Interesting Tweet

[DaveMage]

Or maybe he simply means that the VTT will support all editions....

 

[Aeolius]

I wish I could find ANY tweet to be interesting, but twitter befuddles me. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what purpose it serves, assuming one blogs, has Facebook, etc.

 

[Maggan]

EDIT: Ironwolf beat me to it. I was to quick on the trigger ... or too late.

It seems to me Wizards_DnD was live-tweeting from San Diego Comic Con, and posting tidbits from a Q&A session with Chris Perkins.

So it seems to me this is not a random tweet aimed to get peoples hopes up, but rather a retelling of an answer to a question from the audience at SDCC.

To me, that puts this into another perspective.

1. It's an answer from one WotC guy at a Q&A and not an official statement that "this is the goal of WotC from now on".

2. WotC mentioned earlier editions, and will be pummeled for that by an unforgiving fandom of earlier editions.

/M

 

[Bullgrit]

I wasn't aware older editions had died.

The tweet didn't say or suggest that older editions had died. The tweet said, "keep alive," not "bring back to life."

Bullgrit

 

[the Jester]

I'm the kind of person who pays more attention to actions, not words. When I see them start supporting older editions, then I'll believe they're serious.

In all fairness, there was a recent conversion of a 3.5 adventure to- I think 1e?- in Dungeon. And the Virtual Tabletop interface mentions old editions.

I'm certainly a big doubting Thomas on DDI these days, but they've been swinging me around with lots of good-sounding content. Given that they've run one 1e article in recent months, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this. I wouldn't expect a lot of non-4e support, but you have to admit that we have already seen a little.

 

[El Mahdi]

Or maybe he simply means that the VTT will support all editions....

Which would be absolutely silly on their part to bank on this to bring in older edition players to DDI...! There are lot's of VTT's out there, specifically one's that are cheaper (as in free) and designed for use with older systems. Let alone that WotC VTT doesn't have anything that makes it any better than those other VTT's, especially as it requires a DDI sub for access.

Now if they had made the 3D VTT they said they were going to, with the ability to import character figures from the character visualizer, and virtual versions of all of their minis...then they would have had something worth crowing about.

Unless one plays 4E, there are much better alternatives available.

 

[MortonStromgal]

Well both OD&D and 3rd had a "rules compendium" so that should be easy enough to add to DDI. Old Dungeon and Dragon issues would help it feel like we have more stuff on DDI because you could convert the adventures yourself. Add some agnostic DMs tools and you may start getting more subscriptions. Add a place to buy POD versions of old books and I think you should be able to build the community back regardless of edition.

 

[nedjer]

Well both OD&D and 3rd had a "rules compendium" so that should be easy enough to add to DDI. Old Dungeon and Dragon issues would help it feel like we have more stuff on DDI because you could convert the adventures yourself. Add some agnostic DMs tools and you may start getting more subscriptions. Add a place to buy POD versions of old books and I think you should be able to build the community back regardless of edition.

Makes many kinds of sense to pull them together/ use all that content; and Zeitgeist is an example of a keep everyone happy approach that took some extra work, but was considered worth doing.

However, a 'many edition approach seems to present a new conundrum for WotC. Not which edition, but how easily you step between editions. So to skip to the chase: how much are they allowed to modify the, let's say, three or four editions?

Do they get to work with major incompatibilities to smooth them out, or do they have to stick to edition doctrine?

 

[Maggan]

Do they get to work with major incompatibilities to smooth them out, or do they have to stick to edition doctrine?

I'd say they would have to stay to the beaten path concerning any older editions than 3 and 4. That is, not change a thing, maybe adding a few options, maybe.

But more or less they'd have to reissue the old stuff again, and then not touch it.

/M

 

[nedjer]

I'd say they would have to stay to the beaten path concerning any older editions than 3 and 4. That is, not change a thing, maybe adding a few options, maybe.

But more or less they'd have to reissue the old stuff again, and then not touch it.

/M

Let's say they did that, does that remove concerns about a 5e or similar? I.e. all the old kit is back and available as originally produced, so if they want to try further editions, fair enough, I've got what I want. No skin off my nose if the races are all different kinds of insects and PCs start out as a ickle wasps and dragonflies