Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 3795146" data-attributes="member: 33060">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.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.  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.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.This is it in a nutshell.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.</blockquote>

Verification