Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Roman" data-source="post: 3316495" data-attributes="member: 1845">This is a truly horrible idea. It is a terrible idea on a personal/gaming level for me and I would not buy a new edition of D&D of that nature. A sampling of reasons: 1) I do not play with miniatures, battlemats or cards and will not pay for them. As long as they are an option to buy for those who want them, I am satisfied, but if they are forced upon me... no thanks! 2) Required use of miniatures, battlemats or cards would make me abandon the game, as would rules that truly force you to use them implicitly by making it a wholly different game if you do not. 3) I dislike the idea of the boxed set format, which cannot be efficiently stored in a bookshelf, though this point is less important than the others. 4) The nature of the game would be much more limiting based on module than D&D is based on rulebooks. D&D core rulebooks allow you to emulate almost any fantasy situation you desire, though of course with not as much detail as with additional rulebooks. Based on what I read about your system here and on the thread where you initially proposed it, the thematic modules would only allow you to simulate the themes presented therein. This is a huge minus for myself and this alone would be sufficient reason not to purchase the game. 5) The visceral nature of the game you propose is a major minus, since unlike D&D it has to be played around a static table, whereas D&D can be played on the go or anywhere else. Apart from my personal aversion to the game you propose, were it to actually become the next version of D&D, it would almost certainly kill the D&D brand and WotC (unless they could recoup their losses from Magic the Gathering or other activities). First of all, there is no evidence that it is in some kind of crisis. Contrary to your previous statements, 3.5E sold fine in terms of core rulebooks, as did the supplement books that followed it, some of which mostly rehashed 3.0E material. Given those facts, it is rather mysterious how you arrive at the conclusion that people will simply not buy 4E D&D if it is of the PnP variety. Although I suspect that when 4E does come out, some people will indeed stick with 3.5E, it will likely do sufficiently well to be comercially successful. BTW: Since you mentioned that you have not seen/hear anybody say/write/type that they will buy a 4th Edition of D&D if it is PnP, let me be the first to do so: I will buy a 4th Edition of D&D.* *Provided that: 1) It remains a PnP game 2) I like the rules presented therein more than the current crop of rules 3) The price is reasonable (current prices, for example, would be fine) D&D is the dominant game in the PnP RPG market and is doing well. Yet, your proposal seeks to essentially destroy this advantage and remove D&D from its niche into the board-game market, where it does not have any advantage over existing incumbents and where its brand-name does not hold as much water. The proposals outlined in your first post would alienate a vast section of existing player-base - that is people who are very important for introducing new players to the game. Look at the poll for evidence, sure it is not representative, but when only 3.66% of the quite significant number of responses are in favour of evolving D&D in the direction you proffer, you know the idea is not a winner. As the poll shows, many D&D players are liable to dislike the changes you make. Equally, or even more importantly, though, is the perception your idea creates that the game you are proposing is a board game, rather than a roleplaying game with board game elements. This is an inherent part of your proposal, as it is exactly its purpose, since that is how you intend to attract new players to the game. It is, however, also its major weakness and would discourage a large number of RPG players from getting such a game and at the same time it would give the game little to compete with other, more established boardgames. U_K, you are a creative person, but it seems you simply latched on to this idea too strongly. The overwhelming opposition to your proposal should not make you defensive - that will not win people over to supporting the idea. If you want to play the role of a designer, it would be more prudent to look at the results of this poll and try to evolve the game in a completely different direction.</blockquote>

Verification