As long as we are talking hypothetically...

[ggroy]

If the D&D merchandise performed badly and you could make a sweet deal with someone that had some chances to revive it, would you do it or not?

This decision would depend on whether I was the CEO of a publicly traded company, and whether my job was on the line. The board of directors may also have to approve such decisions.

Most video game companies would not seek to shelf video game lines for example in a similar situation -this is my general impression.

Even if a video game was very popular, it is possible for a video game line to disappear from the market for long periods of time.

For example, Duke Nukem Forever has been "vaporware" for a long time.

Of course Hasbro could behave differently but it would pay the PR price, especially if some company announced that was interested to buy and carry on said line but Hasbro chose to shelf it instead.

Does Hasbro have a reputation for shelving product lines which are not producing half decent profits?

If this is the case, what is Hasbro's track record for selling off shelved product lines? Or for that matter, what is Hasbro's track record for licensing out the rights to other companies, for their previously shelved product lines?

 

[BryonD]

And this is worse than having bad math that causes the game to break down?

Your question assumes a lack of DMing skill to keep the system from breaking down.

Honestly, if 3X was breaking down for you, then no. The limitations of the math working are much better than being unable to manage the system.

But speaking as someone with no "break down" concerns, the limitations of "the math works" are all cost for no gain.

You question makes me think of someone who suggests that bikes with training wheels are better because they are far less worse than constantly falling over. The assumption that everyone falls without them implicit in the position is absurd. And the presumption of "break down" is just the same.

Yes, if the game was constantly breaking down *for you*, then *you* are better off settling for something else.


Honestly, the phrase "the math works" sounds nice in theory. But in practice, I find it to be directly contrary to what I most enjoy in roleplaying. I like being in a setting that feels like some kind of reality. It doesn't need to be actual reality, and it doesn't need to be Middle Earth, or Hyperboria, or Camelot. It doesn't have to be anything in particular, but it needs to feel like it is something like all of these, and many others. And that you can customize to make your version feel more like whichever one you want.

And a key factor is all of them, at least the one that "the math works" so jarring grates across, is that equity is not a part of any of them. Heroes, villains, and supporting cast can all have widely varied strengths and weaknesses. Everyone doesn't have 1/2 level +/- a limited window of modifiers for nearly everything. Things are not all balanced cleanly into equitable percent chance ranges.

This, to me, is one of the key reasons 4E is so much less appealing as an RPG. Of course I can role play to it. But that isn't the point. I find it much more enjoyable being in the position of a character with totally fantastic strengths, but still a real-ish feel of strengths and weaknesses and a need to find a way to exploit my strengths against my challenges weaknesses, rather than being a token carefully balanced for consistent challenge resolution.

Knowing that I'm a fighter and that evil wizard can charm me in an instant is great. That's a problem that I have to deal with. But if I can get his magic defenses down, I'll be able to grind him to a pulp in very short order. Because I'm not balanced to fend off his mind control and he ain't balanced to deal with my blade in a straight up throw down. The math don't work. And it feels right. And it is great. And I'm that guy trying to solve this problem.

In 4E I can role play the exact same guy. And I can go face the exact same evil wizard. And then the math starts "working". And the encounter doesn't play out the way it should. The mechanics do not live up to the demands of my imagination and sense of being into a fantastic world. Instead, everything is balanced. I can still win, and I can still lose. And putting my strengths against his weaknesses is still right there. But it is all dampened. All the numbers are in the same ballpark and I know it could be so much more. But the damn training wheels are keeping the bike balanced.

My roleplay is exactly the same, but the feedback the pure mechanics of the system offer are so much less than what can be.

 

[AllisterH]

BryonD, you do realize you're kind of also implicating 1e and 2e in your example though?

A high level fighter in those earlier editions pretty much could laugh off ANY magical spell especially if you factor in gear....I'm not sure why it is considered "normal" that a mid to high level fighter is weak against magic. Pre-3e, this certainly wasn't true so when did this become the default assumption of the community?

 

[Raven Crowking]

...comment on your response to the following scenario:

1. 4E is successful, maintains itself as the top selling and most played RPG, and runs 8-10 years in its current direction before being replaced by a 5E even less like previous editions

Meh. I'm playing RCFG, and I bet I can still convert anything I want from 5e.

2. Pathfinder tapers off after a successful launch by 3PP standards, and achieves a stable presence on par with True20 or Mutants and Masterminds.

Meh. I'm playing RCFG, and I can convert anything I want from Pathfinder.

3. The 3.5E playing community shrinks over time until its on par with people playing previous editions.

Meh. I'm still playing RCFG.

4. OGL based gaming begins a slow decline, with the big names soldiering on and fewer and fewer new products being released.

Meh. I'm still playing RCFG.....and if is easy enough for me to write my own material!


RC

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Your question assumes a lack of DMing skill to keep the system from breaking down.

Honestly, if 3X was breaking down for you, then no. The limitations of the math working are much better than being unable to manage the system.

But speaking as someone with no "break down" concerns, the limitations of "the math works" are all cost for no gain.

The game was quite capable of breaking down without my input. The players broke it down, by creating an optimization arms race, with spotlight hogging the prize. I would clamp down on splats, which caused people to head towards Wizard and CoDzilla and the cheese already existant in the core books. The only answer to this was to ban Wizard, Cleric, and Druid, which in the end I did. If I have to ban Cleric and Wizard to prevent the game brom breaking down, something is wrong with this game.

You question makes me think of someone who suggests that bikes with training wheels are better because they are far less worse than constantly falling over. The assumption that everyone falls without them implicit in the position is absurd. And the presumption of "break down" is just the same.

Yes, if the game was constantly breaking down *for you*, then *you* are better off settling for something else.

Honestly, the phrase "the math works" sounds nice in theory. But in practice, I find it to be directly contrary to what I most enjoy in roleplaying. I like being in a setting that feels like some kind of reality. It doesn't need to be actual reality, and it doesn't need to be Middle Earth, or Hyperboria, or Camelot. It doesn't have to be anything in particular, but it needs to feel like it is something like all of these, and many others. And that you can customize to make your version feel more like whichever one you want.

And a key factor is all of them, at least the one that "the math works" so jarring grates across, is that equity is not a part of any of them. Heroes, villains, and supporting cast can all have widely varied strengths and weaknesses. Everyone doesn't have 1/2 level +/- a limited window of modifiers for nearly everything. Things are not all balanced cleanly into equitable percent chance ranges.

This, to me, is one of the key reasons 4E is so much less appealing as an RPG. Of course I can role play to it. But that isn't the point. I find it much more enjoyable being in the position of a character with totally fantastic strengths, but still a real-ish feel of strengths and weaknesses and a need to find a way to exploit my strengths against my challenges weaknesses, rather than being a token carefully balanced for consistent challenge resolution.

Knowing that I'm a fighter and that evil wizard can charm me in an instant is great. That's a problem that I have to deal with. But if I can get his magic defenses down, I'll be able to grind him to a pulp in very short order. Because I'm not balanced to fend off his mind control and he ain't balanced to deal with my blade in a straight up throw down. The math don't work. And it feels right. And it is great. And I'm that guy trying to solve this problem.

In 4E I can role play the exact same guy. And I can go face the exact same evil wizard. And then the math starts "working". And the encounter doesn't play out the way it should. The mechanics do not live up to the demands of my imagination and sense of being into a fantastic world. Instead, everything is balanced. I can still win, and I can still lose. And putting my strengths against his weaknesses is still right there. But it is all dampened. All the numbers are in the same ballpark and I know it could be so much more. But the damn training wheels are keeping the bike balanced.

My roleplay is exactly the same, but the feedback the pure mechanics of the system offer are so much less than what can be.

So, the simulationist crap. Have to say I'm glad D&D has kicked that nonsense to the curb. We all have different tastes, and they are often contradictory. Giving you your simulationism makes me like the game less. This edition of D&D caters to me.

 

[carmachu]

So, the simulationist crap. Have to say I'm glad D&D has kicked that nonsense to the curb. We all have different tastes, and they are often contradictory. Giving you your simulationism makes me like the game less. This edition of D&D caters to me.

And there it is, what it boils down to ultimately. As long as it caters to you, nothing else matters.

Got it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And there it is, what it boils down to ultimately. As long as it caters to you, nothing else matters.

Got it.

A lot of the Edition Wars crap comes from the fact some people got the game they wanted, while others did not. WotC delivered the game I wanted. From a certain point of view(mine), delivering 4E was the right decision. If it wasn't the right decision TO YOU maybe you should look at yourself before attacking me or WotC.

 

[ggroy]

The game was quite capable of breaking down without my input. The players broke it down, by creating an optimization arms race, with spotlight hogging the prize. I would clamp down on splats, which caused people to head towards Wizard and CoDzilla and the cheese already existant in the core books. The only answer to this was to ban Wizard, Cleric, and Druid, which in the end I did. If I have to ban Cleric and Wizard to prevent the game brom breaking down, something is wrong with this game.

My solution to this problem was to end most of my 3.5E games at around level 8 or 9. Sometimes I ended my 3.5E games at even lower levels.

 

[xechnao]

If it wasn't the right decision TO YOU maybe you should look at yourself before attacking me or WotC.

What is this supposed to mean?
I fail to see what you are suggesting here. "Look at yourself" for...what? trying to change your taste? shuting up? what?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

My solution to this problem was to end most of my 3.5E games at around level 8 or 9. Sometimes I ended my 3.5E games at even lower levels.

I've done that too. Its still an issue as having to ignore more than half the levels contained in the game kind of shows a problem with the game.