Search results

Absolutely. They made their decision. “Classic” DragonLance fans can kick rocks. All the easier to segregate opinions they don’t care about from the survey info they are actually interested in.

IMHO one of the main reasons the issues you highlighted have never been addressed post 3e, is that by and large the designers at WotC also like it that way.

I agree. Yet you do have those who say "I run high level 5e games just fine!? What are you talking about?" But IMHO - those are very gonzo, fight the gods, zany types of games I am not interested in.

Ok so they are making real rule changes to make the game more evocative for Dark Souls... And they currently show "5e Compatible" on their product mock ups in their promotional shots Which I think is fine. But to play a little devils advocate: Back in the 5e Symbaroum thread I was told in no...

IMHO focusing on the whole 90% combat comment thing is redirecting the discussion from the real underlying frustrations behind the backlash... When it comes to marketable RPG IP: Does everything, Everything, really have to be converted to 5e D&D !?* In my opinion, the backlash seen here is...

I had no idea what an NFT was until I clicked this thread and didn’t understand what people were even talking about. So I searched the internet for answers! A few clicks and less than sixty seconds of reading about non fungible digital frippery that sells for 5 to 6 figures, and all was made...

Not surprising. People like the original lore. WW has now made the same mistake with Vampire three times in a row.

Ehh... They don't need to pay anyone. That could easily be just an organized fandom push. PF2 issue was that it was in a no win situation. What design direction was it supposed to go in? And how soon after 5e should it have been dropped? PF1e briefly was the #1 RPG, but they were the #1 RPG by...

?? I wasn't hinting at switching systems.. What Pazio should have done is actually fix the underlying issues of 3.5, get rid of the ivory tower feat design, and streamline the certain known system issues. Essentially what corefinder is aiming to do many years after the fact. IMHO this would...

Not surprising unfortunately. In my opinion: PF2 was introduced into a bad position to begin with because Pazio never cleaned up the underlying issues of 3.5 with PF1e. And IMHO, PF1 was the wrong design direction to go in from day one. They doubled down on the design elements that were...

There is much truth to this though. Many in the hobby seem to have an aversion to playing "dead" systems... That is the risk they must run with the 50AE "not-edition". They promised "backwards compatibility"... For WotC, yes. One could argue that 2e was just a cleaned up 1e. Until now...

That's horrid LOL! HP bloat is not fine, your extrapolation proves that the game will make itself completely unwieldly if you progress all the classes in the same way as Wizards! A Prime example of different strokes for different folks! I find D&D above 7th level to be a bit OP all the way...

If they were really serious about helping FLGS: They would give them the same wholesale price on their books that Amazon and other big box stores get... They won't. They could, but they won't.

In my opinion, a lot of these issues go back to when designing 3e WotC made Hit Point progression go for all 20 levels. 1-2e only had HD go to level10 or so with maybe a +1 or 2 HP per level after that. Much of the intention was that around levels 10 or so the PC's will move on to domain play...

Now you are confusing who is trying to gaslight who... Nice try, not buying it. Yes. And Yes even if you don't count the clone, because its day in the sun was brief compared to D&D's decades of dominance. No one said D&D's core concepts were bad. I certainly didn't. A system being Good...

And? This refutes nothing of what I was talking about. Understanding the whole 4e-5e situation can be explained by extrapolating from what I have already posted. WotC committed an own goal with 4e: They split the player base. (This is that part in my post where I said that: "The market leader...

You're right. The term was used incorrectly. It was My fault for leaning into that. I caused unnecessary confusion by doing so. So forget the term "sunk cost" and instead replace with: Network Effect And this point: Is then sufficiently addressed by my post. As are the points you just made...

Exactly. All of D&D's early potential "competitors" failed to emulate the things that D&D got right sufficiently in spite of whatever innovations they introduced to build up any real competitive momentum. By the late 70's early 80's it was a wrap. D&D had the critical mass by then.

I Made no such claim. I said that there is nothing inherently special about D&D's system that makes it the Market Leader in most of RPG land. Because being Good Enough is all that is needed when you are the First Mover, and you service your customers. Evidence of this claim was given when I...

Which is why in the very post you quote I said: "It's all about First, Good Enough, and Servicing your customer base." Which is why in a few cases in other countries home grown systems became ascendant over D&D. Except you said no such thing in your last post. (I checked). I critiqued D&D...