Search results

D&D has so many gamist elements that taken apart make no sense (levels, magic, monsters) and because of that its public is prone and willing to accept more takes on the rules. OTOH, call of cthulhu is less nonsensical so there is a broader consensus among its public on what it holds for the...

I do not get what you are saying regarding the focus problem. 4e for example is very focused as some kind of minis game and its tactics.

Well it depends what you really mean. While D&D on surface is a cooperative game, every player wants shine and so, IMO, if you look deep, D&D is a competitive game indeed. Players want to progress, to become more powerful, gain new "awesome". It is through their own "awesome" they want to...

Bravo. Very good and coherent analysis.

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The IP holder does not play around with her IP like that. The deal is that the IP holder will try to make the best of its asset investment wise. The IP holder will try to expand the value of the IP as much as possible while making the most out of it...

Obviously, this trailer is a promotional product. If it manages to communicate something fresh/new on some established product identity (in this case the inspirational value of some spectacle) it can enhance interest by a great deal. It is done well but not so well as the WoW launch trailer...

Well, the archetypes in 4e are not class based but role based. I agree that these archetypes are not that intuitive on the grounds of role playing as they were on previous editions but the point is that they are more clear regarding their function in the game: characters that do a lot of damage...

What do you mean by "set-piece"?

I too agree with the OP. 3.xe was an effort to make D&D a generic system that could suit every kind of fantasy game. You should be able to make any character you want and play along any other character. OTOH, 4e is more focused on team balance around certain archetypes. D&D sprang out of...

I am curious as to why you feel it that way.

This mentality is...exaggerated. If players do not use "unearthed arcana" in their games you can't say they do not play the complete game. The D&D product line is distinguished in core products, expansions, accessories and novels. Imaro is talking about the core things. The 10 essential...

+1.

Wotc designers opted to make a tactical role game with the striker, defender, leader & controller roles. From that point they tried to shoehorn the d&d tropes strictly into this paradigm. They fixed a structure to hold things in place and started development and expansion to further...

Also they have more chances (re)selling this content. If they errata the old PHB less people will want to buy it than buy a book which offers something completely new in addition to errata.

Sales come with a cost. If the estimated cost is higher than the estimated sales revenue Wizards will deliberately not pursue to sell.

The house rule excuse of Jhaelen and MrMyth is not a valid argument in this debate.

From Amazon: Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell provides new character options for Dungeons & Dragons® Essentials players who are ready to move beyond the two player-oriented D&D™ Essentials books, Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. This book gathers...

Exactly. ;) All these are the reasons for what Wotc did. We have been through this in many forums and threads but the current marketing maneuver of whether Essentials is a new edition or not has polarized fans to the effect of making discussions...bizarre.

So? They thought they could sell them. Now and as we go in the future the probability to be able to sell these products shrinks considerably. EDIT: And we still do not know how successfully compatible the classes will be after we get the full erata. So far, some problems have already been a...

Which is probably not happening. You have to admit that addressing the matter like this can be considered misleading.