Bedrockgames
Legend
I quite agree. I found the flavour very unapetising
That is odd. I think my ipdad autocorroct inserted that. Had meant to say it was a very good game. Dn't like 4E as an RPG, but the mechanics worked well for a board game.
I quite agree. I found the flavour very unapetising
Yea, I've heard all that before. I even kinda believe it. But if the new philosophy is to not try and make a game for all types of gamers (types of board gamers and video gamers and card gamers). Why not have the same for the older editions. Sure, they won't have the pop of the brand new edition but they would have this slow burn that would be positive and have players getting other players of all the editions they sold, and they'd be selling stuff to people they otherwise wouldn't be.
But I want to see 5e. And if they can really pull it off I'll be glad.
Rant: Why RPGs Are Not Too Expensive
Plenty of info here on the economics of large vs. small print runs. I really doubt WotC will ever fully support more than one edition in print. It costs too much. And it seems they're too afraid of piracy to do it with PDFs, which is a real shame.
It was late 2010 that WotC first seriously started thinking about a new edition. This was prompted by divisions in the RPG community: "First, we had a divided audience. Second, if we kept altering the core of 4th Edition, the division would only become more apparent."
Holy crap! They were "seriously thinking" about a new edition after 2 years?!? The verdict is in, folks. 4e was a failure, at least in the eyes of the company that made it.
By this logic, 3e must have been a total crap-tastic failure, since, ONE YEAR after launch, WotC was working in a new edition - and yes, 3.5 WAS to be 4e - who tell us of that is none other than Monte Cook (THAT Monte, the one who is back), but somewhere in the middle high management decided that an "errata edition" would make good money and sooner than a later, more reworked edition (interestingly, one can say that is what is Pathfinder).
It has much more to do with the way WotC works - always creating NEW products/content (Magic, anyone?) - than with sucess/failure of an edition.
By this logic, 3e must have been a total crap-tastic failure, since, ONE YEAR after launch, WotC was working in a new edition - and yes, 3.5 WAS to be 4e - who tell us of that is none other than Monte Cook (THAT Monte, the one who is back), but somewhere in the middle high management decided that an "errata edition" would make good money and sooner than a later, more reworked edition (interestingly, one can say that is what is Pathfinder).
Monte Cook said:Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.
What is your point? They realized it. Isn't that enough? Guess not. Jeez. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe WotC shouldn't be listening to us.