizo's poll. Since that was a poll of Paizo customers, it was about as meaningful as the number of people that downloaded the Pathfinder RPG. That is to say, not meaningful at all.
But game appreciation is empirical!
Death to the empire...er wait...that's not right.
I was going to reply to things people had written but when I got to fifty points I realised I'd just have to write my own post.
I think Erik Mona is right (and I'm pleased that it is his position). There's no sense in Paizo trying to 'own the D&D crown' i.e. become the de-facto inheritor of D&D. In as much as such a thing as D&D inheritance *might* exist, WotC bought it a long time ago from TSR. WotC were subsequently bought by Hasbro so that company, in fact, owns these inheritance rights.
I think this addresses question 2 of the OP.
Personally, I'd like to think that Paizo will be blazing a different path as the name Pathfinder suggests (with better results than that hideous Viking vs Indian affair). And by trailblazing I don't mean without taking the significant legacy of Paizo's prior and current publication quality and as much of the D&D 'inheritance' allowed to Paizo under the OGL. The viability of any proposed future is dictated by the strength of its links to and understanding of the past (apologies to any poststructuralists reading this post).
This, if at all, is where I think WotC may have made an error. As every post in this thread has made abundantly clear, the roleplaying industry is a niche industry which owes its very existence to its hardcore gamer base. Yes; fair-weather friends blow in, buy a book or two, play for a while, and then depart. And that will always happen. But the roleplaying industry is built upon the back of the committed gamer. WotC's general lack of consultation with the reason for its existence (the hardcore gamer) might count against 4e in the medium term future.
Personally, I felt (and continue to feel) disenfranchised by WotC with their decision to write 4e and hence adapt all of the 3.5e material to this new system. I, like nearly everyone on these boards, began playing D&D when 1e was released and have endured the change to 2e, 3e, and then 3.5e. But now, more than at any other time over the past 30+ years, I'm of the opinion (and please, this is just my opinion) that 4e is a blatant 'cash-grab' from the hardcore gamer as well as an attempt to expand the profitability of the brand to the Warhammer/World of Warcraft market (which might be thought, slightly erroneously, to be the teenaged-video-console-online-gaming consumer).
In my mind, such an opinion seems justified by WotC's adamant position of not supporting 3.5e in any way. Of course, it makes perfect commercial sense for a company to not support a system they are phasing out. But this is my point. It is a commercial decision; not a gamers decision. While I respect that people may hold to the argument that WotC have written 4e with the express purpose of producing a system which will better enhance the roleplaying experience, I do not think that 4e represents the type of quantum reworking of the system that 2e was from 1e and certainly 3e was from 2e.
Which is why my answer to question 1 of the OP is this: I believe 4e will be accepted by fans as D&D just as Pathfinder will be accepted by fans as 'D&D'. But Pathfinder has the strong possibility of becoming - through WotC's mostly commercial decision to supersede 3.5e with 4e and made possible by OGL (which WotC must be thinking is the worst decision they have ever made) - the 'spiritual home' of D&D. Put bluntly, Pathfinder might, in the the medium term, become the 'home' for the hardcore gamer who believes WotC 'betrayed' them.
My answer to question 3 of the OP is fairly simple: I don't know if anyone is creating an OGL version of the 4e game mechanics but I can't see that there is much reason for it and, frankly, don't know whether it will even be permitted. I'm led to believe OGL was agreed upon originally so publishing houses independent of WotC could produce their own materials and still have them compatible to 3.5e. I guess WotC saw this as a way of being able to expand their brand on the back of someone else's work - 'funnelling' a portion of someone else's profit into their own coffers. I'm not certain, though, that the executives of WotC/Hasbro understood what the ultimate consequence of the OGL decision would be - which is the unprecedented divergence in the D&D market which is now happening. Essentially, the market is at the point of splitting into two and going their mostly separate ways!
I would have thought WotC wouldn't have wanted this to have ever happened and certainly wouldn't want it to *ever* happen again. Big companies want to have their cake and eat it to, not divide the cake down the middle. Hence OGL does not apply to 4e (and, I've been led to believe, never will) and I'd think that any attempt to produce an ‘OGL 4e version’ of the D&D game mechanics would be met with quite considerable resistance.
I think I have addressed the fifty points I wanted to address but, knowing my luck, I most probably haven't even addressed the 3 OP questions!!
Amazing that Ryan wrote that so long ago. A VERY perceptive and intelligent man it seems.
I doubt many of us could honestly claim to have had any idea back in '06 how the whole 4e release fiasco, with it's many ups and downs, has actually played out so far ... yet Ryan has been on the money down to the arrival of a real contender to fight the evil Empire in Paizo.
Makes me wonder about his 'final preditction', the fall of 4e (or would he refer to it as 'FauxE'?)...
I must say, personally, I am one of those proud grognards who has taken a stance against buying any further wotc produced products (for the forseeable future at least). I just don't like the way they have treated their core customers throughout this whole disaster (and sorry but losing even a quarter of your core customers in one fell swoop is potentially ruinous for any company - assuming it's only a quarter...), and don't see why I would want to reward the kinds of decisions they've been making lately.
I keep reading here and on other gamer boards; 'I'm not going to play 4e personally, but then I'm probably not the target audience'.
What a bizarre idea, that a new edition of D&D should not be aimed directly at experienced and monied gamers!? Who on Earth do Wizards of that there Coast think will be buying their books in future, if not gamers?
If you're a gamer and think you're not the target audience for D&D then either you're wrong and Wizards have just failed to press your buttons, or Wizards are deliberately not trying to produce a game you'll want to play. Which surely can't be the case?
Hey ho, we shall see I suppose. I personally doubt hordes of MMORPG computer gamers will switch to D&D, but I expect Wizard's can subsist on 2 thirds or so of their past market base. I also firmly expect Paizo to go from strength to strength. It's an interesting time to be sure.
|
Erik, thank you for PAIZO's leadership during these times.
When the effective leader is finished with his work, the people say it happened naturally.
- Lao Tse
All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.
- John Kenneth Galbraith, U.S. economist The Age of Uncertainty
3.5 Never Dies.
PRPG Forever!
But game appreciation is empirical!
"Game appreciation is irrelevant. Edition is irrelevant. Your roleplaying will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile..."
:P
...considering that at least ½ the current fanbase intend on sticking with 3e.That's a bold claim. Do you have a source? I hope you're not just going by the results of Paizo's poll. Since that was a poll of Paizo customers, it was about as meaningful as the number of people that downloaded the Pathfinder RPG. That is to say, not meaningful at all.
Agreed. However, most of the polls I've seen on ENWorld indicate that about 40% of the respondents are sticking with 3e, and I think that is pretty meaningful.
3.5 Never Dies.
PRPG Forever!
Which is it?
On the other hand it is wrong in thinking that a system is played out. 1st ed. D&D is still perfectly good system, its dead not because its not good but because someone stoped publishing it.I agree with most of your post except this bit. The older versions of game do work - that is true. That does not mean that they are worth playing. When a game is actually improved then there is no reason to play the older version. I agree that "improved" is often quite subjective, but in general the market will tell a company when its old game needs to be replaced by a new one. Some people still have fun playing 1e. I would guess that most would not given the success of 2e and the bigger success of 3e. Only time will tell if 4e will be a success.
But againthe success is very much due to having no other sorce. My local game store owner still runs a 1st ed. game, house fixes yes, but still runs it and gets a lot of young players into D&D 1st. I'll admit he is a die hard purist but its alive. Moreover your logic has two small flaws to it.
1. The reason Wizards allowed PDF sales of old out of print stuff was becasuse older fans saw enough demand that they bootlegged copies. (Can you imageing destroying your book to scan it? [Cold Chills] Dear Lord I choose Death First.) And these PDF's have remained so the sales must be good enough.
2. The emergance of the ORCIS (spelling?) system and other systems that are re-doing 1st edition. It has fixes like I said nothing in perfect, but it is 1st editon.
Don't get me wrong I never played 1st or 2nd, I was flying my VT in Robotech back then, but the system is alive. Will it ever come back sales wise as whicher ever version of D&D is current, nope, but it has a market.
AS to the success of 4th it will be big but I also see a flaw in Wizards marketing beyond the obvious. They are going after young computer playes, its too differnt of an amimal first off, but by cutting off 3rd. ed. and older players they are not gaining loyal players. AS the game develops, as all games do, I very much doubt if these new players will stick around. Most 2nd Ed. players who stuck around for 3rd stayed for the duration. Wizards lost most 3rd. ed. players with the marketing fiasico, and I don't think new players will stick around and be loyal to the brand. So the sucess might be short lived.
Which is it?3.5 Never Dies.
PRPG Forever!
Most likely Neither and Both.
Offically 3.5 is dead but will go on as long as the SRD is around, hece forever.
On the other hand Pathfider being at its core SRD, will also be forever.
An open letter to Paizo, and one to Wizards of the Coast, sent by e-mail to each, and accompanied by a notice from Amazon.com documenting my cancellation of my order for the 4e rulebooks:
TO PAIZO: Paizo and 4 ed "D&D"
Hello folks at Paizo!
I want to say thank you!!! -- a million times -- for your ingenuity, creativity, and hard work at publishing quality d20 products. I also want to share with you an e-mail I sent to Wizards of the Coast, which expresses sentiments that are shared by many, many gamers, as I am sure you know. I also sent to WotC my cancellation notice from Amazon, for the 4e rulebooks -- I have vowed never to spend a dime on WotC products again, given their shoddy craftsmanship and puerile nature.
I want to encourage you to continue to support 3.5 e, and D&D as it was meant to be. WotC has advocated the throne. Paizo is the heir apparent to D&D!
Thank you! Please keep up the good work -- and let 4e die in peace, as it soon will.
Michael Willers
TO WOTC
Dear Wizards,
I hate to do this, but I feel like my opinion -- and those of others who, like me, are significantly disappointed -- should be heard. I have been playing AD&D for over 25 years. I started with the original Gary Gygax AD&D books. I have become familiar with all the different forms that you have called D&D. For years I have been saddened by the way you have padded the game with fluff, churning out rulebook after poorly written rulebook, with few adventure modules, simply -- it seems -- for point of generating revenue for Hasbro, rather than for a true love of the game.
This 4th edition is horrible. It is not D&D -- it is some other game, a tabletop version of Diablo or World of Warcraft. Gone are the intricacies, subtleties and intelligence of the true D&D that Gygax started. Gone are the choices, the complexities, the multitude of possibilities that Gygax originally wrote into the game. What were you thinking? The 4th edition is a dumbed-down husk of what was once D&D. The language you used to write it -- unlike the language Gygax used -- is demeaning, appropriate for a 2nd grader, not an adult. If you planned to attract hordes of videogame-addicted kids to your game (note that I wrote "your game" and not "D&D") and their (i.e., their parents') dollars to Hasbro, you may succeed. But I think it is important that you know that you are losing those of us intelligent, thoughtful adults who made the game successful from the start -- those who have been with D&D from its infancy. I mourn the death of TSR. I will never again send one dollar toward Wizards. As far as I am concerned, you have killed D&D.
Michael Willers
|
I think Erik Mona is right (and I'm pleased that it is his position). There's no sense in Paizo trying to 'own the D&D crown' i.e. become the de-facto inheritor of D&D. In as much as such a thing as D&D inheritance *might* exist, WotC bought it a long time ago from TSR. WotC were subsequently bought by Hasbro so that company, in fact, owns these inheritance rights.
In a way, they already have. While they will never knock Wotc and Hasbro off their throne, Paizo has already inhertited pretty much the history of D&D. Since 4e and the folks made a clean break away from the past....Paizo defacto inherited it.
|
|
Agreed. However, most of the polls I've seen on ENWorld indicate that about 40% of the respondents are sticking with 3e, and I think that is pretty meaningful.
Not really Internet polls are notoriously bad. Whether for sticking with paizo or going 4e, it really doesnt matter.
However, Erik Mona has said since 4e's announcement, subscriptions for pathfinder have increased every week, and as of now, their number of subscribers is at an all time high in company history.
THAT is much more telling.
TO WOTC
Dear Wizards,
I hate to do this, but I feel like my opinion -- and those of others who, like me, are significantly disappointed -- should be heard. I have been playing AD&D for over 25 years. I started with the original Gary Gygax AD&D books. I have become familiar with all the different forms that you have called D&D. For years I have been saddened by the way you have padded the game with fluff, churning out rulebook after poorly written rulebook, with few adventure modules, simply -- it seems -- for point of generating revenue for Hasbro, rather than for a true love of the game.
This 4th edition is horrible. It is not D&D -- it is some other game, a tabletop version of Diablo or World of Warcraft. Gone are the intricacies, subtleties and intelligence of the true D&D that Gygax started. Gone are the choices, the complexities, the multitude of possibilities that Gygax originally wrote into the game. What were you thinking? The 4th edition is a dumbed-down husk of what was once D&D. The language you.it -- unlike the language Gygax used -- is demeaning, appropriate for a 2nd grader, not an adult. If you planned to attract hordes of videogame-addicted kids to your game (note that I wrote "your game" and not "D&D") and their (i.e., their parents') dollars to Hasbro, you may succeed. But I think it is important that you know that you are losing those of us intelligent, thoughtful adults who made the game successful from the start -- those who have been with D&D from its infancy. I mourn the death of TSR. I will never again send one dollar toward Wizards. As far as I am concerned, you have killed D&D.
Michael Willers
*Begins laughing hysterically*
In a way, they already have. While they will never knock Wotc and Hasbro off their throne, Paizo has already inhertited pretty much the history of D&D. Since 4e and the folks made a clean break away from the past....Paizo defacto inherited it.
I think Erik Mona is right (and I'm pleased that it is his position). There's no sense in Paizo trying to 'own the D&D crown' i.e. become the de-facto inheritor of D&D. In as much as such a thing as D&D inheritance *might* exist, WotC bought it a long time ago from TSR. WotC were subsequently bought by Hasbro so that company, in fact, owns these inheritance rights.
Inherited ... no. D&D was laying in the gutter, tossed aside and forgotten, and Paizo have simply picked it up with their tip of their sword. ;-)
Not really Internet polls are notoriously bad. Whether for sticking with paizo or going 4e, it really doesnt matter.
Agreed. However, most of the polls I've seen on ENWorld indicate that about 40% of the respondents are sticking with 3e, and I think that is pretty meaningful.
I meant "pretty meaningful as compared to the results of a Paizo poll." ENWorld is a very pro-4E place, compared to here. 50% of respondents here admittedly doesn't mean much; 40% of respondents there is much more significant.
And sure, Internet polls are not the most reliable things...but we don't have much else to go on. Sales figures tell you next to nothing, and everybody's "own personal experience" even less.
...Most 2nd Ed. players who stuck around for 3rd stayed for the duration...
I'm not really sure why you feel this way. No one has any real evidence of what the market conditions where like but I think there is a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that 3.5 was loosing players. Message Board traffic seems to have turned up a fair number of people who report having given up on 3.x but are back to check things out.
Also I seem to recall oblique references from WotC employees, again on message boards, that sales of the 3.5 splat books had been in steady decline. Each new release, on average, was doing poorer then the release before it. They seemed to believe that they were loosing market share. Conversely a lot of good games have come out over the last few years and there was a fair bit of buzz coming from these companies along the lines that they were picking up market share. Essentially, that there were significant numbers of players who, bored or disenchanted with 3.5, were checking out games like Savage Worlds and loving it - thus making that game, and others like it, a financial success.
|
Gone are the intricacies, subtleties and intelligence of the true D&D that Gygax started. Gone are the choices, the complexities, the multitude of possibilities that Gygax originally wrote into the game.
I very much admire your passion but this bit is very far off the mark. The rules that Gary Gygax actually wrote were not complex and had very few choices. 3e was the game that brought in all of the attributes you have mentioned. However - 4e has not removed them.
4e does not lack the need for intelligence, nor does it lack subtlety. Those re still very present in the way the game is played.
I understand that you do not like the game. That is reason enough not to buy it. Please do not conflate your preference with some form of objective deficiency in 4e. Some of us enjoy the game and see it as a revitalizing shot in the arm, or simply as a compliment to our continued enjoyment of 3.5 and our anticipation of the Pathfinder RPG.
Please do not conflate your preference with some form of objective deficiency in 4e.
The problem is some people conflate their preference with some form of objective superiority of the game. That's just as bad.
I like 4E. In fact, I'm enjoying the hell out of it. But the pro-4E internet crowd has frankly become embarrassing over at WotC (which is what drove me here, and I'm glad it did - I didn't know about Pathfinder).
I'd hate to see that happen here, but there are good examples here of people who can't take any criticism of 4E, however mild or well-presented, and who have fits if there is even in inference that 4E isn't perfect in its entirety.
...Most 2nd Ed. players who stuck around for 3rd stayed for the duration...I'm not really sure why you feel this way. No one has any real evidence of what the market conditions where like but I think there is a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that 3.5 was loosing players. Message Board traffic seems to have turned up a fair number of people who report having given up on 3.x but are back to check things out.
Also I seem to recall oblique references from WotC employees, again on message boards, that sales of the 3.5 splat books had been in steady decline. Each new release, on average, was doing poorer then the release before it. They seemed to believe that they were loosing market share. Conversely a lot of good games have come out over the last few years and there was a fair bit of buzz coming from these companies along the lines that they were picking up market share. Essentially, that there were significant numbers of players who, bored or disenchanted with 3.5, were checking out games like Savage Worlds and loving it - thus making that game, and others like it, a financial success.
I'll admit this is coming from the gaming community where I'm from, I have three local stores near me, +I know of seven gaming groups of various types. D&D players are a unique bunch. For the record I don't count myself amongst them, as soon as 4th was annouced I dediced I was done not because I thought the game would be bad (though from what little I've seen its not for me) but because I thought okay I did the D&D thing after 10 years of gaming, stuck with it till it was over now I'm moving on.
D&Ders however stick to the game no matter what, even if they stick to only one edition. But those people arn't sticking with 4th, lest not the many I know. Not saying 4th will be a flop mind you, but the people I see very happy about 4th simply don't strike me as the same type of people. Less loyal to the game.
As to the declining sales I'd agree with you whole heartedly, but this waqs due more to what was being put out.
1. Splat books tried to cover too much 3 races, 3 classes, and they failed because nothing was given enough actual good material.
Example: The best ideas for new classes, races, or any combo thereof came from 3PP during 3.0 When 3.5 came out most 3PP decided to make there own OGL system or rulebooks, Wizards said okay, and they produced better Player HandBooks then the Players Handbook.
2. The Dragon part of D&D was way over done.
Example: the Sorc. was best concept for a class I saw, but it wasn't done right, I pictured the Sorc. as eventually becoming something other, as it stood they were at best a multi-class option for a Fighter who wanted some magic. Wizards solution, Dragon type of Class/Race after Dragon type of Class/Race.
3. Then there was the simple fact that Hasbro's logic made less and less sense. OGL amongts other reason came out because the Courts were telling TSR and Wizards you can't copyright a rules system. So they come up with OGL, I thought so they could do what they are doing now, focus on settings, not without Crunch but focused on Fluff. Instead they licensed out Ravenloft, Dragonlance and ignored Darksun and Planescpe, did boring work with FR and created Emberron (one shining good point) But the best settings come from 3PP and the best Crunch. I think the players you are thinking of were players who wanted something differnt in the first place. I like a lot of Savage Worlds stuff, but the system is far too simple. I could go back to storyteller if I wanted that.
4. Then there was the issue of editing. Good lord was it bad during the latter days of 3rd. It got so bad that even I noticed, and I usually are that hard case about such things. It got so bad that over and En World there was talk of some publishers doing PDF Corrections to Wizards new Monsters. Most Reviews gave out 20+ page review with corrections. Sometimes these corrections were given with the warning like (I don't have the book with Duskblade in it but I see it logically the character would have.....) Just for fun I did my own take and yep somebody with I little knowldge or none at all did a better job then Wizards. Most players notice this, and they'll hit the breaking point eventually.
I doubt if Wizards will get better at editing, though some have said that 4th is so boaring and blaa that if you make a book with monster stats no one can say you got it wrong because Wizards can turn around and say, no we were making the monster like this rather thne that. We are wrong you are, then they'd probbly sue you for reviewing the book poorly.
So I stand by what I said, I don't see a lot of 3rd players sticking with 4th, and the new players I simply don't see as bing as loyal.
|
|
Please do not conflate your preference with some form of objective deficiency in 4e.The problem is some people conflate their preference with some form of objective superiority of the game. That's just as bad.
Absolutely! The choice between 3e and 4e is not objective - it is a personal preference. Neither is objectively better than the other.
Absolutely! The choice between 3e and 4e is not objective - it is a personal preference. Neither is objectively better than the other.
I agree. In fact, I like them both :)
I would say that, given the current conditions, 4e is where the vast majority of D&D gamers will be investing their time and money. Folks will play OGL and 3.5 games but that will become a side game for most.
Until they realize one of two things:
1) 4e is not and never will truly be the D&D game they've come to love and cherish the past 3 editions (unless they're brand new to the game, but see my next point). It's so radically different, you end up with people that simply yearn for a "good ol' fashion" D&D game and resort to that once the 4e hype dies down.
2) Both newcomers to the tabletop, the fence sitters, and a few of the optimists will be grinded into dust by the fact that why bother playing a tabletop RPG with so much MMORPG mechanics, gameplay, and style and this very low-budget DDI thing, when they can pay $15/month to get the same satisfaction from World of Warcraft? (oh, and probably the upcoming Diablo 3, that will definitely suck up the 4e market)
As have been stated by the many gamers I've talked to, those new and old to D&D, they don't play D&D to get an MMORPG feel out of it. They play D&D for a different reason and since WotC took that away, 3.5e is where practically all of them are staying until WotC gets its head out of the clouds. They realize WotC is making the huge mistake of competing with companies such as Blizzard and it's not how anyone should be running D&D. We've had a few 4e optimists come into the shop and try to debate the strong points of 4e only to be crushed by half the hobby shop's customers with very valid counters leaving the 4e-lovers speechless.
Even the raw power gamers don't like the 4e feel. "Fireball 1/encounter?" they say. "I was able to throw 20 with a sorcerer in 3e."
4e is going to die and it's going to convulse a lot when it does. I can't wait to watch its death throes so I can throw around the "I told you so" to so many people that don't know a good tabletop game from a Mario Bros. game.
I very much admire your passion but this bit is very far off the mark. The rules that Gary Gygax actually wrote were not complex and had very few choices. 3e was the game that brought in all of the attributes you have mentioned. However - 4e has not removed them.4e does not lack the need for intelligence, nor does it lack subtlety. Those re still very present in the way the game is played.
Can you explain this? Seriously, you really think 4e offers the same options? I can ramble so many restrictions 4e has that 3e doesn't it's enough to make someone's head spin off. Heck, multiclassing and the lack of prestige classes is just two already. (please don't mention paragon paths, they have only one thing in common with prestige classes and that's it, can you take multiple paragon paths or pick and choose abilities from different paths? No. Restrictive. 3e you can attach as many levels as you want from any class or prestige class).
As for the second part, I memorized the 4e rules in one read. I still discover things I forgot about or newly discover in my 3e Player's Handbook even though I read it several times. To me, that's a game with options and some intelligence behind it. 4e reeks of retarded repetitiveness. Seriously, how many powers can you have that shifts, slides, pulls, deals ongoing damage, etc. before it gets completely worn out? I was already worn out by the hypnotic drone of reading the class powers that said the same thing over and over, the only difference being how many squares one shifts or slides or slips or skids or whatever.
|
|
1) 4e is not and never will truly be the D&D game they've come to love and cherish the past 3 editions (unless they're brand new to the game, but see my next point). It's so radically different, you end up with people that simply yearn for a "good ol' fashion" D&D game and resort to that once the 4e hype dies down.
That sounds like wishful thinking rather than a well reasoned argument. I think it more likely that those that love and cherish 3e will not stop playing it. Those that choose to play and adopt it as their system of choice are doing so because they are no longer in love with 3e.
2) Both newcomers to the tabletop, the fence sitters, and a few of the optimists will be grinded into dust by the fact that why bother playing a tabletop RPG with so much MMORPG mechanics, gameplay, and style and this very low-budget DDI thing, when they can pay $15/month to get the same satisfaction from World of Warcraft? (oh, and probably the upcoming Diablo 3, that will definitely suck up the 4e market)
Nope. I play WoW. I play D&D. They are very different no matter how much you would like them to be the same. I play at the table to actually interact with friends. The two games fill two very different niches in my gaming world - one will not replace the other.
As have been stated by the many gamers I've talked to, those new and old to D&D, they don't play D&D to get an MMORPG feel out of it. They play D&D for a different reason and since WotC took that away, 3.5e is where practically all of them are staying until WotC gets its head out of the clouds. They realize WotC is making the huge mistake of competing with companies such as Blizzard and it's not how anyone should be running D&D.
Huh? Blizzard is WotC's only real competition. Why should it suprise you that WotC would go after some of Blizzard's customer base?
We've had a few 4e optimists come into the shop and try to debate the strong points of 4e only to be crushed by half the hobby shop's customers with very valid counters leaving the 4e-lovers speechless.
Yeah, sure. Considering you have not been able to create any form of rational or reasonable argumentation here then I am sure you are much better at it in person.
Even the raw power gamers don't like the 4e feel. "Fireball 1/encounter?" they say. "I was able to throw 20 with a sorcerer in 3e."
Yay! 4e does not appeal to power gamers. I for one am very glad for that improvement.
4e is going to die and it's going to convulse a lot when it does. I can't wait to watch its death throes so I can throw around the "I told you so" to so many people that don't know a good tabletop game from a Mario Bros. game.
Sure, 4e might flop. If it does it won't be due to its relative strengths or weaknesses. If 4e fails it means that the pen and paper RPG industry is in big trouble and you will have won a pyrrhic victory.
|
|
Can you explain this? Seriously, you really think 4e offers the same options? I can ramble so many restrictions 4e has that 3e doesn't it's enough to make someone's head spin off. Heck, multiclassing and the lack of prestige classes is just two already. (please don't mention paragon paths, they have only one thing in common with prestige classes and that's it, can you take multiple paragon paths or pick and choose abilities from different paths? No. Restrictive. 3e you can attach as many levels as you want from any class or prestige class).
Options for multiclassing are still there. Yes, they are not as free form as 3e but they do allow for a great deal of character customization. 4e creates thematic characters that have a sensible path through their adventuring careers. One of the things about 3e that did not fit my gaming preferences was the free for all multiclassing in 3e. I never understood how someone could suddenly become a barbarian after spending years as a bard then suddenly find out you are also a sorceror, no wait a rogue, then a fighter, then ... The pick and choose method of character building is not about options - it's about optimization through cherry picking.
But the real options in 4e come during play and not in character creation. That is the primary difference. In fact there is a fantastic thread about that on this very board.
As for the second part, I memorized the 4e rules in one read. I still discover things I forgot about or newly discover in my 3e Player's Handbook even though I read it several times. To me, that's a game with options and some intelligence behind it. 4e reeks of retarded repetitiveness. Seriously, how many powers can you have that shifts, slides, pulls, deals ongoing damage, etc. before it gets completely worn out? I was already worn out by the hypnotic drone of reading the class powers that said the same thing over and over, the only difference being how many squares one shifts or slides or slips or skids or whatever.
Great! The game is easy to learn. Compare that to the years that you have played 3.5 and you still don't know the rules. I see that as a huge advantage for 4e. My new personal 4e mantra play the role not the rules.
|
|
As for the second part, I memorized the 4e rules in one read. I still discover things I forgot about or newly discover in my 3e Player's Handbook even though I read it several times. To me, that's a game with options and some intelligence behind it. 4e reeks of retarded repetitiveness. Seriously, how many powers can you have that shifts, slides, pulls, deals ongoing damage, etc. before it gets completely worn out? I was already worn out by the hypnotic drone of reading the class powers that said the same thing over and over, the only difference being how many squares one shifts or slides or slips or skids or whatever.
That's our Razz!
*laugh track*
Im sorry do you have a problem with someone expressing there opinion? The man gave his honest opinion and you seem to find it funny?
*Begins laughing hysterically*
Replied to wrong thread, had multiple reply tabs open and I was tired.
As for whether or not WotC can fail - arrogance, poor service, and dictating style of play are part of the sordid tail of the downfall of TSR. So it could happen. But I personally expect them to continue outselling Paizo. Which is fine - if PF RPG got as big as D&D, the company likely wouldn't be as nice to support as it is now.I think there's an excellent chance people will follow quality and good customer service, and make Paizo a very strong brand. The RPG industry could use another top-shelf player, and Paizo's well-poised to join those ranks.
As for whether or not WotC can fail - arrogance, poor service, and dictating style of play are part of the sordid tail of the downfall of TSR. So it could happen. But I personally expect them to continue outselling Paizo. Which is fine - if PF RPG got as big as D&D, the company likely wouldn't be as nice to support as it is now.
Quoted for Truth...
4e's long term success is far from certain, but define success, right?
Now, it falling off the precipice is not certain by ANY means and I personally don't want that to happen. However, market competition, OGL (the genie's out of the bottle) vs. GSL, WotC's own arrogance (not to mention Hasbro's fickleness), and the simple fact that 3.X still has plenty of life in it could conceivably brew into a "perfect storm" that could really hurt 4e. Only time will tell.
Personally, I want folks who enjoy 4e to enjoy it and have a blast with it. Same goes for 3.Xers and PF RPGers.
TO PAIZO: Paizo and 4 ed "D&D"
Hello folks at Paizo!
Welcome, Michael!
I saw your original post on the Wizards' boards.
The community there really represented itself well in response...(not).
Just another reason I, too, come here for meaningful discussion and go there for the occasional "train wreck" gawking... :)
Not saying 4th will be a flop mind you, but the people I see very happy about 4th simply don't strike me as the same type of people. Less loyal to the game.
This I simply don't particularly buy. Though I don't think either of us have any evidence one way or another.
As to the declining sales I'd agree with you whole heartedly, but this waqs due more to what was being put out.1. Splat books tried to cover too much 3 races, 3 classes, and they failed because nothing was given enough actual good material.
Example: The best ideas for new classes, races, or any combo thereof came from 3PP during 3.0 When 3.5 came out most 3PP decided to make there own OGL system or rulebooks, Wizards said okay, and they produced better Player HandBooks then the Players Handbook.
I'll agree that good 3PPs were eating into WotCs market share. I hated lots of their splat books as well but I think WotC was up a creek here. Theres no 'correct' answer. Pop over to the 3.5/OGL forum and do a search for threads along the lines of 'what do you consider the essential 3.5 books?'. One has sprung up on this topic about every 6 months or so ever since I started posting here. I have my personal beliefs on what the correct answer is on this. However I've come to realize that everyone has a different answer. These threads have almost no consensus. Some posters absolutely swear by Tomb of Battle others despise the book. Some consider PHB II essential while half the posters consider it a waste of money. DMG II is lauded by many posters for its wonderful fluff while the other half of the community thinks the book is absolute garbage - basically a endless stream of fluff and very little hard core crunch. I could go on but you get the idea - there is absolutely no agreement by posters about what books are great and which suck ass.
From these threads I get the impression that WotC never put out any good books and they never put out any bad books 'cause no one seems to have even the hint of a consensus on what is good or bad.
2. The Dragon part of D&D was way over done.
Example: the Sorc. was best concept for a class I saw, but it wasn't done right, I pictured the Sorc. as eventually becoming something other, as it stood they were at best a multi-class option for a Fighter who wanted some magic. Wizards solution, Dragon type of Class/Race after Dragon type of Class/Race.
Now I personally agree with you here. I personally think they went way friggen overboard here. I hated the endless stream of Dragon this and Dragon that. That said I've seen posts by those that should know that the reason they do this is that anything centred on dragons just sells a little better then stuff not centred on Dragons. WotC goes ape with teh Dragon related stuff becuase it turns into money.
3. Then there was the simple fact that Hasbro's logic made less and less sense. OGL amongts other reason came out because the Courts were telling TSR and Wizards you can't copyright a rules system. So they come up with OGL, I thought so they could do what they are doing now, focus on settings, not without Crunch but focused on Fluff.
I've never heard this as the justification for the OGL. I've certianly heard that the courts ruled this way and we, as RPG consumers, benefit as RPGs steal good mechanics from each other pretty liberally.
That said I can't see the court ruling being the cause of the OGL. I don't see any other company giving up their IPs and mechanics. There is no open source WOD that I am aware of, Shadowrun ain't open. Furthermore WotC certianly does not believe that they need to play nice - have you seen the GSL?
I've seen a number of explanations as to why WotC created the OGL and they usually centre around the idea that WotC felt that something had to be done by the continuing shrinking of the RPG industry in general and D&D in particular in the late 1990s. It was essentially felt that by spinning off the least profitable areas WotC could both concentrate on teh most popular areas of D&D and the 3PPs would essentially support them by providing supporting material. In particular it was expected that 3PPs would make adventure modules and campaign settings. Everyone would still need the core books and hopefully lots of splat books to use these 3PP adventures and campaign settings so money would always flow back to WotC. By consolidating the market under the d20 banner WotC was supposed to gain economic benefits with minimal cash outlay on less profitable areas. Of course we both know it never worked out like that. Its questionable if the OGL ever really helped WotC. I certianly don't expect to see an open source version of Shadowrun or WOD any time soon as there would seem to be a lesson here.
Instead they licensed out Ravenloft, Dragonlance and ignored Darksun and Planescpe, did boring work with FR and created Emberron (one shining good point) But the best settings come from 3PP and the best Crunch.
They licenced out or jettisoned these settings becuase it was in publishing these settings (and others like Spelljammer, Al-Qadim etc.) that destroyed TSR. You can look this up in Google as it gets talked about a fair bit. Try D&D+Many Buckets Theory.
Essentially it works like this: In releasing a campaign setting, like Ravonloft or Birthright, TSR initially saw a nice influx of cash as the setting is snapped up by a whole lot of gamers. For a while these things were seen as the golden goose of the D&D brand. Gamers, in large numbers, were willing to spend a very significant outlay of cash (for the time) on the new setting. However over time it became clear that far from laying Gold Eggs this strategy was destroying the company. The problem is that gamers soon decided that they were rabid fans of one or two of these settings. You'd be a Ravonloft group or a Darksun group, here is were the problem came up - TSR had just split their audience into a ton of tiny little groups and these groups did not buy material for another groups setting. If you made a Planescape Adventure only Planescape fans bought it. The Dragonlance fans could not have cared less and a Dragonlance adventure was useless to the Spelljammer Fans whose adventures were unusable for Ravonloft. Same deal with all the source books. If one created Darklords of Ravonloft nobody whose campaign focused on, say, Mazteca, was going to buy it. Only Ravonloft DMs would pick it up and, by this point, Ravenloft fans might have represented 1/12th of the total D&D market.
TSRs sales went through the floor, they couldn't make a book that could sell enough units to be profitable. Furthermore attempts to move D&D back to some kind of base line was not doing so good. Planescape players did not want a 'normal' D&D adventure and everyone every were was more or less unhappy with TSR because nobody was getting enough support for their personal favourite setting. You'd be lucky to get two products a year and after not to long the quality of these started to drop as TSR tried desperately to do something about the fact that they were hemorrhaging money.
I think the players you are thinking of were players who wanted something differnt in the first place. I like a lot of Savage Worlds stuff, but the system is far too simple. I could go back to storyteller if I wanted that.
Less is more is the cool new thing in RPGs...again.
Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean here. The players that are leaving are the ones that want something different? Umm, I agree I guess but I'm not really sure what your point is.
4. Then there was the issue of editing. Good lord was it bad during the latter days of 3rd. It got so bad that even I noticed, and I usually are that hard case about such things. It got so bad that over and En World there was talk of some publishers doing PDF Corrections to Wizards new Monsters. Most Reviews gave out 20+ page review with corrections. Sometimes these corrections were given with the warning like (I don't have the book with Duskblade in it but I see it logically the character would have.....) Just for fun I did my own take and yep somebody with I little knowldge or none at all did a better job then Wizards. Most players notice this, and they'll hit the breaking point eventually.
TSR had this problem near the end as well. Its a side effect of declining sales. You start cutting back on things like editing to deal with the fact that the profits are dropping off. However, as you point out, it perpetuates a kind of viscous circle.
I doubt if Wizards will get better at editing, though some have said that 4th is so boaring and blaa that if you make a book with monster stats no one can say you got it wrong because Wizards can turn around and say, no we were making the monster like this rather thne that. We are wrong you are, then they'd probbly sue you for reviewing the book poorly.
Can't sue for a bad review - if they could there'd already be a lot of suits going on - or at least a lot of cease and desist letters.
I think their editing will be OK until their sales of splat books start going down hill, then we start this cycle all over again and their is a 5th edition.
3e and 4e are very different, and I think Erik Mona was spot on.
I will say that the hypothetical perfect system for me might be somewhere in between. But, what can you do?
I've played a lot of both at this point, and I can say with full conviction that if I am _DMing_ I would rather DM 4e by a large amount.
If I'm playing, I'll play either... but I'll admit that I'd rather play 4e at certain level ranges (depends on the group, but let's call it 1-3 and 12+ in 3e as the level ranges that dissatisfy me)
If Pathfinder had been a bit more flexible on the 'backwards compatibility' and done something a bit stronger, I'd be a _ton_ more excited about it. I want less stacking of bonus types (insight, luck, competence, sacred, deflection, natural, oh my), less ability to dump the RNG (I'm +43, you say it's AC 27? Or skill DC 30, you're... +7?), less full attack swinginess (1 attack if I can't FA vs 4-6 if I can, bleah), and faster gameplay across the board (especially at high level, oh god). I also want monsters and NPCs that you can design very quickly without 'cheating' (not to say that I didn't, but it can be a real chore to design or edit high level NPCs for instance). I think that's my big red flag list for 3e and it's all pretty dealable while still looking an awful lot like 3e, but it requires a game that is not completely backwards compatible.
|
Not saying 4th will be a flop mind you, but the people I see very happy about 4th simply don't strike me as the same type of people. Less loyal to the game.
This I simply don't particularly buy. Though I don't think either of us have any evidence one way or another.
I don't either. I have played the game for 23 years and I really like 4e. I am about as loyal as you can get. I am a rabid collector, enjoy third party material, and spend about six hours a week planning material for my game.
Anecdotal? Yes. But enough to prove a sweeping statement like that is inherently false.
At the very worst I think 4e will perform like 2e. But that seems unlikely to me. I was Origins today and I talked to a lot of people who seemed keen on the new system. Of course, I am certain there were just as many keen on staying with 3.5 or moving to Pathfinder. Once again, mostly anecdotal, but I think it will all work out in the end.
Ultimately, I repeat what others have said. We can both exist peacefully. Fans of either system don't threaten the others. And fans of both should be able to feel comfortable with that.
This "down with 4e" attitude confuses me and, on some level, actually kind of stings.
TO PAIZO: Paizo and 4 ed "D&D"
Hello folks at Paizo!Welcome, Michael!
I saw your original post on the Wizards' boards.
The community there really represented itself well in response...(not).
Just another reason I, too, come here for meaningful discussion and go there for the occasional "train wreck" gawking... :)
If its worse then here...then thats just scary.
If its worse then here...then thats just scary.
Historically, this has been an exemplary community (in my experience). With a few exceptions -- the most notable and embarrassing being the ongoing debate over 4e -- I'd put us up against virtually any board of its sort out there.
If its worse then here...then thats just scary.Historically, this has been an exemplary community (in my experience). With a few exceptions -- the most notable and embarrassing being the ongoing debate over 4e -- I'd put us up against virtually any board of its sort out there.
Indeed, as much as other boards get bashed as pro-4E, I came here to escape the flames on them. Which, considering the pool of acid the 4E board here can sometimes be, should tell you something.
3e and 4e are very different, and I think Erik Mona was spot on.
I will say that the hypothetical perfect system for me might be somewhere in between. But, what can you do?
I've played a lot of both at this point, and I can say with full conviction that if I am _DMing_ I would rather DM 4e by a large amount.
If I'm playing, I'll play either... but I'll admit that I'd rather play 4e at certain level ranges (depends on the group, but let's call it 1-3 and 12+ in 3e as the level ranges that dissatisfy me)
If Pathfinder had been a bit more flexible on the 'backwards compatibility' and done something a bit stronger, I'd be a _ton_ more excited about it. I want less stacking of bonus types (insight, luck, competence, sacred, deflection, natural, oh my), less ability to dump the RNG (I'm +43, you say it's AC 27? Or skill DC 30, you're... +7?), less full attack swinginess (1 attack if I can't FA vs 4-6 if I can, bleah), and faster gameplay across the board (especially at high level, oh god). I also want monsters and NPCs that you can design very quickly without 'cheating' (not to say that I didn't, but it can be a real chore to design or edit high level NPCs for instance). I think that's my big red flag list for 3e and it's all pretty dealable while still looking an awful lot like 3e, but it requires a game that is not completely backwards compatible.
Funnily enough, my problem with Pathfinder is not ENOUGH backwards compatibility. From what little experience I have DMing 4E, I think you're spot on in re: which system would be preferred to DM in (at least by me and you.)
Playing, I don't mind either system, as both have pieces that attract me. Both have the ability to spark my imagination, although I must admit my bombastic attention-grubbing, self aggrandizing Dwarven Warlord is perhaps the funnest character I've ever played.
Last session he presumed to name the adventuring party after himself, declared himself the commander, negotiated a deal in everyone else's name, and arbitrarily gave officer ranks to several other party members. I love it! :)
If its worse then here...then thats just scary.
Wow, man. You've been here a heck of a long time, and you contribute significant and well composed perspectives. I wonder where you get that? From a few radicals?
Moral of the story, Time will tell
Absolutely, and I think a bunch of people have said this, but then its the wackos who get the most attention, isn't it? Personally, I don't doubt that 4E will do well for WotC in the market - while not perfect it looks like a really good gaming product.
Takes to long to quote Jeremy but on the issues of setting, assuming your are right, and I can see your point on the issue, is not Wizards making the same mistake. The killed all the contracts for settings so they can keep the pie for themselves again. This is fine but now the logic seems to be well do settings, and have no one do crunch, at lest no 3PP because I can't see anyone doing anything more then an advanture for 4th. And even advantures are next to worthless to a 3PP publisher because they can't really promote a good adventure line. For example DCC wouldn't be as known product by Goodman games if they just call it 4th edition Adv. by a company known as a company that supports another company.
To be fair I must say again that I don't hate the system. Not my cup of tea but then again neigther were the first two editons. It took time for me to like 3rd, and I only gave it a chance because I had heard that Star Wars Star Trek and Dune were all going to be D20 so I gave the PHB a chance, lot a money later I must admit I really do like the system, in all its incarnations.
My negativey goes to Wizards and Hasbro. And if 4th remains a hit in the comming years, I doubt it but it might, I still think 5th will be a computer game.
Not trying to attack anyone. Heck my fav. system is still Rifts, and belive me I've had people critize the hell out me for that.
And again I've only seen a few 4th games go on, have not played it myself so who knows maybe it is the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm not putting my money again into territory that has been covered well enough. And before anyone asks yeah I'm shifting over to getting a lot of Pathfinder stuff but am not sure if I'll get the core book when they are done. I've liked what I've seen so far but that hasn't made up my mind. I'm getting Beta mainly to check it out, but in either case as long as its backwards capable, I'll be happy.
Wow, man. You've been here a heck of a long time, and you contribute significant and well composed perspectives. I wonder where you get that? From a few radicals?
If its worse then here...then thats just scary.
I suppose I just assumed that this was some how the epicentre of the edition wars. Enworld banned the topic and I just kind of assumed they had some kind of one party regime going on over at Wizards. One wrong peep and the poster police come and get you.
I'm not actually unhappy about it here. I'm having quite a bit of fun and there are interesting points being made. Still things melt down and get nasty on this section of the forum, I'd say twice a day.
If things are even worse then that elsewhere...well that really is kind of scary.
I find it very amusing that somehow the dnd sales information is in no way conclusive of the way that 4th edition is doing whereas the paizo pathfinder subscribtion rate is somehow a whole lot more reliable.
Moral of the story, Time will tell
Logos
It's not conclusive for one major reason, which I suspect we all know; that many of us bought the books presently for sale, but won't be buying any more because we have found the game not to our taste.
Simple really.
|
|
Replied to wrong thread, had multiple reply tabs open and I was tired.Im sorry do you have a problem with someone expressing there opinion? The man gave his honest opinion and you seem to find it funny?
*Begins laughing hysterically*
Ah okay fair enough. Erm may I be as bold as to ask what it was you were trying to respond to?
I was browsing through an old issue of Games Quarterly, and they had an interview with Monte Cook that's very interesting, specifically this:
GQM: What does the future hold for role-playing games?
Monte: You got me.
About all I know is that 3rd Edition D&D changed the RPG landscape a few years ago. I think it's safe to assume (although I don't know) that within the next few years Wizards will put out a new edition, and it has the possibility to change it all again. Will it reinvigorate things the way 3rd Edition did, spawning a bunch of new companies to help support it, and creating new fans (and bring back old ones?). I don't know, but it could. Lots of people in the industry don't like to admit it, but the truth is, the RPG industry lives or dies by D&D.
It seems, however, when people ask about the future of RPGs, what they're often wondering is, hasn't this thing pretty much run its course? I don't think so.
Sure, computer games are popular, but they were popular when I got into the industry 17 years ago too. Back then, people told me that the RPG business only had another 4 or 5 years before it withered and died. Why has it survived? I think it's because the alternatives can't replace the fun of sitting around a table with your friends, eating junk food, quoting Monty Python, and playing a game. People tend to overlook that role-playing games are, at their heart, a social activitiy as well as a creative one. You can play poker against your computer, or even online, but that's not going to make you less likely to play poker with your friends if that's what you're into. I think that a lot of the people who are playing computer RPGs "instead of" regular RPGs are doing so because they don't have the time for the regular pen-and-paper game, don't know enough other players, or simply don't have the interest. So it's not like the computer games are necessarily stealing players from pen-and-paper role-playing. I don't think most of them would be playing regular role-playing games anyway.
So, I guess I'd say that the future doesn't look all that different from the past. We'll probably see a changeover in publisheres (again -- many of the major RPG publisheres that were around when I got into this are gone, replaced by others) but the hobby will continue."
Source: Games Quarterly, Spring 2005 Issue #5, Page 74.
Surprisingly, you can purchase this particular issue from Paizo's store. Click Here.
That's a bold claim. Do you have a source? I hope you're not just going by the results of Paizo's poll. Since that was a poll of Paizo customers, it was about as meaningful as the number of people that downloaded the Pathfinder RPG. That is to say, not meaningful at all.
I'm a regular on SIX different RPG/D&D/Gamer sites, and I 'lurk' on ½ dozen others. I also have two LGS nearby to gauge reactions at, and at least 30 family members and friends that play (most of which I taught).
So no, I wasn't going by Paizo's poll... I didn't even know there was one. About 45% the people I talk to are sticking with 3e, while approximately another 45% say they will use 4e - the final 10% are those that will play something else entirely, or play both (about a 50/50 split again). I myself am willing to give 4e a chance - my son wants to try running it.
Two caveats - I find most of the people who are willing to switch are either younger gamers, or newer gamers (usually both) - people who have been playing D&D for 10 years or more are more reluctant to make the switch... and yet those are the very people that should feel the 'sting' of brand loyalty the most.
So thats where I get my reasoning - The younger people who are giving it a try like what ever is "New and Improved" - my two teenage sons for example. They get really into something for a few weeks, occasionally months, and then move onto the next thing. Its the 'Old Grognards' that are having the hard time moving forward into the new edition, and those are the guys (and gals) that will still be playing this game next year... and the year after that... and the year after that...
Personally, I bought the 4e PHB (and gave it to my son when I was done), and was interested in the rules - they look well presented, and seem simple and straight forward, which should provide some very good old-style hack-N-slash style gaming goodness. Nothing wrong with that - I played that way for years (at least a decade) and loved every minute of it. Although the 'magic system' was VERY different then anything that has gone before, I was still willing to give it a shot and try running it myself.
What made my decision NOT TO was the GSL - it was the final straw. I disliked a lot of what they did to the rules (although some parts - like the cosmology - I really liked), and absolutely LOATHED what they did to FR... but I was still hanging in there until recently. The thing that got me back into gaming was the OGL - it was like a godsend to someone like me, who for years cannibilized other systems to create his own set of houserules. Once just about everything went D20, my 'converting nightmares' were over. I was spoiled by the OGL - it allowed me to pick and choose what I wanted from and endless stream of sources, with little fuss or muss.
The GSL was like getting smacked in the back of the head with a baseball bat. I refuse to "go quietly into the night"; the GSL is trying to bring us back to the 'Dark Ages' of gaming, when it was every company out for themselves, or licking up the scraps dropped by TSR. I've been spoiled by 3e and the OGL, and now I can never go back to a closed system.
So it wasn't the rules or the abomination that they are calling the 4gotten Realms that finally did it for me... it was the legaleaze that made it unpalatable in the end.
|
|
They licenced out or jettisoned these settings becuase it was in publishing these settings (and others like Spelljammer, Al-Qadim etc.) that destroyed TSR. You can look this up in Google as it gets talked about a fair bit. Try D&D+Many Buckets Theory.
Essentially it works like this: In releasing a campaign setting, like Ravonloft or Birthright, TSR initially saw a nice influx of cash as the setting is snapped up by a whole lot of gamers. For a while these things were seen as the golden goose of the D&D brand. Gamers, in large numbers, were willing to spend a very significant outlay of cash (for the time) on the new setting. However over time it became clear that far from laying Gold Eggs this strategy was destroying the company. The problem is that gamers soon decided that they were rabid fans of one or two of these settings. You'd be a Ravonloft group or a Darksun group, here is were the problem came up - TSR had just split their audience into a ton of tiny little groups and these groups did not buy material for another groups setting. If you made a Planescape Adventure only Planescape fans bought it. The Dragonlance fans could not have cared less and a Dragonlance adventure was useless to the Spelljammer Fans whose adventures were unusable for Ravonloft. Same deal with all the source books. If one created Darklords of Ravonloft nobody whose campaign focused on, say, Mazteca, was going to buy it. Only Ravonloft DMs would pick it up and, by this point, Ravenloft fans might have represented 1/12th of the total D&D market.
TSRs sales went through the floor, they couldn't make a book that could sell enough units to be profitable. Furthermore attempts to move D&D back to some kind of base line was not doing so good. Planescape players did not want a 'normal' D&D adventure and everyone every were was more or less unhappy with TSR because nobody was getting enough support for their personal favourite setting. You'd be lucky to get two products a year and after not to long the quality of these started to drop as TSR tried desperately to do something about the fact that they were hemorrhaging money.
What's worrying is that WotC have promised a setting a year. To my extremely unbusiness-like mind, that seems to be the same sort of policy that hurt TSR so much. Of course, as they're releasing two books and an adventure only, this might limit things, but it would seem to be the same problem of Balkaning the fanbase. Unless they do what a lot of Forgotten Realms fans think they will, and change all the settings radically so that the differences between them are very small and they're all "Points of Light with colossally fantastical elements (such as FR's flying islands and most of Eberron)".
I'm not actually unhappy about it here. I'm having quite a bit of fun and there are interesting points being made. Still things melt down and get nasty on this section of the forum, I'd say twice a day.
Yah I don't spend much time on the 4E forums so I guess I'm not seeing the venom. Ignorance is bliss.