Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6056620" data-attributes="member: 6688937">As much as it seems to be the popular belief, working in software/IT and the peculiarities of that culture, are not the end-all be-all of work life and workplace politics. I do not consider it&nbsp; at all obvious that that is what's going on. There's plenty of evidence to indicate perfectly likely monetary and business motivations for WotC. Maybe. I personally suspect that this is a &quot;farewell&quot; edition of D&amp;D that will be shelved after a relatively small run of titles. Leaving the IP to be resurrected after 10-15 years. I'm guessing that WotC has concluded that the audience's appetite for new editions is insufficient to maintain D&amp;D as a constant, ongoing concern. Of course, if Next succeeds in its goals of unifying the audience, then WotC have the option to continue cranking out as much product as is profitable. I think the &quot;unification&quot; goals are an attempt to ensure that there still is an audience about 12 years from now for which to write 6e. In this, I will be happy to be wrong.Maybe you can't have all the benefits? Seriously.A lot of us, myself included, have been enamored of unified mechanics. Maybe they aren't the best. Perhaps there's a middle ground between 2e's hot mess and 4e's strict conformity (hopefully one with less fiddly bits than 3e, AFAIC.) Certainly a great many people who were turned off by 4e cited that as a reason (and something similar can be said for 2e). At this point, I'm willing to accept that my desire for an &quot;elegant&quot; unified system is not the best architecture for D&amp;D. It seems to work well for some of the other systems I like, particularly more Narrative-oriented ones. However, it doesn't seem to create that mystical magical feeling of &quot;D&amp;D.&quot; Why? I have no idea. I'm certainly not suggesting that we go back to AD&amp;D, where there were several different ways to &quot;hide&quot; depending on how, who, where, and when they were doing it. However, I don't think its totally unreasonable or unworkable to suggest and test a system where martial maneuvers work differently than spells. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> I'm not sure who or what you're referring to here. You're grammar isn't parsing for me, but maybe its because I don't have the antecedents you think I do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6056620, member: 6688937"] As much as it seems to be the popular belief, working in software/IT and the peculiarities of that culture, are not the end-all be-all of work life and workplace politics. I do not consider it at all obvious that that is what's going on. There's plenty of evidence to indicate perfectly likely monetary and business motivations for WotC. Maybe. I personally suspect that this is a "farewell" edition of D&D that will be shelved after a relatively small run of titles. Leaving the IP to be resurrected after 10-15 years. I'm guessing that WotC has concluded that the audience's appetite for new editions is insufficient to maintain D&D as a constant, ongoing concern. Of course, if Next succeeds in its goals of unifying the audience, then WotC have the option to continue cranking out as much product as is profitable. I think the "unification" goals are an attempt to ensure that there [I]still is [/I]an audience about 12 years from now for which to write 6e. In this, I will be happy to be wrong. Maybe you can't have all the benefits? Seriously. A lot of us, myself included, have been enamored of unified mechanics. Maybe they aren't the best. Perhaps there's a middle ground between 2e's hot mess and 4e's strict conformity (hopefully one with less fiddly bits than 3e, AFAIC.) Certainly a great many people who were turned off by 4e cited that as a reason (and something similar can be said for 2e). At this point, I'm willing to accept that my desire for an "elegant" unified system is not the best architecture for D&D. It seems to work well for some of the other systems I like, particularly more Narrative-oriented ones. However, it doesn't seem to create that mystical magical feeling of "D&D." Why? I have no idea. I'm certainly not suggesting that we go back to AD&D, where there were several different ways to "hide" depending on how, who, where, and when they were doing it. However, I don't think its totally unreasonable or unworkable to suggest and test a system where martial maneuvers work differently than spells. :confused: I'm not sure who or what you're referring to here. You're grammar isn't parsing for me, but maybe its because I don't have the antecedents you think I do. [/QUOTE]

Verification