Except it was just an eclectic bunch ofshistuff two dudes really liked. .
Some of the stuff was not things they liked, but their players wanted. One of them is on record as having regretted some of the things he included for his players.
Except it was just an eclectic bunch ofshistuff two dudes really liked. .
Any given attempt to capture a new audience can fail if you don't get the approach right. Continuing to service the same dwindling customer base will NECESSARILY fail, because eventually you'll run out of customers.
That said, I understand why WotC's response after the 4e schism would be to design a "one system to rule them all" style game, and I can't really fault their logic. Clearly a second schism would kill the brand a lot faster than the "Long Dwindle" outlined above.
There is also no reason to 'compete' on the DnD influences.
Campaign settings come and go. The magazine Dungeon used to each month present a new way to take the DnD rules and conform it to a new paradigm.
I've got rules for Dinosaur worlds, Mecha rules, alternate magic systems, psionic worlds, alternate Martial Art system rules, etc. It is all DnD compatible.
This is a huuuuuuge issue. As much as I love 4E, they focused almost entirely on the core concepts with it and completely missed the potential to expand the game outside of vanilla in the ways that previous editions had. The paper magazines would introduce things based directly on video games, even, like save point crystals! I kid you not, save point crystals as a mechanic for playing D&D. But with 4E they moved away from that and focused strictly on vanilla D&D, even while expanding what that vanilla D&D encompassed. I love designing rules so that they work with core and aren't broken, but failing to expand the game... ugh.
Here's the thing: they've got money. Wizards wants money. Therefore, they are relevant. The tacit admission that 4e was a less-than-stellar product upon launch and the backpeddling that WotC has done to try and cater to the "old guard" proves that you are wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you're arrogant to dismiss them as irrelevant.So now I'm going to tell you that you need to go step back, and - in essence - go away.
Your stories aren't relevant anymore. I'm sorry that this has happened, but it has. I have met no one in my age group that has heard of the Dying Earth series, and yet D&D's default casting system is based upon Vance's work. The only reason I'm aware of the guy is because I spend far too much of my time on gaming forums, studying the history of gaming and what-not. I've never read his works, and, honestly, I don't care to.
The same thing can be said for Conan, for Frodo, for the Gray Mouser, for... whatever else traditional sources you can name for D&D. I know there's all kinds of sources, all kinds of books and what-not that no doubt innumerable people that frequent these forums can toss at me.
It doesn't matter anymore.
No, thanks. If you want a system that's about anime and Harry Potter, then you can make your own system with your own brand. The rest of us want D&D.The old guard needs to start giving way to the new, at some point. Perhaps now is that point. I don't want mechanics steeped in the old, anymore. I want a game that can give me things like what I've seen in the Redwall series, in Last Airbender, in anime like Cowboy Bebop and Samurai Champloo. We've got to be able to follow the style of things like Harry Potter, because that is today's fiction, today's stories, the things my generation is familiar with.
Why do you think that D&D has to be able to emulate those things to sell? Better yet, why do you think that D&D needs to emulate those things mechanically? The most important parts of those shows were the settings, which exist outside of the mechanics. The Fire Kingdom is filled with wizards who like fireball, whereas the Death Eaters are evil clerics who like slay living.If the next edition of D&D can't do Last Airbender or Harry Potter, then what incentive does the next generation of gamers have to pick it up?
I wouldn't even call 4e's focus vanilla D&D. It's some kind of tabletop miniature action version of D&D. And that's no more than a subset of vanilla D&D. In some ways, I'd say it's even less ambitious than you're suggesting.
I wouldn't even call 4e's focus vanilla D&D. It's some kind of tabletop miniature action version of D&D. And that's no more than a subset of vanilla D&D. In some ways, I'd say it's even less ambitious than you're suggesting.