FreeXenon said:
GVDammerung, I am curious as to why you think that the D&D is over because they are changing the way that the planes are working? I am not sure how changing the flavor of demons and devils and D&D's base cosmology could result in the 'abandonment of what has made D&D "the world's most popular roleplaying game".'
Did you have the same complaints with the advent of Planescape and Tanaari? How important is D&D's cosmology to the running of 'your' games? Does the very fabric and feel of the D&D rules depend on how the demons, devils, and its accompanying cosmology interact?
I am really curious as to how this little bit ruins D&D as we know it? Please explain this some more? You are predicting doom and I want to understand why?
Yes, I am 'The Edition Fan boy' and this change
does 'Roxors my my boxors!'.
I do not think D&D is over. I believe it has been put in some substantial jeopardy. This feeling arises not simply out of the changes that have been made known with respect to devils and demons but to the combined changes to both crunch and fluff. The demons and devils revealtion is merely confirmation, sufficient for me anyway, of how throughly the fluff is being modified.
The Planescape example is inapposite as it was a setting. Here we are speaking of the presentation of the core rules of the game.
The assumed cosmology of the game is much like the background of a television show. For example, a police drama could be set in Hawaii or in New York City. While the police drama story lines might be similar or identical, the feel of the show will be entirely different if the background is Hawaii and not New York. Background matters to how the whole is percieved.
To date, demons, devils and the D&D cosmology has proven fascinating to any number of players. One need look no farther that the Demonomicon of Iggwilv and Core beliefs articles in Dragon to see a current example of this. Changing this risks alienating existing fans. This is fine if you have reason to believe that you will replace these alienated fans and maybe even add more fans. I see no objective reason to believe this will be so with the changes being announced for 4e.
When the 4e rules changes and fluff changes are taken togerther, I see abandonment of a proven, successful formula for a new formula that has not been widely playtested (see 3e for a wide playtest) and a new formula that is not the result of a solicitation of the feelings of D&D's fanbase. This unproven untested formula is IMO very risky. It seems to be coming out of the blue.
I am not guaranteeing doom but I will now go ahead and predict it thusly - 4e will sell no better than 3x and will, after the first 18 months, sell noticeably less; 4e will be replaced or announced to be replaced by 5e no later than 2014. In other words, 4e will have the shortest active production life of any edition of D&D to date. 4e will leave the core fanbase smaller than the 3x fanbase. That isn't absolute doom or ruin but it ain't good.
Aloïsius said:
riiiight. D&D is the "world's mot popular RPG" because someone created the great wheel... It's popularity has nothing to do with D&D beeing the first RPG of history. No : this game is all about demon and devil fighting the blood war !
Huh. I though d&D was about dungeon and dragons. You explore the first with a team of character defined by race, class and level, and you kill the second by using sword and magic.... :\
You miss the point. As noted above, the demons and devils announcement merely quantifies the degree to which fluff or backstory will be changing. Of course, the backstory is not the whole story but it is a critical component, particularly when we are speaking, not of an optional setting treatment, but the core rules, the core assumptions that underly the game's basic presentation.
Your narrow definition of the D&D game is just that - a narrow defination. D&D is not simply kill the monster, take the treasure and level - although that seems to be the way 4e is going. D&D has allowed for a greater depth that the core rules never previously so got in the way of seeing presented. More DMs and players will now face assumptions in the D&D core presentation that they will have to work around if they do not wish to adopt. To be clear, this is not simply a function of the changes to devils and demons but more the roles being assigned etc.. D&D IMO is being pidegonholed more and in the process being reduced down to simplier concepts, more "channeled" play, if you will. And if you don't want to be "channelled?" You will need to work around the new channeling or find another game to play.
Jhaelen said:
Roleplaying games have to evolve or they die. Unless new editions are released at least every decade or so only a small group of die-hard fans will continue playing the game and it certainly won't attract any new players.
4E will make changes to many aspects of the game on many different levels. Some of these changes may improve the game for the majority of the players and some may prove to be a step in the wrong direction. The latter will eventually be fixed by the next edition of the game. At the same time the next edition will introduce some things that will turn out to have been a bad idea. An thus the great wheel turns
The current edition is always the best edition of an rpg - unless it's the last edition.
Your assume that the fanbase will follow a flawed edition to still be there for the next edition's launch. That may or may not prove true. As I said, this is risky stuff done for no objective reason.
There is a difference between evolution and revolution. 4e is overturning the D&D applecart with precious little objective evidence that such is necessary in the manner of a revolution for no other reason than to revolt. Change is essential I agree but it should be well-considered, organic change and change that does not substitute A for B and all-the-while claim its still the same. There is less than no guarantee that by changing D&D as has thus far been announced that 4e will drawn new or more players.
As for the latest always being the greatest edition . . . Not even. See e.g., Traveller.
WayneLigon said:
Probably because they don't want to spin their wheels in the sand for twenty years like TSR did and convince themselves that they were moving forward. They saw no reason to change the formula, and now they're dead.
TSR died for reasons completely unconnected to their not releasing a new edition. A 3rd Edition under TSR would have been unlikely to have saved TSR. Your argument is offbase by a mile.
Psion said:
It's cool for a setting.
Not cool for an edition of the game. That's entirely too much setting-style writing for a toolkit style baseline that I expect out of D&D.
This is it in a nutshell.
Psion said:
The problem here is I expect D&D to bring D&D... as in its historical iconic elements... to the table. When they don't, I begin to think of it as a new game like Exalted or Chilren of the Sun or Uresia and it has to earn its rep with me all over again.
Another nutshell.
This is the risk Wotc is running - that enough people will feel this way that 4e sales will not equal those of 3x.
