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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 3316724" data-attributes="member: 326">Hey Roman mate! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Haven't seen you around in a while, I hope you are keeping well? Okay lets get down to it.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Why is that, are you allergic to plastic? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Isn't this the same argument you tried to peddle with your first point - are you are just stringing it out to look like you have more of an argument? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />That is a valid, if minor point.I did want to make the boxed sets look like faux-tomes, so in terms of height breadth they wouldn't be much bigger than typical books. In terms of depth I think something akin to the Planescape boxed sets 2-3 inches should suffice.One element of this is that you are basing one boxed set against three core rulebooks.With 2-3 sets I think you could duplicate 90%+ of any adventure layout (in terms of what you see from published adventures and Dungeon magazine).Now I admit that even with 2-3 boxed sets you are still not going to have infinite options but given that if you are not already using board tiles you must be laying out maps with pencil on graph paper. Which means you are already not too worried how different your actual dungeon layouts look! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> The rules still function without the board and minis - so that point is easily rebuked.Also 99% of people play around a table, so its a minor nitpick. Is this in reply to my initial idea of Dungeons & Pirates, Dungeons & Dinosaurs? If so a number of people have swayed me into accepting possibly:Dungeons & Dragons - Adventure Game [Insert Subtitle with the appropriate word in it] The 3.5 release schedule is drying up. Thats not to say what is being released IS not selling well, but its going to reach a saturation point where we have seen everything 3.5 has to offer without getting ultra specific in terms of content.Never said it didn't. In fact I have quoted many times that I think 4th Edition core rulebooks would be a good seller. Its the books after that I don't see selling well.Only one was a reprint of a non core book, no other book contained more than 50% rehashed material and they were from b&w splatbooks. I think they'll buy the core rulebooks (as would I) but will realise that everything after that has already been done during 3/3.5's lifespan. Which wasn't the case when the transition from 3 to 3.5 happened. I didn't say that at all. I said I hadn't heard anyone give any reasons why there should be a PnP 4th Ed. I didn't say it wouldn't be successful, simply that it wouldn't be successful beyond the core rulebooks because we have already 3/3.5 fresh in our minds and wallets and they already cater to every type of book you could want.So if someone already owns every 3.5 Eberron book do you see them buying the same material 'again' under the new tweaked 4E ruleset? I can't see it. Not exactly. My proposal is to keep 3.5 on sale, but at the same time create a more user friendly game we can sell to the mainstream.As will any 4th Ed. regardless of format.On the contrary, look at how many people would like the idea as long as its not called 4th edition. A popular misconception. Any 4E or whatever you want to call it will discourage a large number of D&D players at this point. I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a better idea of what WotC should do next. I don't think I have been overtly defensive, point by point debating is my style in any forum discussion.The problem with that notion is that no one here can suggest a better solution, so while my direction might be unpopular with ENWorlders, I think any change at this point will be unpopular. So if you're WotC you probably end up going for the idea that will make the most money...which means going mainstream...which means adopting the boardgame format (even if it is a wolf in sheep's clothing).</blockquote>

Verification