Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7664625" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I certainly didn't assert that it's random or arbitrary, and I don't see that I implied that either.</p><p></p><p>I asserted that it is <em>not a normative matter</em>. And hence that language like "turning of the back" or "abandoning" has no work to do.</p><p></p><p>It would be absurd for me to complain about WotC "abandoning me" by stopping publishing 4e books and starting to publish 5e ones. My partner can abandon me. My friends can abandon me. But all that WotC is doing is making commercial decisions about what books to write and print.</p><p></p><p>And? What is meant to follow from that? That those people were clever? Or silly? That WotC was evil? Or good?</p><p></p><p>All you are saying is that some people didn't like a game system, either from the start or after the passage of time. </p><p></p><p>5e came along for one principal reason: WotC formed the view that it could make more money from its ownership of the D&D intellectual property by publishing new books with a new ruleset.</p><p></p><p>This is much the same reason that 4e came along. And 3E before it.</p><p></p><p>You can then try and explain this commercial state of affairs, by pointing to different segments of the market and their preferences for purchase (which are probably more than tangentially related to their preferences for play). And that is important information for a commercial publisher like WotC to have and use.</p><p></p><p>But it does not generate any normative conclusions.</p><p></p><p>For instance, it doesn't give anyone a reason to play 5e. Nor a reason to play 4e. Nor a reason not to play 4e, or 5e.</p><p></p><p>It doesn't support any normatively-laden claims like "turning of the back" or "abandonment", either.</p><p></p><p>I don't really follow this. You define "should" by reference to "healthy edition cycle", but what does that mean? Healthy for whom? And in what sense?</p><p></p><p>Does anyone know what the profits were, or the rate of return, for the WotC D&D group was between 2008 and 2012? What it was during the time of the 5e playtest? And how this compares to historical rates of return for that commercial group? I certainly don't, and I've never seen such information published. Nor do I know how D&D at those various times compared to WotC as a whole, or to Hasbro as a whole, or to the hobby market or publishing market as a whole?</p><p></p><p>Without that sort of information, how do you characterise an edition cycle as healthy or unhealthy?</p><p></p><p>No doubt, in a perfect world from the point of view of Mearls in 2011, Essentials would have become the "evergreen" product it was intended to be, and WotC would have sold hundreds of thousands of books per year while spending no money on system support other than printing and DDI maintenance. But the fact that nothing like that happened, and the WotC had to spend money designing a new system, doesn't mean that they lost money, or went broke, or anything of that sort. Perhaps all that investment has already been recouped, and more, in 5e sales! (Plus ongoing DDI subscriptions. Plus sales of D&D PDFs. Plus sales of D&D novels. And boardgames. Etc.)</p><p></p><p>I think most posters on these boards would characterise 2nd ed AD&D as a "healthy" edition cycle, yet from the point of view of its publisher that <em>did</em> cause bankruptcy.</p><p></p><p>Does "healthy" really mean "pleasing to some segment of the fan base that includes you"? That would be fine as far as it goes, but doesn't have any grander normative reach.</p><p></p><p>This strikes me as an improbable scenario, for two reasons.</p><p></p><p>First, the only evidence we have of the financial viability, for WotC, of "letting 3.5 go another couple of years" is that they decided not to do that. What reason is there to think that sales of 3.5 core books + supplements in 2008 to 2010 would have been larger than sales of 4e core books + supplements? I don't know of any (eg PF probably didn't sell as many books as 4e in that time, and I don't see any reason to suppose that WotC could have replicated what Paizo did with PF).</p><p></p><p>(And a related question - what evidence is there that there was a large demand for a "tactical variant" of 3E? Didn't the Miniatures Handbook and Heroes of Battle already provide that?)</p><p></p><p>Second, I think that 5e couldn't exist, as a design, without Essentials, and so could not have been invented without 4e. Essentials follows a development pathway sketched by <a href="http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313" target="_blank">Rob Heinsoo</a> - start with balanced because symmetrical class design, and then branch out:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">We weren't always planning to give all characters equal numbers of powers. Many times we experimented with vastly different power acquisition schemes for different classes. And when we decided against those approaches, there were people in R&D, including myself, who sometimes balked and felt like giving different classes different numbers and types of power might be a good way of differentiating between classes. But sentiment didn't pan out. All of our actual experiments with different power-distribution schemes didn't work out, so we moved ahead with the notion that a richer understanding of our system might give us room to experiment in the future.</p><p></p><p>5e is the outcome of that experimentation!</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what the standard is for "legitimate complaint". If people enjoy a game, they will play it (everything else being equal). If they don't, they won't (again, everything else being equal). The notion of "legitimacy" doesn't have much work to do in this domain, in my view. (Nor the notion of "complaint", really. "Complaint" implies some sort of legitimate expectation that was thwarted. The only complaint in this context can be "I'm not enjoying it any more.")</p><p></p><p>The "edition wars" aren't a function of people not wanting to play a game, however. Most people don't want to play Rolemaster, because they have a legitimate complaint against it - namely, they don't enjoy it - but there are no "edition wars" around Rolemaster. (I mean, if I post that I used to GM Rolemaster I'll get the odd crack about "chartmaster" but nothing vitriolic. Last time I was on the ICE boards there were people who swore by RMSS and others who preferred RM2, but they didn't generally get vitriolic either.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7664625, member: 42582"] I certainly didn't assert that it's random or arbitrary, and I don't see that I implied that either. I asserted that it is [I]not a normative matter[/I]. And hence that language like "turning of the back" or "abandoning" has no work to do. It would be absurd for me to complain about WotC "abandoning me" by stopping publishing 4e books and starting to publish 5e ones. My partner can abandon me. My friends can abandon me. But all that WotC is doing is making commercial decisions about what books to write and print. And? What is meant to follow from that? That those people were clever? Or silly? That WotC was evil? Or good? All you are saying is that some people didn't like a game system, either from the start or after the passage of time. 5e came along for one principal reason: WotC formed the view that it could make more money from its ownership of the D&D intellectual property by publishing new books with a new ruleset. This is much the same reason that 4e came along. And 3E before it. You can then try and explain this commercial state of affairs, by pointing to different segments of the market and their preferences for purchase (which are probably more than tangentially related to their preferences for play). And that is important information for a commercial publisher like WotC to have and use. But it does not generate any normative conclusions. For instance, it doesn't give anyone a reason to play 5e. Nor a reason to play 4e. Nor a reason not to play 4e, or 5e. It doesn't support any normatively-laden claims like "turning of the back" or "abandonment", either. I don't really follow this. You define "should" by reference to "healthy edition cycle", but what does that mean? Healthy for whom? And in what sense? Does anyone know what the profits were, or the rate of return, for the WotC D&D group was between 2008 and 2012? What it was during the time of the 5e playtest? And how this compares to historical rates of return for that commercial group? I certainly don't, and I've never seen such information published. Nor do I know how D&D at those various times compared to WotC as a whole, or to Hasbro as a whole, or to the hobby market or publishing market as a whole? Without that sort of information, how do you characterise an edition cycle as healthy or unhealthy? No doubt, in a perfect world from the point of view of Mearls in 2011, Essentials would have become the "evergreen" product it was intended to be, and WotC would have sold hundreds of thousands of books per year while spending no money on system support other than printing and DDI maintenance. But the fact that nothing like that happened, and the WotC had to spend money designing a new system, doesn't mean that they lost money, or went broke, or anything of that sort. Perhaps all that investment has already been recouped, and more, in 5e sales! (Plus ongoing DDI subscriptions. Plus sales of D&D PDFs. Plus sales of D&D novels. And boardgames. Etc.) I think most posters on these boards would characterise 2nd ed AD&D as a "healthy" edition cycle, yet from the point of view of its publisher that [I]did[/I] cause bankruptcy. Does "healthy" really mean "pleasing to some segment of the fan base that includes you"? That would be fine as far as it goes, but doesn't have any grander normative reach. This strikes me as an improbable scenario, for two reasons. First, the only evidence we have of the financial viability, for WotC, of "letting 3.5 go another couple of years" is that they decided not to do that. What reason is there to think that sales of 3.5 core books + supplements in 2008 to 2010 would have been larger than sales of 4e core books + supplements? I don't know of any (eg PF probably didn't sell as many books as 4e in that time, and I don't see any reason to suppose that WotC could have replicated what Paizo did with PF). (And a related question - what evidence is there that there was a large demand for a "tactical variant" of 3E? Didn't the Miniatures Handbook and Heroes of Battle already provide that?) Second, I think that 5e couldn't exist, as a design, without Essentials, and so could not have been invented without 4e. Essentials follows a development pathway sketched by [url=http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4spot/20090313]Rob Heinsoo[/url] - start with balanced because symmetrical class design, and then branch out: [indent]We weren't always planning to give all characters equal numbers of powers. Many times we experimented with vastly different power acquisition schemes for different classes. And when we decided against those approaches, there were people in R&D, including myself, who sometimes balked and felt like giving different classes different numbers and types of power might be a good way of differentiating between classes. But sentiment didn't pan out. All of our actual experiments with different power-distribution schemes didn't work out, so we moved ahead with the notion that a richer understanding of our system might give us room to experiment in the future.[/indent] 5e is the outcome of that experimentation! I'm not sure what the standard is for "legitimate complaint". If people enjoy a game, they will play it (everything else being equal). If they don't, they won't (again, everything else being equal). The notion of "legitimacy" doesn't have much work to do in this domain, in my view. (Nor the notion of "complaint", really. "Complaint" implies some sort of legitimate expectation that was thwarted. The only complaint in this context can be "I'm not enjoying it any more.") The "edition wars" aren't a function of people not wanting to play a game, however. Most people don't want to play Rolemaster, because they have a legitimate complaint against it - namely, they don't enjoy it - but there are no "edition wars" around Rolemaster. (I mean, if I post that I used to GM Rolemaster I'll get the odd crack about "chartmaster" but nothing vitriolic. Last time I was on the ICE boards there were people who swore by RMSS and others who preferred RM2, but they didn't generally get vitriolic either.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?
Top