D&D 5th Edition A Modest Proposal to Unify the Fanbase without D&D Next - Page 3




+ Log in or register to post
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 99
  1. #21
    The answer is never" 'make less art'. The answer is: 'make more art'.

    If the new edition displeases you, there are always other options out there. Positive ones. Ones that don't put down the people who _do_ want to see innovation and attempts at refining things. To belittle and push aside people who are so far enjoying what they see in 5e enough to keep curiously following it's trajectory.

    The answer is never, ever: 'do not try'.

    Even if this does turn into a 'disaster' that ends D&D, I would rather see Wizards at least TRY new things, rather than rely on churning out old books while the designers simply spin in their chairs and throw pencils into the ceiling tiles, allowing the game that so many love simply die off due to becoming stale. It doesn't hurt to try. Failure can happen. But so can success.

    This seems to be a wild reaction to a very, very, very short and basic glimpse at a playtest document, and a few nebulous articles on thoughts the designers have. Playtests are mercurial, the entirety of every rule and function can change drastically. The point of the playtest is to actually see what does work and build a core around it. Not take every single suggestion to heart and make a kitchen-sink.

    So no, I won't sign any petition that tells people to stifle their creativity, or censor themselves. I will allow people to thrive or fail on their own merits and hard work. To do otherwise..

    ..Well, to do otherwise is to create less art.

    And that is never the answer.

 

  • #22
    Registered User
    Lama (Lvl 13)

    TwoSix's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    Posts
    2,398

    Ignore TwoSix
    I support this proposal, but I'm more interested in continuing the support for other editions than in necessarily cutting support for D&DNext. Support OD&D, 1e/2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e if 5e can fit.

  • #23
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    drothgery's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    10,235
    Blog Entries
    3

    Ignore drothgery
    Quote Originally Posted by TwinBahamut View Post
    I can't really get behind this kind of petition. I want to see a new edition. I want there to be a 5E. I just want a new 5E to bring more innovation and change to the game, and try to be something better than what came before. My problem with 5E is that it seems to be failing to do that, not the fact that it is coming.
    Exactly. Last year, I was arguing that it was not too soon for 5e (since no WotC RPG has ever gone five years without a major revision or falling out of print, and as much as I might wish otherwise, clearly a lot of the D&D player base doesn't like 4e). I'm not happy with the direction 5e seems to be going, and if further playtest docs don't change my opinion, I may end up eating my words and not buying even the initial rulebooks. But WotC's job is to make money, not to make me happy; supporting multiple editions is a terrible business move. So if 5e isn't something I can live with, I'll end up advocating sticking with 4e or playing 13th Age or some other non-D&D game and actually playing 3.5.
    Dave Rothgery

    PBP
    Spoiler:

    My EnWorld Blog
    Republic and Empire
    Buffverse M&M game

    Characters
    Active
    Sanne Bacher d'Lyrandar in S@squ@tch's Against the Giants - Team Black

    Inactive
    Istara Kandorian in Ankh-Morpork Guard's Star Wars: Rebels with Style
    Eric Hassel (Quarterback) in Jemal's Mutant High
    Sariel in Rumspringa's Keep on the Shadowfell
    Khalia ir'Indari in DEFCON1's Eye of the Lich Queen
    Serrana Vao in Karl Green's Knights of the Old Republic (with 213 things Serrana can't do in the Jedi Order)
    Italimelk in Living ENWorld
    Daellin ir'Ayellan in stonegod's Expedition to Castle Ravenloft
    drothgery's Victorian Eberron game
    Star Wars/KotOR Era - The Second K'ril Incursion

  • #24
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Posts
    3,743

    Ignore Tony Vargas
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_Nightwing View Post
    It may as well not exist? For you perhaps. If you like your game as is, play it and ignore 5E. Even if you never see any 4E material published ever again, you still have your books and your game. Nobody owes you the continuation of the current edition, so I wonder why you feel it necessary to contribute, if you are already satisfied?
    I can't begin to count how many times irate 3.5 fans were told basically that. Didn't stop them from defecting to Pathfinder and waging the edition war to (successfully) kill 4e.

    Anyway, it's spot-on topic. Ongoing support for 4e would keep him as a customer. Ongoing support for 3.5 would have kept its fans as customers - and maybe even kept them from killing off 4e (maybe).

    For the most part (with the possible exception of the 3.5/4e edition war), rejection of a new ed isn't about denying it to those who might like it, but about keeping support for what the hold-out likes. This is a good proposal to take that into account - and a better idea than creating a frankenstein edition pieced together from the corpses of classic versions of D&D.
    Last edited by Tony Vargas; Tuesday, 17th July, 2012 at 07:31 PM.

  • #25
    The Guvnor
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Morrus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    26,217
    Blog Entries
    4
    13th AgeSupermanCircvs MaximvsENniesPathfinderZEITGEISTDoctor Who

    Ignore Morrus
    So, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the blog article in question, the inspiration and logical basis for this petition was:

    "Stop trying to tell the people what they want and instead, give them what they want. If people are currently playing four different systems of D&D (and they are: Rules Cyclopedia (including Basic, etc.), AD&D (both editions), 3/3.5 and 4) then obviously what they want is four different systems."

    But when 5E comes out, people will be playing five systems. So obviously what they want is five different systems. And ten years ago, they were playing three systems. So obviously what they want is three different systems.

    The logic "people want what is currently available because they are using what is currently available" is flawed; it's a circular argument. They can't use what isn't currently available.

    I'm very much not behind this petition.

  • #26
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Posts
    3,743

    Ignore Tony Vargas
    I don't think the point is that 'they' want 3, 4, or 5 editions. Rather, the point is that each old edition retains a fan base, and that no new edition could hope to capture all those fans. Not by being better than the old eds (each new edition /has/ been better). Not by being a weird retro-compromise among past editions.

    Each new edition creates some new fans - some converts from old editions, some new - some of whom will stick with it in preference to the next ed.

    Supporting all eds makes sense as long as old eds have fans.

    That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a 5e, just that it shouldn't come only 4 years after 4e, and that it shouldn't be focusing on winning back customers who stayed with old eds, but with simply being a better (and/or more modern/trendy) game that might attract yet more fans to add to the D&D fold.

  • #27
    4ognard
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)

    TerraDave's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A Nation's Capitol
    Posts
    6,949
    Gygax MagazineI Defended The Walls!

    Ignore TerraDave
    But what if they do 5E, and a lot of people actually like it and buy it?


    The worse thing that happens is that 5E fails, and we pretty much at the point the petition is pushing for.
    Looking to play 5E in DC, click here!
    A semi-brief History of D&D and some other RPGs: Part 1: 1967-1979 Part 2: 1980-1989

  • #28
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Posts
    3,743

    Ignore Tony Vargas
    Quote Originally Posted by TerraDave View Post
    But what if they do 5E, and a lot of people actually like it and buy it?
    A lot of things could happen. Hell might freeze over, pigs gain fly speeds, peace in the middle east, the second coming, asteroid impacts...

    The worse thing that happens is that 5E fails, and we pretty much at the point the petition is pushing for.
    Except none of the support would be coming from the defunct D&D unit of Hasbro, at that point - it'd all be 3pp.

    Actually, between retro-clones and Pathfinder, all editions of D&D /except/ 4e, will be supported in perpetuity, anyway, so it's pretty close.

    WotC thinks they can tap into the enthusiasm for 3.5 and retro-clones with a single 'new' edition, even though 3.5 fans have already (violently) rejected one new ed, and retro-clone fans two or more.

    They're re-publishing 1e, anyway, why not just put out the new stuff for it, too?

    Why not do the same for 2e, the Rules Cyclopaedia, and 3.5?

    After 4e has had an honest run, do the same for it.... And for 5e when, 6e comes out...
    Last edited by Tony Vargas; Tuesday, 17th July, 2012 at 08:30 PM.

  • #29
    Mod Squad
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    Umbran's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    27,249
    Blog Entries
    6

    Ignore Umbran
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    Supporting all eds makes sense as long as old eds have fans.
    Correction: Supporting old editions make sense so long as the remaining fans generate enough business to make that support worthwhile to the company - either by turning a profit, or by acting as a loss-leader and generating other associated sales.

    There is a point at which supporting legacy products ceases to be a useful part of a business plan. You don't see Apple supporting the operating system of Apple II computers any more, for example. The world moves on, and eventually products move on.

    They're re-publishing 1e, anyway, why not just put out the new stuff for it, too?
    New stuff doesn't grow on trees. You need to hire and pay designers to make it. If you, as a company, don't think that business will drive enough sales to pay for the design and production of the new stuff, then you don't produce new stuff.
    Last edited by Umbran; Tuesday, 17th July, 2012 at 08:23 PM.

  • #30
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Posts
    3,743

    Ignore Tony Vargas
    Quote Originally Posted by Umbran View Post
    Supporting old editions make sense so long as the remaining fans generate enough business to make that support worthwhile to the company - either by turning a profit, or by acting as a loss-leader and generating other associated sales.
    I thought that was obvious, yes, but thanks for the clarification. The success of Pathfinder and retro-clones certainly demonstrates a viable business opportunity that WotC let others pick up by failing to keep ongoing support for classic D&D and 3.5, FWIW. Even if the GSL prevents any 3pp from filling the same sort of demand for 4e, that demand may still be there for WotC to capitalize on, if they so choose.

    The world moves on, and eventually products move on.
    And sometimes products move backwards even as the world moves on. That's exactly what 5e is doing in trying to cater simultaneously to fans of classic and modern editions of D&D.

    5e is trying to do the same thing that simply re-printing and supporting old editions would do: capture revenue from fans of older editions. This is not about 'moving on' and ignoring older editions. This is about whether to give fans of each older ed exactly what they want vs selling them all a single 'new' compromise ed that has some of what they want. 'Moving on' is what 4e did, and WotC was crucified for it.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 575
      Last Post: Monday, 30th July, 2012, 09:26 AM
    2. DDI/CB: An actually modest proposal
      By TerraDave in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 6
      Last Post: Friday, 5th November, 2010, 05:10 PM
    3. A modest proposal
      By Dannyalcatraz in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 15
      Last Post: Thursday, 27th October, 2005, 06:08 AM
    4. A Modest (Convention) Proposal
      By mythusmage in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 10
      Last Post: Wednesday, 16th July, 2003, 08:36 AM
    5. A Modest Proposal... (Regarding TWF)
      By Archimago in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 18
      Last Post: Thursday, 28th March, 2002, 07:49 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •