Why 4e Failed

I went and checked out the article that graph is from and even the article admits that the data is not likely a full view of it (Among other reasons, because 4e had a big, established character builder and search system that meant people didn't need to google stuff related to it as well as being the in-print edition at that point and falling under generic 'D&D searches'). It's an interesting graph but it's usefulness is a bit less clear because it's a single, narrow view.

Conjecture and unverified claim to believe it was due to Hasbro having unrealistic standards?

I thought it was just needing to believe the thing you loved was good and corporate boogeymen took it away?

That's true. As someone who does actually recall the way partisan lines were drawn during the release period, it does seem to reflect the behavior of the fanbase at the time.

I mean, the parallel is pretty strong already as it ended up the same way, with the whole thing empowering a rival company.

And 4e had problems, especially in the beginning. In addition to combat issues, the suggested Skill Check DCs in the DMG were set too high. (We're talking "20 in a stat, trained in the skill, and a racial bonus" still wouldn't get you 50/50 odds on the Hard DC.)

It looked weird as shit, it TALKED weird as shit (4e created a lot of jargon for things that had existed in previous editions of D&D, and then started using them before explaining them. For instance "shifting" was the new term for movement that did not provoke attacks of opportunity, based off of previous edition's "5-foot step" rule. But you had class abilities saying "Shift 4 squares" a hundred pages before that definition was provided. ) It was replacing something beloved, fucking up the math while doing so, and it had created a market of competition through its own beloved legacy.

It was out of print towards the end of the graph, and doing generic D&D searches was more likely to get you giantitp and enworld 3e. But there is definitely vagueness

Both. So far, there has been nothing in this thread, or any others, which irrefutably proves one side or the other. The whole thread is shitposts, including my own.

I dunno, I liked these poats

I never once felt my character.

I felt like wotc ranger or wizard build.

Rules in systems, are points of emphasis. They are used to make players pay attention and suggest this should be a part of game play.

The powers hindered role play, bc they said these are actions you can't take till you unlock them. So you cease to be a character rafting to a world the best way you can, and are now a player with an available tool kit that has to be utilizied and only utilized when granted.

So, help me out.

#1 RPG. Outselling all of its competitors by a wide margin. Remaining as the #1 best seller in its category up until Pathfinder, and outselling its predecessor edition.

The most popular and played game during its print run. More players than any other game, and potentially more players than it predecessor for a large window of time.

What expectations were failed, aside from expectations based on believing in a much larger market than actually existed and that terrible advertising could somehow expand that market to an infeasible degree?

Inb4 someone comes and talks down to you because that was just the majority experience and not theirs.

Imagine wanting to hit an enemy a certain way and having a DM go "sorry, that's already in a higher level power" or "sorry, rogues do that" and you get the picture