What if WotC just said "That's it."

[Dungeoneer]

For those afflicted with a kind of "pseudo-ADD", that might be true.* "People get bored" is kind of an issue in and of itself, and probably warrants an entirely different discussion, but this is not the place for that...

* But yeah, otherwise, not at all.


And it really doesn't have anything to do with not trying other game systems. There are thousands and thousands of game systems already, to admirably enable/support/encourage just about every possible style of play imaginable.

And considering even one RPG offers infinitely varying play, one wonders... but anyway, like I said, probably not the place.

I feel like you're disagreeing with me, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[Stoat]

To quibble with the hypothetical, I don't believe a company can "write adventures and sell rulebooks" without making some revisions to the rules as it does so. There's a pretty long tradition of D&D adventures containing new rules.

But if it happened somehow, I'd keep playing what I'm playing until I got bored/tired with it. Based on prior experience, that won't happen for another five years or more.

 

[Plaguedguy]

I'd probably keep on hosting games until the players stopped coming. I've got enough material to run three different editions of D&D plus a retroclone that's pretty much self contained. Then there are a half dozen other RPGs I have various levels of material for, enough that frankly I'm trying to sell most of it.

 

[Umbran]

I have never been a "one game and only one game" person. I typically don't even run two campaigns using the same system in a row. Right now, I'm running classic Deadlands - I think the rules may be out of print, and new adventures aren't being created. That hasn't stopped me. Not even knowing the in-print status hasn't stopped me!

So, setting the business concerns aside, and considering just my own personal gaming habits, I wouldn't expect it to be a big deal for me, personally.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'd be very dissapointed if they pulled that with the current edition but fair play to them if they thought they had the best possible game.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I enjoy 4E and would probably continue playing long-term.

In some alternate reality where WotC made this decision with 3E I would have definitely quit playing. I know this because I was struggling with how to tell my players that I didn't want to DM anymore just before 4E was announced and knew that no one else wanted to run, so it would have spelled the end of our game.

If the decision had been made with 2E I probably would have kept playing for a shorter term before getting bored and moving on to other games. BD&D/1E/2E all felt like the same game to my group, so we would have been further along the track to boredom.

 

[olshanski]

I am not into edition bloat or splats. I don't own any 4E books, and I purchased only the Heroes of the Forgotten Lands book out of curiousity. (I jumped off the edition/splat treadmill about 9 years ago).

If I was sure that 4E Essentials was stable, and there would be no more bloat, and no edition change in the next 10 years, then I would actually buy 2 copies of the entire essentials line and teach my kids how to play.

Frankly, I think with a very stable ruleset it is easier to find groups, and easier to talk with people. With a solid ruleset and great published adventures, it brings together a better sense of community, you can talk to people about particular adventures, and you can be sure that everyone will have reasonably similar experiences.

Nostaligia isn't the only reason people talk about the Tomb of Horrors, the G1-3/D1-3/Q1, Desert of Desolation, Keep on the Borderlands.... its because at that time the rules were similar enough to be interchangable, and everyone had roughly the same experience with those adventures.

Nowadays the market is so split between pathfinder, old-edition clones, 3xE, 4E, essentials, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun... and so many splatbooks, that you couldn't release a great adventure that everyone would play and have similar experiences.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Well, the way things are now, it really wouldn't matter to me. The last big edition change made me drop D&D for Pathfinder. Freezing the game at 4e would make no difference. The game is done, as far as I am concerned.

The way WotC handled the switch also makes it unlikely that I would not much care if they froze the game at 5e, even if 5e was essentially a clone of Pathfinder.

The only way I can see myself caring at this point is if they reinstated the full OGL with support for third parties. (In all honesty, that's probably all that it would take, I really liked the OGL and really hate the GSL.) In that case I would be kind of flabbergasted that they had decided to stop development....

As for 4e with full OGL... I really don't much like the rules, but would feel much happier about WotC. I might pick up Essentials for beer and pretzels gaming, but it would not much affect their bottom line. If they did that then I might start making noise that they should do 5e. (Yeah, I can dislike 4e and hate the GSL at the same time, and separately....) 4e would just be a game that I don't like, not a matter of anger.

The Auld Grump

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Wouldn't affect me at all. I stepped off the "new edition" carousel several years ago.

 

[Mallus]

Let's see... I'd save money the money I spend on a DDI subscription would... the influx of new rules material into our 4e game would stop... until the point we started using fan-created material... and we'd keep playing our 4e campaign up until the time we stop and play something else.

So virtually nothing. I'd save a little money which I'd probably just spend on getting beers w/my mates.