well scott, if we are count every single stated monster and not just the header.
3.0 MM has 741+ 13 templets...just to let ya know
See, that's a good deal more accurate (though if we're counting templates let's be sure to include 4e's 24 templates that are found in the DMG). Now we have an accurate comparison, and by this measure the 3rd Edition MM does have more monsters than the 4th Edition MM.
EDIT: Are you sure that's accurate? My count of the by-CR-index in the back of the 3rd Edition Monster Manual gets me 447 monsters (and that's including all permutations of the monsters I'm aware of - like, twenty Hydras of varying numbers of heads, for instance). Where did you get the 741 figure?
When are the smurfs supposed to show up?
Didn't I see enough blue stuff when I saw the Watchmen. No more, please I beg you.
Srsly? The number of monsters in the MM is an indication of which edition is better?
KotDT couldn't write this stuff.
Didn't I see enough blue stuff when I saw the Watchmen. No more, please I beg you.
No kidding. I hope the powers that be don't replace smurfs with Dr. Manhattan.
I notice now 3.0 statblocks are a smaller then 3.5....hummm
4E seems to be do to front size and white space, I do miss the 2e style MM however Thats my big dislike with 3e and 4e MM not enough info
Didn't I see enough blue stuff when I saw the Watchmen. No more, please I beg you.
We can have lower Manhattan show up if ya like
EDIT: Are you sure that's accurate? My count of the by-CR-index in the back of the 3rd Edition Monster Manual gets me 447 monsters (and that's including all permutations of the monsters I'm aware of - like, twenty Hydras of varying numbers of heads, for instance). Where did you get the 741 figure?
I went page by page and counted the stat blocks. Feel free to do the same.
Note each dragon counts as 12 , as each has 12 blocks.
EDIT: Are you sure that's accurate? My count of the by-CR-index in the back of the 3rd Edition Monster Manual gets me 447 monsters (and that's including all permutations of the monsters I'm aware of - like, twenty Hydras of varying numbers of heads, for instance). Where did you get the 741 figure?I went page by page and counted the stat blocks. Feel free to do the same.
Note each dragon counts as 12 , as each has 12 blocks.
Haha, ah, that probably has a lot to do with it. I don't have a physical copy of the 3rd Edition Monster Manual on me so I'm just going by the scanned ToC and index pages on Amazon. The index has a table for the Dragon CRs; they aren't included in the normal index.
Srsly? The number of monsters in the MM is an indication of which edition is better?
KotDT couldn't write this stuff.
I think it's a ridiculous measure too. I'm not sure why that was chosen either.
Most of the 'measures' are silly. It really comes down to preference.
yeah scott that adds 132 to the number. I don't own a 4e MM or i would do the same with it. It does have some pretty art...just the females of anyrace seem to have male heads on em is all :)
REALLY though I would have been a bit pissed if he had been clothed. His nudie was a part of his disconnection with humans as a whole.
Most of the 'measures' are silly. It really comes down to preference.
As to which is the better game? Yes, that's certainly true.
I think what Kevin Andrew Murphy was trying to get at was the content of the various editions - how much actual material one contained versus the other. By different measures (as we've explored), the Monster Manuals have roughly comparable numbers of monsters between them - hovering somewhere around 400-500. It was clear in the design process of 4th Edition, however, that the goal was to make more monsters useful. seekerofshadowlight brings up a good point - in 3rd Edition, every dragon was statted out twelve times. There are well over a dozen hydras of varying numbers of heads. These individual permutations scale the challenge of an encounter by very small steps, and don't really change its tactical landscape at all - the difference between a 6-headed and 7-headed Hydra is incredibly minor. When 4th Edition expanded the range of encounter levels appropriate for a party of any given level, it eliminated the need for such incremental steps. Now you can throw a dragon 4 levels (or CR) highers than the party's level at them without it being a guaranteed TPK.
But you're right, CourtFool, preference is the name of the game even here. It's my belief (based on a good amount of experience at this point) that the 4th Edition Monster Manual provides an enormous amount of actual utility for DM's, compared to previous editions' Monster Manuals, and that this trend holds across the spectrum of sourcebooks. I've found 4th Edition to have more useful content than past editions.
REALLY though I would have been a bit pissed if he had been clothed. His nudie was a part of his disconnection with humans as a whole.
Yeah, but the comic was more David and less John Holmes.
The hero system Is the favored system of demons and tribbles
HERO and GURPS are better for us psychotic hobb ... halflings as well. Although CoC (and Chaosium's percentile-based "Basic RP System" that I believe they re-released fairly recently) isn't too bad either.
Gurps is so vile we give it as gifts. That and baskets of tribbles...not sure which is more evil
Gurps is so vile we give it as gifts. That and baskets of tribbles...not sure which is more evil
Yes, but I can maul a character for hours with a pack of dawgs and not kill said character ... 'tis a good thing.
ssya you. I like to kill em ones that don't die are just no fun, kill em bring em back kill em some more...maybe roast and eat em a few times.....ah yes much more fun
Most of the 'measures' are silly. It really comes down to preference.It's my belief (based on a good amount of experience at this point) that the 4th Edition Monster Manual provides an enormous amount of actual utility for DM's, compared to previous editions' Monster Manuals, and that this trend holds across the spectrum of sourcebooks. I've found 4th Edition to have more useful content than past editions.
Contrawise, I've found less useful content than with previous editions.
Let me make it clear: I'm more of a roleplaying DM than a combat DM. Always have been. Two or three different possible stat blocks for what is culturally and appearance wise the same monster, mostly not useful, because a well-roleplayed encounter may never get to the point of telling whether the goblin with the flail is a Goblin Flagellant or a Goblin Pinata Basher.
Having almost no flavor text or Lore listed for the monsters is likewise not useful, since it doesn't give me anything to base a roleplaying encounter around.
Can I work around this? If I have to. Am I pleased with it? No.
The industry (and gaming in general) is emerging onto a plane we've never quite seen before. And I don't doubt that it's only going to get more awesome from here.
I think that's a needed, cool-headed perspective (thanks to TigerDave, too). It is a great time to game.
By any external measurement, 4e is selling well, even though I've have spoken to some vendors who only keep small quantities on hand. But it's just got a lot more to fight against, now (ironically) the d20 variants are so well established.
Let me make it clear: I'm more of a roleplaying DM than a combat DM. Always have been. Two or three different possible stat blocks for what is culturally and appearance wise the same monster, mostly not useful, because a well-roleplayed encounter may never get to the point of telling whether the goblin with the flail is a Goblin Flagellant or a Goblin Pinata Basher.
And I consider myself fairly balanced between the two (spending roughly equal time each session split between combat and non-combat activities), and that may be why I find the Monster Manual useful while you do not.
Let me make it clear: I'm more of a roleplaying DM than a combat DM. Always have been. Two or three different possible stat blocks for what is culturally and appearance wise the same monster, mostly not useful, because a well-roleplayed encounter may never get to the point of telling whether the goblin with the flail is a Goblin Flagellant or a Goblin Pinata Basher.And I consider myself fairly balanced between the two (spending roughly equal time each session split between combat and non-combat activities), and that may be why I find the Monster Manual useful while you do not.
Ironicly, just about as many DMs, that focus on roleplaying, that complain about not getting enough information about cultures there are just as many that are glad that there are not stated restrictions/assumptions on the cultures.
Let me make it clear: I'm more of a roleplaying DM than a combat DM. Always have been. Two or three different possible stat blocks for what is culturally and appearance wise the same monster, mostly not useful, because a well-roleplayed encounter may never get to the point of telling whether the goblin with the flail is a Goblin Flagellant or a Goblin Pinata Basher.And I consider myself fairly balanced between the two (spending roughly equal time each session split between combat and non-combat activities), and that may be why I find the Monster Manual useful while you do not.Ironicly, just about as many DMs, that focus on roleplaying, that complain about not getting enough information about cultures there are just as many that are glad that there are not stated restrictions/assumptions on the cultures.
I've found this to be true as well. Furthermore, a significant chunk will not like the flavor provided for the creatures and will complain about it rather than shrugging and retooling it to fit their own game. There's no way to please everyone, it seems.
>snipped for relevance<
There are huge masses of people (reportedly more than we've seen in years, by many counts) playing 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons. Whatever you might think of the game, I really don't think you're in a position to declare something to be its "death knell".
>snipped<
Where? 4E sales have been so bad in my neck of the wood it's not funny. The vast majority of the gamers up here (admittedly only around a couple hundred) took a look at 4E, said thanks but no, and continued with 3.whatever or Pathfinder, or switched to older systems again (I went back to Deadlands for 1)
I believe almost all the 4e monsters have DC for the Monster Knowledge checks which is quite a bit more then any of the older editions have now I know exactly how much information to reveal to my players in character.
|
My apologies for starting another edition war...
All I know is that I would say 90% of those I meet don't particularly like 4e. I also know I haven't seen so many DIFFERENT games on the shelves at Barnes & Noble in years! It's a nice sight.
This is my last entry on this subject, so don't bother with the torches and flame throwers please.
I'm really tired of people proclaiming that their preferred edition is bigger than another persons favored edition. It seems that it isn't enough for one's edition to be good, it has to be better than everyone else's edition.
If someone wants me to like their favorite edition, saying that they are better than *those* editions is not going to have that effect on me.
Where? 4E sales have been so bad in my neck of the wood it's not funny. The vast majority of the gamers up here (admittedly only around a couple hundred) took a look at 4E, said thanks but no, and continued with 3.whatever or Pathfinder, or switched to older systems again (I went back to Deadlands for 1)
>snipped for relevance<
There are huge masses of people (reportedly more than we've seen in years, by many counts) playing 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons. Whatever you might think of the game, I really don't think you're in a position to declare something to be its "death knell".
>snipped<
That's great, but localized anecdotal evidence means, as has already been pointed out, next to nothing. There were also localized pockets of people who didn't want anything to do with 3rd Edition. The hard data that we know of - print runs, bestseller rankings, RPGA play data - all points to 4th Edition selling remarkably well, and continuing to do so for supplemental products nearly a year later (which indicates satisfaction with the game).
The hard data that we know of - print runs, bestseller rankings, RPGA play data - all points to 4th Edition selling remarkably well, and continuing to do so for supplemental products nearly a year later (which indicates satisfaction with the game).
Buying a product means being satisfied with it? Especially with pre-orders?
I got the first set because I wanted it. I got three other books a bit later because I had a $50 Amazon credit and I thought they might be useful.
I'm not overly pleased with any of them and am not really planning to get any more of them.
The hard data that we know of - print runs, bestseller rankings, RPGA play data - all points to 4th Edition selling remarkably well, and continuing to do so for supplemental products nearly a year later (which indicates satisfaction with the game).Buying a product means being satisfied with it? Especially with pre-orders?
Continuing to buy products supporting a game generally indicates satisfaction with it, yes. This isn't exactly an outlandish concept.
I got the first set because I wanted it. I got three other books a bit later because I had a $50 Amazon credit and I thought they might be useful.
I'm not overly pleased with any of them and am not really planning to get any more of them.
That's great for you. You are dissatisfied with the game and thus are no longer purchasing products for it. Presumably you do not have the PHB2 on pre-order. It's safe to say that you represent the corollary to the trend I mentioned above: just as people who are satisfied with a game tend to buy more products for it, people who are not satisfied with a game tend not to buy products for it.
Only time will tell how big a hit is was. I don't think it's anywhere as big as they wanted, but man it's D&D it will sell.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
That's great, but localized anecdotal evidence means, as has already been pointed out, next to nothing. There were also localized pockets of people who didn't want anything to do with 3rd Edition. The hard data that we know of - print runs, bestseller rankings, RPGA play data - all points to 4th Edition selling remarkably well, and continuing to do so for supplemental products nearly a year later (which indicates satisfaction with the game).
There is no hard data on print runs. RPGA play data is heavily skewed by a first-ever policy of allowing adventures to be played multiple times, and played after you've read them.
As far as Amazon rankings go - I guess I'm not that impressed with where PH2 is this week. I mean, I'd *expect* a new D&D core book to do well on Amazon, and it's being thumped by a lot of things I wouldn't think would do as well. But absolutely, WotC products continue to sell better than anyone else's - which should shock no one. I don't think 4E has been the revival on the level of 1st ed sales Wizards hoped it would be.
Only time will tell how big a hit is was. I don't think it's anywhere as big as they wanted, but man it's D&D it will sell.
Actually, it looks like demand for 4th Edition was significantly greater than what WotC anticipated - they almost immediately had to order a second print run of the first three books because they exhausted the first on pre-orders alone. The fact that they're seeing huge demand for a supplement like the PHB2 (which is now up to #35 on Amazon's Bestsellers list and #15 on its Hot New Releases list) means that demand has stayed relatively constant. I have a feeling that the developers are quite pleased to see this kind of impact. I don't know what they were expecting, but I don't think there's any way they could not be satisfied with performance like that.
There is no hard data on print runs.
Yes, there is. We know that the initial book print runs were 150% of the size of the initial D&D 3.5 print run, and that WotC ordered a second almost immediately (for those keeping track, that's three times the number of core books printed for D&D 3.5 ordered by the time the 4th Edition books were released). A third print run exists that includes more recent errata, as well as the deluxe edition books. The introductory adventure, Keep on the Shadowfell, also saw multiple print runs, as well as the follow-up adventure, Thunderspire Labyrinth. And this was in August.
Of course, you know all this, because you participated in the thread discussing it back in August.
RPGA play data is heavily skewed by a first-ever policy of allowing adventures to be played multiple times, and played after you've read them.
If you mean RPGA play data is skewed because more people are interested in playing RPGA games then sure, I'll agree with that. In practice (and speaking as an RPGA member and organizer), people tend not to play the same adventure more than once.
As far as Amazon rankings go - I guess I'm not that impressed with where PH2 is this week. I mean, I'd *expect* a new D&D core book to do well on Amazon, and it's being thumped by a lot of things I wouldn't think would do as well.
If you'd like to see it that way, I'm not sure there's anything I can do to alter that.
|
|
How do we measure success? Regardless of our personal opinions, we have two truths available to us, so we'd better accept them.
The first truth is the statements of the businesses in regards to their sales. Whether you want to accept them or not is irrelevant. If Paizo says that the response to Pathfinder RPG has been above and beyond what they've expected, then you and I can argue all day long about it. In the end however, the only truth is ... Paizo said the response is above and beyond what they've expected.
The same measurement MUST be given to WotC. It doesn't matter if you or I trust their standard corporate gobbledygoop, the only truth at the end of the arguments and at the end of the day is that all we have to go by is what WotC tells us. Right now, they tell us things are good. They may not be good where you're at, and they may be ecstatic where I'm at - overall the picture is good. No other arguments, comparisons or records have any merit. For every example or anecdote one side brings up, the other side can site three in contradiction. Down this path lies madness and hurt feelings.
The second truth available? This one is the most truthful of all: Are you playing it? Are you enjoying it? This is truly the only measurement that matters, and the only standard by which a game's success can be measured. Unfortunately, the analysis is way too limited to determine the success of the game overall.
In my house? 4E's a success. It's so much of a success that in TWO WEEKS of gaming I have a REGULAR gaming group of NINE players including myself. THREE of those players are DMs and we have a rotational pattern of playing. Four players are brand new. Four players are extremely experienced with multiple editions under their belts and work both sides of the DMs screen. None of us are edition haters and we're just here for the love of the game. Right now all of us are very happy with what we've got going on.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Yes, there is. We know that the initial book print runs were 150% of the size of the initial D&D 3.5 print run, and that WotC ordered a second almost immediately (for those keeping track, that's three times the number of core books printed for D&D 3.5 ordered by the time the 4th Edition books were released). A third print run exists that includes more recent errata, as well as the deluxe edition books. The introductory adventure, Keep on the Shadowfell, also saw multiple print runs, as well as the follow-up adventure, Thunderspire Labyrinth. And this was in August.
If you mean RPGA play data is skewed because more people are interested in playing RPGA games then sure, I'll agree with that. In practice (and speaking as an RPGA member and organizer), people tend not to play the same adventure more than once.
150% the size of a print run we also don't know the size of is not hard data, and saying it is doesn't make it such :) When Wizards releases a number (which they won't), that will be hard data.
In practice, many heavy players, the sort who account for most RPGA play, are playing more than once. That's speaking as an RPGA player an organizer myself.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Actually, it looks like demand for 4th Edition was significantly greater than what WotC anticipated - they almost immediately had to order a second print run of the first three books because they exhausted the first on pre-orders alone.
Which may just mean Wizards low-balled the first print run based on their projected reception. We don't know what those expectations *were*.
Actually, it looks like demand for 4th Edition was significantly greater than what WotC anticipated - they almost immediately had to order a second print run of the first three books because they exhausted the first on pre-orders alone.Which may just mean Wizards low-balled the first print run based on their projected reception. We don't know what those expectations *were*.
You know except for the fact that it couldn't have been that low-balled if the initial book print runs were 150% of the size of the initial D&D 3.5 print run. Unless of course the D&D 3.5 print run was also low-balled... then maybe but atleast their expectations *were* bigger with 4e then with 3.5e projected success.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
You know except for the fact that it couldn't have been that low-balled if the initial book print runs were 150% of the size of the initial D&D 3.5 print run. Unless of course the D&D 3.5 print run was also low-balled... then maybe but atleast their expectations *were* bigger with 4e then with 3.5e projected success.
Actually, I suspect all three of the recent editions went with low-balled first runs.
3.0 because it was unknown how big it would be. As I recall, it was hard to get a PH for a little bit there while it was reprinted.
3.5 because it was an interim release, you'd expect a slower stream of sales.
4.0 because they weren't sure how big it would be. And I still suspect it's not as big as they had hoped for (and didn't print for).
Plus, marketing wise, they get to say they sold out their initial print run, and people go crazy about it, without asking just how big it was. Free PR.
Edit: Took out "in fact", since part of my point is that with no numbers *all we can do is speculate*.
As mentioned before, 3.5 was a mid-edition revision.
Unless you have the numbers for 3.0 vs. 4E, there's really no point in comparing them.
Ryan Dancey's brilliant OGL vision is still alive, kicking and screaming. Long may it be so.
As mentioned before, 3.5 was a mid-edition revision.
Unless you have the numbers for 3.0 vs. 4E, there's really no point in comparing them.
I've read that the 3.5 initial print run was larger than the initial print run for 3.0, which would make the 4th Edition print run larger still. I'm not sure if that particular statement is reliable, since I heard it secondhand, but I thought I'd put it out there. It might be worthwhile to give what TigerDave just told you a listen.
|
RE: Original Post
I hope that this statement, along with Paizo's intention to use the OGL and Paizo's newly announced System License, indicates the possibiity for quality second party pubishers supporting Pathfinder RPG. We've already seen a lot of interest, and my hope is that we might even see the emergence of some new spps of high quality come about.
RE: Edition Wars
Smurf.
I hope that 4th Edition, and, by extention, D&D continues to do well. D&D is the game most people are introduced to RPGs with. It will do the entire industry good for D&D to continue to be a success. In my 30+ years of RPG experience, people who play D&D can and do play other RPGs as well. Anecdotely, I moved on to Vampire, Cyberpunk, and about a dozen other systems during 2e's reign.
For D&D to be doing well in a declining economy with rising prices is remarkable.
I'm sure when I go to GenCon this year, there will be tons of people playing 4e. I won't be one of them, but I won't begrudge them either, because I'll be in Pathfinder heaven.
For me the edition wars are over. No more anger, no more rants. 4e is D&D. I play Pathfinder. Someday, maybe I'll play D&D again. Heck, maybe even 4e. After all, I picked D&D up again just before 3e came out.
Chief Technical Officer
|
There is no hard data on print runs.Yes, there is. We know that the initial book print runs were 150% of the size of the initial D&D 3.5 print run, and that WotC ordered a second almost immediately (for those keeping track, that's three times the number of core books printed for D&D 3.5 ordered by the time the 4th Edition books were released).
For the sake of accuracy, I have to point out some things. The only direct quote on the matter that I know of is from this ICv2 article here, which says that Wizards had already ordered a reprint "even though the initial print run for 4th Edition was 50% higher than the order for the previous D&D 3.5 Edition."
First of all, nothing in that article says that the reprint was as big as the first print run, so there's no evidence given in that statement to back up your "three times the number of core books" math. The reprint may have been smaller, the same size, or larger.
For that matter, nothing in that article says which books were reprinted. All three? Just the PH? Just the gift box? All four including the gift box? Who knows?
Finally, I'd like to point out a bit of vagueness in the phrase "higher than the order for the previous D&D 3.5 edition." While the implication here is that order refers to the initial print order, it's also possible that order refers to the *distribution order*—that is, the number of copies of 3.5 that distributors preordered from Wizards, which was likely substantially less than the print order.
Regardless, that's still all pre-launch data. The current buzz I hear mirrors what Chris reported in the original link: that current 4E sales within the hobby industry are at about the same level as 3.5 sales shortly before 4E was announced. Though Chris only mentions that with respect to 3rd party sales, I hear the same benchmark regarding Wizards.
Folks interested in relative sales data might want to keep an eye on Alliance Game Distributors' Top 25 List, which they just started publishing with January's list.
In January, the only RPG products on the Top 25 were "Dungeons & Dragons: Open Grave - Secrets of the Undead," at #9, "Star Wars RPG: The Clone Wars Campaign Guide HC," at #21, and "Dungeons & Dragons 4E Player's Handbook HC," at #22. For February, "Dungeons & Dragons 4E Player's Handbook HC" is the only RPG product, at #25. (The only significant D&D gaming release for February was a Dungeon Tiles set, so it's not too surprising that there's nothing else there.)
Mike Mearls has directly stated such was the case in his livejournal. (http://mearls.livejournal.com/150306.html)I've read that the 3.5 initial print run was larger than the initial print run for 3.0, which would make the 4th Edition print run larger still. I'm not sure if that particular statement is reliable, since I heard it secondhand, but I thought I'd put it out there.As mentioned before, 3.5 was a mid-edition revision.
Unless you have the numbers for 3.0 vs. 4E, there's really no point in comparing them.
Thanks, Matthew.
This should pretty much put to rest any questions about whether or not 4th Edition is selling well.
Folks interested in relative sales data might want to keep an eye on Alliance Game Distributors' Top 25 List, which they just started publishing with January's list.
In January, the only RPG products on the Top 25 were "Dungeons & Dragons: Open Grave - Secrets of the Undead," at #9, "Star Wars RPG: The Clone Wars Campaign Guide HC," at #21, and "Dungeons & Dragons 4E Player's Handbook HC," at #22. For February, "Dungeons & Dragons 4E Player's Handbook HC" is the only RPG product, at #25. (The only significant D&D gaming release for February was a Dungeon Tiles set, so it's not too surprising that there's nothing else there.)
AGD's list only provides data on sales to hobby and specialty shops. Major chain bookstores (like Borders and Barnes & Noble) and online mega-retailers (like Amazon.com) are not included.
And the information I posted above regarding at least three print runs for the original three books and at least two print runs each for the first two adventures was from August, which is not pre-release data. Furthermore, the current ranking of the PHB2 on Amazon.com definitely reflects the willingness of the gaming community to continue buying 4th Edition products.
There seems to be a rather enormous amount of skepticism in this thread regarding any positive information on 4th Edition sales data, despite very little reason to believe that it isn't doing remarkably well.
AGD's list only provides data on sales to hobby and specialty shops. Major chain bookstores (like Borders and Barnes & Noble) and online mega-retailers (like Amazon.com) are not included.
And the information I posted above regarding at least three print runs for the original three books and at least two print runs each for the first two adventures was from August, which is not pre-release data. Furthermore, the current ranking of the PHB2 on Amazon.com definitely reflects the willingness of the gaming community to continue buying 4th Edition products.
So AGD's results are questionable since they don't include all purchasing sources.
But Amazon's rankings shall be undisputed even though they exclude all other purchasing sources?
There seems to be a rather enormous amount of skepticism in this thread regarding any positive information on 4th Edition sales data, despite very little reason to believe that it isn't doing remarkably well.
Which makes a counterpoint to the enormous amount of skepticism in this thread regarding any negative information on 4th Edition sales data from other posters.