Search results

Pretty much the D20 STL of 3E reimagined for today. That went well for a while. But once people realized that they could completely ignore it, it stopped being a motivator. I predict that everything will be a lot more even keeled this time. And the actual "D&D" storefront is a much nicer...

Yep This was a both a strength and a flaw in 4e, depending on the group and circumstances

Yeah, and I'm onboard with your position. Though with the caveat that since you can't truly close the content, closign the names seems odd. But I also don't want to come across as negative. This is all great news. WotC are the good guys here. But their good will and intent may be one thing...

Under Sorcerous Origin it lists "Wild Magic", so it seems that clearly allows you to reference it. Without getting into the murky "play nice" issues, you can easily reconstruct anything that is missing, so long as you work around names which are not available. I think you could produce a...

The new SRD can be used under the OGL exactly as it was in the 3E era. They have ALSO added the DMG options on top of that and the controls you list apply there, but only there. Perhaps it has enough added value that it effectively produces this result. But the OGL is still the OGL.

The new SRD can be used under the OGL exactly as it was in the 3E era. They have ALSO added the DMG options on top of that and the controls you list apply there, but only there. Perhaps it has enough added value that it effectively produces this result. But the OGL is still the OGL...

long absence..... :) Likely to continue.... Being 10% up or whatever the number may be does not in any way make it any less of a teapot.

This still adds ZERO new information. 5E is "strong" compared to anything D&D has seen in quite a few years. So it is completely fair and accurate to make this statement. But it provides no information at all in regard to "are the margins worth investment?". It was highly clear when 4E was...

I've already fully agreed that it is dominating the teapot. My point is that the teapot isn't big enough.

I've got more material than I'll ever use in my lifetime on my shelves. There is a difference between looking for material and cultivating a thriving marketbase. And, again, the current large and stable market is a great credit to the quality of the core game. But Less than 18 months in a...

If production of splat was making the return WotC wanted, they would be producing more splat. They are not "investing" much in anything. I'm not saying they are bad guys or even making bad choices. They are allocating their resources into things which best benefit them. I wish that aligned...

I think this is a false option. It is "doing extremely well" because it is still the "new shiny" with the superstar brand name on it. To be clear, IMO it is a great game. But doing well is both completely relative and heavily influenced by what is going on around it. It is pretty much "doing...

Within the teapot which is the TTRPG fanbase, 5E is king. But is is just that, a teapot, and WotC has rightly decided that trying to make that teapot bigger won't happen and also decided that the teapot as-is is not worthy of significant investment.

Definitely. Everything else is just talking around that.

As I said, "if people like it". Note that this is about markets, not BryonD and not Jester Canuck. Combining these responses because I think you miss a key point in both: player base. If other people start gravitating to other games that WILL have an effect on you. Just ask the people who...

If someone likes two games and one produces new content and the other doesn't, the lack of new content will be a big driver for the majority of people to choose the other game. If they BOTH produce content then the one that produce BETTER content will be the driver. If NEITHER produce content...

Sure. The "they" in my post is the company and the people making the choices. And, to be clear, I'm not looking to bash companies for making what they believe to be best value choices for their resources. But if Chris is or is not completely on-board with me in wishing there was a lot more...

Your point is valid. But I don't think it is lack of a clue so much as it is spin. They don't want to produce books because it is not worth the investment. Obviously they would be pleased to know that a book they published becomes an at-table standard for many years to come. So the statement...

I'm not at all clear why we have to make the quantum leap to 10 books. It is also funny to see the same data interpreting mistakes of the last edition repeated. At this point in 4E's life it was still the conventional wisdom that it was the edition for a generation, a few hard-hearted...

I said they got people to buy the books and that is why they did it. What is your point with repeating my point as if it contradicts me? Who cares what you call it? I love new editions. You, however, are playing bait and switch with the vague concept of "new edition" against an implication...