Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rygar" data-source="post: 6321009" data-attributes="member: 6756765">Honestly?&nbsp; They made a catastrophic error.The main problem D&amp;D has right now isn't &quot;Playstyles&quot;,&nbsp; it's wildly different games in form and function.&nbsp; 1st edition,&nbsp; 3rd edition,&nbsp; and 4th edition aren't just &quot;Playstyle&quot; differences,&nbsp; there's an entirely different tone and design process behind each of them.&nbsp; I'll just leave it there for fear of edition arguements derailing where I'm going with this.The problem this causes is that you have virtually irreconcilable groups,&nbsp; each group prefers a game that literally invalidates the others.&nbsp; Their design goal was to put a bunch of stuff into the books and let people argue at the table over which type of game they're going to play,&nbsp; effectively moving the edition wars to the tables.This should be relatively fine with groups who only play at home,&nbsp; but is devastating to organized play and public game groups.&nbsp; If some Adventurer's League shop has 50% 3rd edition players and 50% 4th edition players,&nbsp; how do they handle the resulting ruckus about mechanics?&nbsp; Whatever ruling is made,&nbsp; half of the playgroup is likely gone.&nbsp; The other choice is to have two playgroups,&nbsp; but then you end up with friction.Eventually what you have is:&nbsp; Arguements at the table resulting in negative experiences and eventually player attrition or complete collapse of the playgroup due to these problems.&nbsp; Worse,&nbsp; if the shop owner feels it is more hassal than it's worth,&nbsp; or that it is affecting his sales,&nbsp; he likely will just stop supporting Adventurer's League.&nbsp; That in turn reduces the visibility and accessibility of D&amp;D,&nbsp; which is particularly bad because it isn't going to take long before people openly talk about how Pathfinder's organized play doesn't have these problems.WOTC punted on the problem of differences in editions,&nbsp; opting to force tables to argue about what rules are used and ultimately what kind of game is played.&nbsp; Placing your consumers in uncomfortable positions,&nbsp; or worse confrontational positions,&nbsp; is a *very* bad idea.&nbsp; People will associate negative experiences with the game,&nbsp; and they will tell others about them.WOTC never should have punted and made the tables decide how the game is played when they knew that they had three distinct and largely incompatible factions of customers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rygar, post: 6321009, member: 6756765"] Honestly? They made a catastrophic error. The main problem D&D has right now isn't "Playstyles", it's wildly different games in form and function. 1st edition, 3rd edition, and 4th edition aren't just "Playstyle" differences, there's an entirely different tone and design process behind each of them. I'll just leave it there for fear of edition arguements derailing where I'm going with this. The problem this causes is that you have virtually irreconcilable groups, each group prefers a game that literally invalidates the others. Their design goal was to put a bunch of stuff into the books and let people argue at the table over which type of game they're going to play, effectively moving the edition wars to the tables. This should be relatively fine with groups who only play at home, but is devastating to organized play and public game groups. If some Adventurer's League shop has 50% 3rd edition players and 50% 4th edition players, how do they handle the resulting ruckus about mechanics? Whatever ruling is made, half of the playgroup is likely gone. The other choice is to have two playgroups, but then you end up with friction. Eventually what you have is: Arguements at the table resulting in negative experiences and eventually player attrition or complete collapse of the playgroup due to these problems. Worse, if the shop owner feels it is more hassal than it's worth, or that it is affecting his sales, he likely will just stop supporting Adventurer's League. That in turn reduces the visibility and accessibility of D&D, which is particularly bad because it isn't going to take long before people openly talk about how Pathfinder's organized play doesn't have these problems. WOTC punted on the problem of differences in editions, opting to force tables to argue about what rules are used and ultimately what kind of game is played. Placing your consumers in uncomfortable positions, or worse confrontational positions, is a *very* bad idea. People will associate negative experiences with the game, and they will tell others about them. WOTC never should have punted and made the tables decide how the game is played when they knew that they had three distinct and largely incompatible factions of customers. [/QUOTE]

Verification