Search results

That was a conditional sentence. If you accept the second part of the sentence(clause), you have to accept the first part too(condition). This is what I am saying to you.

You quoted me on the hypothesis of 5e been announced sometime in the near future. This year, or next year I guess.

The way I put it, was in context of this thread discussions, along with the most plausible probabilities of what we think it is going on. I take it that you mean it in a more general context, aka the news of a new edition would totally eclipse everything else. And by your take, it means that...

Either way, we will know. If it is 5e indeed we will say: "remember when Morrus..." If it is something else but still important, then we will more or less say the same. If it is nothing of interest then, shrug...

heh... are you serious here? ...I mean...It seems you are

I dare pose the question, up to you to reply or not. Was the source affiliated to Kobold Quarterly?

Based on arcane and divine spells/powers I guess.

I do not think that makes any sense. It probably means that any new D&D players could potentially have an even more bloated environment regarding the published game products. The "D&D standards compatible" license holding restrictions you are talking about could mitigate this problem but then...

We have other hard data too. Like the ones that Wotc used in court when it went against the PHB2 pirates. Really, it seems that the active market population is just in hundreds of thousands if not merely tens of thousands. The one that buys supplements beyond the core books.

Why not? I think it suits Wotc's current business pretty well. They have invested in establishing a market relationship of feeding the D&D product to buyers through on-going subscriptions and on-going events. So, tieing marketing on this on-going engagement with the public -even the push...

Somehow, I have this feeling that if D&D were not in the 1st I wouldn't be posting in the second page of this thread but rather in the 22st -and this being a rather modest estimation. Ahh, well...maybe next time ;)

Are you?

Ironically, since last September Wotc has only rolled out Essentials on the shelves and so it seems this to have been the most opportune time for a 3pp to promote product on the shelves. But alas, nothing of this sort.

How is that any different?

I think it is dishonest and not that logical that he blames forum "reactionaries" for Wotc's unresponsiveness while showcasing the fact that Paizo responded.

In every game, players are directed to carry on by going against the challenges that the game suggests. Gameplay greatly impacts the player's creativity channels because following the gameplay channels is something that the game does need you and expects you to do. The problem, regarding 4e...

Here is the thing. I do not believe that Wotc can or wants to be the hobby industry leader anymore. What they do want is to maintain the brand value of D&D, because this is what Hasbro ultimately wants. They know that, as a brand, Dungeons & Dragons will most probably outlast Warcraft, because...

Albeit with a broken leg.

Apparently, yes. There is a fraction of the target population we are bothering discussing about here that its choices are ultimately characterized by the behavior of following the lead.

D&D Essentials, as the evergreen D&D essential product should be one, maximum two books (one for the player and one for the DM). What they did was an attempt to launch and sell a "new(revised)/not new(compatible)" severely long package line and (if internet claims are true) they failed utterly...