Are we fair to WotC?

[Gorgon Zee]

But I think you are a bit off on this point; there were several successful uses of the d20 core that were not fantasy based. I would agree if you said that d20 lent itself to heroic RPGs, but its robust enough to support horror, super-heroes, romance, etc. if one feels so inclined.

I'm using a fairly limited definition of success here -- it's building a long-term sustainable product line. There were definitely fun and profitable works based on d20. I ran a Slaine campaign and liked the Dredd works, for example. But nothing really gained long-term traction.

Also, I really do feel that d20 is pretty tightly bound to heroic fantasy. It can be reskinned to "support" other genres, but I am of the school that thinks that rules and genre are strongly intertwined. I know not everyone thinks this, but my feeling is that different genres work better with different systems.

As an example, take Call of Cthulhu. The BRP system used in chaosium's rules (I have not read seventh edition rules yet) is, to my mind, a very weak system. Mechanically much inferior to d20. And yet, I an many others love playing horror using it and CoC d20 was a flop.

But anyway, please don't take my comments as saying that all D20 games were bad, or failed to be profitable. Certainly that is not the case. What I should have made more clear is that they failed to create a sustainable product. Which I believe Paizo have, uniquely, managed to do.

 

[the Jester]

I think Mutants and Masterminds is still going, isn't it?

 

[billd91]

I think Mutants and Masterminds is still going, isn't it?

Yep, 3rd edition (and the M&M 3e-based DC Adventures) is currently available. Just picked up the 10th anniversary special edition at Gen Con.

 

[billd91]

As an example, take Call of Cthulhu. The BRP system used in chaosium's rules (I have not read seventh edition rules yet) is, to my mind, a very weak system. Mechanically much inferior to d20. And yet, I an many others love playing horror using it and CoC d20 was a flop.

What evidence do you have that d20 CoC was a flop? The outside sources mentioned in this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?15668-Call-of-Cthulhu-d20-not-reprinted) suggest that sales were actually decent. Reviews were generally good as well. Chaosium's perpetual lack of resources seems to be more of a culprit in d20 CoC's demise than it being a flop.

That said, the BRP system works very well for CoC and has done so for many years. There never really was a need for CoC to exist in both BRP and d20 modes.

 

[Remus Lupin]

I was under the impression, and I believe that Monte Cook quite explicitly stated, that CoCd20 was always intended to be a fairly limited run one-off, and was published with that intention. If sales for it were good, which is my recollection from the time (apparently backed by bild91's link above), then it could hardly be said to be a flop. Other spinoff from the d20 system seemed to do quite well, or led to offspring that did well (True20?). d20 Modern was a bit disappointing largely because of its generic quality, though it was still fun to play (if not an ideal modern-style fast & furious game).

d20 doesn't necessarily have to be all things to all people, but it did have the potential, not always realized, to be a very solid all-around game system.

 

[Wicht]

I'm using a fairly limited definition of success here -- it's building a long-term sustainable product line. There were definitely fun and profitable works based on d20. I ran a Slaine campaign and liked the Dredd works, for example. But nothing really gained long-term traction.

As others have pointed out, you are simply factually wrong, if for no other reason than Mutants and Masterminds is still going. I don't know if Spycraft is still in print or not, I know its still being sold, but they had a pretty good run, a 2nd edition, which moved away from the original d20 rules in some ways but still kept to the core (again, showing the flexibility of the system's base).

Some others, CoCd20 in particular, were not meant to be a long-term line. It was a one-of and there were never plans to encroach any further on Chaosium's line (sort of a gentleman's agreement as I understand it).

Anyway, I think it fairly safe to say that d20 showed itself robust enough to accept a variety of styles beyond high fantasy.

 

[Wicht]

As an example, take Call of Cthulhu. The BRP system used in chaosium's rules (I have not read seventh edition rules yet) is, to my mind, a very weak system.

I think this is largely a matter of opinion. I think its a pretty good classless, skill based system in which death is easy to find. It is also used by more than Chaosium; indeed Chaosium was licensing it out before it was cool to do so. Cubicle7 prints a few games using it, including The Laundry (a Lovecraft homage itself). It also is a proven system for multiple genres, having originated as a fantasy system. I don't think I would call it a weak system by any stretch. Its just good for something different than d20 is.

 

[Warbringer]

Thanks for sharing that. My Fate Core copy has no OGL license.

 

[Mark CMG]

WotC is lucky they created the OGL or folks would have drifted much further from D&D than just next door to Pathfinder. If anything, the OGL essentially kept those not enamored with 4E in the neighborhood where WotC might have a chance to invite them over for 5E and maybe get them to stick around. If they had used the OGL with 4E, they might even have more folks playing some version of it, even if it is one that is highly modified, in-house or by third party publishers. But as to folks who didn't like 4E playing 4E if the OGL had never existed? Naw. There are simply too many alternatives and communication with the Internet puts them all right in front of you. I doubt there are enough folks who would play a game they dislike often enough and long enough to significantly change the bottom line of 4E's level of success.

 

[adamc]

Can we please put a stop to this? You're not being insulted. 3e fans weren't being insulted when 4e came out. 4e fans aren't being insulted now. I was a 3e fan, and I never once felt insulted by the release of 4e. I am a 4e fan and I definitely haven't felt insulted by 5e's build-up. So they certainly weren't insulting the entire 4e or 3e fanbase. There are people who are acting insulted (and I can certainly guess as to why), but that doesn't mean it's actually taking place. WotC is making decisions about the direction they want to take their brand in. That's not an insult to you. They're not flipping you off. They're not kicking your dog. You are not being offended.

In fact, choosing to look at these decisions in a way that transforms them into offensive (rather than simply disappointing) actions is actually pretty worrisome. Is that how you go about your life? When someone makes a decision about their own business (whether they're a corporation or an individual) that you aren't a fan of, it becomes an insult? They don't exist to cater to you personally, and they are not beholden to you, personally.

So you can be disappointed. You can decide that their products aren't for you. You can long for the days when your wishes were the ones being fulfilled. But don't act insulted. That just reeks of everything unpleasant about the gaming community.

Pretty much what I was going to say. I'm not crazy about 5e, and I'm disappointed that they seem to be disinterested in continuing many aspects of 4e. But it's not personal. Hasbro is just a big, faceless company that wants to make money. If they are taking D&D in another direction, it's because they hope it will be more profitable for them. They might be wrong, but it's not an insult.