D&D 4E 4E WotC way of saying your fired?

[Glyfair]

TSR threw money into a hole trying to sue their fans for publishing derivative works for free on the internet (y'know, the whole thing where they sued people for posting original D&D monsters on a website).

Did they sue, or just threaten to sue? I never heard about any cases. It's much cheaper to just have a lawyer send a letter or email (especially if you already are paying them).

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

shocklee: I'm not able (in opportunity) to locate the quote at the moment, but I'm certain something has been said about allowing DMs to enter custom rules on their DI games. If someone digs that up, great, otherwise I'll try to find it later.

 

[delericho]

I'm certain something has been said about allowing DMs to enter custom rules on their DI games.

I would be simply shocked if that was possible. Sure, it would be a really 'nice to have' feature, but the major problem is coding it. I don't think it will be possible, except in perhaps a really rudimentary manner.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Indeed, Erik Mona has said he like the mechanical changes, but has concerns about the background changes. Given his position, I think his moving to 4E (along with this company), will bring a chunk of his customers with him.

I think he said that he likes them so far. Since he doesn't know more than we do, he can't say.

He does say that it's most likely that Paizo will move to 4e, but it's not set in stone yet, and it's possible that it will be delayed if Wizards takes too much time to give them the rules - they will not change in the middle of an adventure path, and if Wizards takes too long, the third Pathfinder Adventure Path will still be 3e.

That will also mean that at least some of the Paizo fans will wait longer until they buy the 4e books, since they won't have any use for them (except looking at them) until spring 2009 or so.

 

[Cadfan]

I would be simply shocked if that was possible. Sure, it would be a really 'nice to have' feature, but the major problem is coding it. I don't think it will be possible, except in perhaps a really rudimentary manner.

It won't be possible because, as WOTC has made incredibly clear, the DI gaming table does not adjudicate rules other than, optionally, lighting, mapping, and dice rolling. The DM is the one who adjudicates the rules.

Which also means it can't keep your rules out.

 

[shocklee]

It won't be possible because, as WOTC has made incredibly clear, the DI gaming table does not adjudicate rules other than, optionally, lighting, mapping, and dice rolling. The DM is the one who adjudicates the rules.

Which also means it can't keep your rules out.

So that means you can use some of the tools, but not necessarily all of the tools. I doubt that the character generator will support that much customization.

I also had an insight, since I'm bringing up this same question in another thread - who owns the rights to any of the material that you post though the DI gaming table?

 

[Psion]

I suspect that there may have been miscommunication on someone's part here; firing one's customers generally refers to the abusive, petty, and typically-not-worth-it-financially subset of customers, not to the entire base. That'd be silly.

(Shrug) I feel fired. And I am a pretty big contributer to WotC's coffers.

But I'm not one of those purely "new shiny" motivated customers, which seems to be the real audience that WotC seems concerned with keeping.

Not that I really blame them. My sales slacked off recently because the new shiny is not enough for me. There is no profit motive for WotC to keep me or customers like me.

I think Erik hit the nail on the head with this other statement in a thread over at Paizo:

I'm worried that I will not be able to DM a game within the same imaginative framework I've used to envision D&D for 30 years of my life because some random WotC designer decides that his idea of a succubus is cooler than the one that's served me fine for three decades. Same with elves and eladrins and the like. One or two of these issues, no big deal, but from what I've seen so far it doesn't look like "respect the traditions of the game" is particularly high on WotC list of design goals for the new edition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, it seems abundantly obvious by your uninformed posts concerning WotC and TSR's histories that you need the lesson, especially if you're going to try and throw in your $.02.

Clearly, then, you believe that you have insight to TSR's finances that are greater than those available to the average person.

While it is certainly true that "TSR threw money into a hole trying to sue their fans for publishing derivative works for free on the internet" (even stupider a move for PR as, prehaps, the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon in their print mediums), I would say that where TSR lost was trying to compete with MtG through Spellfire, Bloodwars, and dice games. Of course, I don't have a copy of TSR's financial statements, as you apparently do. And, if you do, cite specific information and sources, please. Otherwise, you appeal to authority as to TSR's financial dealings falls a little flat.

So here's something else about context:

Before 2nd Edition rolled out, TSR was selling product for both the AD&D and the Basic/Expert (later Rules Compendium) D&D lines. What was sort of neat about these products was that, with very little work, an AD&D DM could use an Expert module, and a Basic DM could use an AD&D module. They were analagous in the way that 3.0 and 3.5 are.

TSR also had a lock on D&D. Not only a legal lock; people associated the two in a way that WotC hasn't managed to duplicate. So, you might have C&C or T&T as competing products, but they weren't D&D. What D&D meant was roughly analagous from product to product and line to line. Even when 2e came out, the average DM could run Keep on the Borderlands and make any needed changes on the fly.

WotC has a legal lock on the D&D name, but it doesn't have the same "TSR=D&D" lock on the imaginations of its players that TSR had then. For many people, the offerings of third-parties, such as Paizo, Necromancer Games, and Green Ronin, are as important to what D&D "is" as are the products put out by WotC.

I never purchased 3.5; I know a lot of people who likewise never purchased 3.5. I have no intention at this time of purchasing 4.0. I know a lot of people who likewise have no intention of purchasing 4.0. If Paizo & Necromancer put out 3.75, I would purchase it, sight unseen. Likewise, I know a lot of people who would do so.

I am not alone in thinking that WotC simply doesn't "get" D&D. I am not alone in thinking that Paizo, Necromancer Games, and Green Ronin do "get it". Had I suggested that TSR didn't "get" D&D in the 1e (or even 2e) days, I would have been standing alone.

I played my first D&D game on Christmas Day of 1979. I've been playing ever since. I've been through every period of this game's history from the Holmes Blue Box to the present. At the worst time near the end of 2e's history, I could go to any one of a dozen gaming stores to get any recently released product. That number has narrowed significantly.

Finally (and this is important), WotC doesn't need to simply turn a profit. It needs to turn the profit Hasbro requires. If WotC doesn't turn sufficient profit, it makes sense for Hasbro to allocate its resources elsewhere.

RC

 

[Reynard]

I am not alone in thinking that WotC simply doesn't "get" D&D. I am not alone in thinking that Paizo, Necromancer Games, and Green Ronin do "get it". Had I suggested that TSR didn't "get" D&D in the 1e (or even 2e) days, I would have been standing alone.

This is why it is important, I think, that WotC remember to maintain the relatively "generic" feel of D&D in the core books -- something the previews so far are suggesting is not going to happen. Keeping things vaguely medieval european fantasy-ness, as all prior editions have done, enables the really good third party publishers, like those you name, to produce very good D&D material. But if WotC "reimagines" themselves into Exalted, for example, the guys at companies like Necromancer have a much harder time supporting the game. And I think third party support -- not just in product, but in opinion -- is key to 4E being successful. d20 opened up the playing field in a way that WotC never intended, I think, and they need to realize that it isn't just their sandbox anymore; they can't just take their toys and go home.

 

[Maggan]

Finally (and this is important), WotC doesn't need to simply turn a profit. It needs to turn the profit Hasbro requires. If WotC doesn't turn sufficient profit, it makes sense for Hasbro to allocate its resources elsewhere.

RC

I think the question then is; does WotC need D&D to turn a Hasbro level profit? I think I remember someone from WotC saying that Hasbro don't micromanage on that level, but I might be wrong.

Or is it possible for WotC to use D&D as a way of cultivating a brand, which makes money through e.g. licensing deals, and therefore has a lower planned profit margin?

/M