+ Log in or register to post
Results 21 to 30 of 99
Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 06:49 PM #21
Novice (Lvl 1)
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.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 06:59 PM #22
Lama (Lvl 13)
Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 07:03 PM #23
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
13th Age or some other non-D&D game and actually playing 3.5.
Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 07:25 PM #24
Magsman (Lvl 14)
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.
Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 07:28 PM #25
Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)
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.
Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 07:35 PM #26
Magsman (Lvl 14)
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.
Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 07:45 PM #27
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
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.
Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 07:58 PM #28
Magsman (Lvl 14)
Except none of the support would be coming from the defunct D&D unit of Hasbro, at that point - it'd all be 3pp.The worse thing that happens is that 5E fails, and we pretty much at the point the petition is pushing for.
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.
Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 08:16 PM #29
Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)
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.
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.They're re-publishing 1e, anyway, why not just put out the new stuff for it, too?
Last edited by Umbran; Tuesday, 17th July, 2012 at 08:23 PM.
Tuesday, 17th July, 2012, 08:26 PM #30
Magsman (Lvl 14)
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.
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.The world moves on, and eventually products move on.
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.
By WarlockLord in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 575Last Post: Monday, 30th July, 2012, 09:26 AM
By TerraDave in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 6Last Post: Friday, 5th November, 2010, 05:10 PM
By Dannyalcatraz in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 15Last Post: Thursday, 27th October, 2005, 06:08 AM
By mythusmage in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 10Last Post: Wednesday, 16th July, 2003, 08:36 AM
By Archimago in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 18Last Post: Thursday, 28th March, 2002, 07:49 AM