Tony Vargas
Legend
"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul."
Sauron worked great evil upon middle-earth by crafting one master ring to bring together all others and unite them under his power.
Does WotC really need to do the same for D&D?
The 'fragmentation' of the fanbase is treated like a bad thing, but, if you think about it, isn't it ultimately just a matter of players finding groups that better fit them as gamers?
Before 4e, D&D didn't offer a balanced system not easily or badly broken by 'system mastery.' Before 3e, it didn't support the serious gamer who /did/ want to strive for system mastery, it just broke more or less at random based on the DMs mistakes and the fall of the dice. Each edition of the game was flawed, but had fans who loved it for those flaws as much as for the things it may have gotten right.
Why try to wrench devoted fans of one edition or another away from their favorite game? Why not just sell to them? Retro-clones are doing great, most notably Pathfinder, of course. There's clearly enough interest to re-print AD&D. But why stop there? Why not offer up the whole library of past D&D products, either in print, or pdf or print on demand or in full books where demand is strong enough? Why not continue to support and expand each edition for those fans who can't bear to move on from it?
Of course, we could also have a "Next" edition for organized play and continuing to trawl for new players. It could be the face of the game, the thing that's on all the store shelves, but the 'hard stuff' could be behind the counter or on order for more devoted fans, too.
D&D did well in the early 80s with three editions in print at once - OD&D, AD&D, and the Basic set - /and/ unauthorized 3pp 'Arduin Grimoire,' as well, not to mention a host of imitators and new computer RPGs. That's 4 competing versions of the game, and the game prospered. The Rules Cyclopeadia stayed in print into the 90s while 2e was being launched.
So, today, we have 3.5 and 4e and a legal analogue to 'Arduin' in Pathfinder. There's no reason WotC couldn't have rolled with that and just re-started support for 3.5 again. There's no reason they couldn't re-print AD&D (in fact, they /are/ reprinting AD&D - there's no reason they couldn't re-start support for it, as well, the demand is probably there). They could even put out edition neutral products to support all of them. And, they could count all that revenue as "D&D," in trying to hit Hasbro's impossible survival numbers.
It's not just that people have different preferences, it's that there are different styles that work better in different eds, as well. Players who like the rich setting of 2e are not only not going to like the spartan suggestion of a setting in 4e, but they're not going to like playing with other gamers who /do/ like having only a vague hand-waved history of Nerath and Arkhosia to hang their character concepts on. Players who like the consistency and balance of 4e aren't just going to be unhappy playing less-robustly balanced 3.5, they'd be unhappy playing anything at the same table with game-busting system-masters whom it attracts.
Having gamers self-select by editions into groups that get along better seems like a positive, when you think about it.
D&D Next's noble goal is to get setting buffs and tacticians and narrativists and powergamers all sitting at the same table, again - and most likely, glaring at eachother in open disgust. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, does it?
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul."
Sauron worked great evil upon middle-earth by crafting one master ring to bring together all others and unite them under his power.
Does WotC really need to do the same for D&D?
The 'fragmentation' of the fanbase is treated like a bad thing, but, if you think about it, isn't it ultimately just a matter of players finding groups that better fit them as gamers?
Before 4e, D&D didn't offer a balanced system not easily or badly broken by 'system mastery.' Before 3e, it didn't support the serious gamer who /did/ want to strive for system mastery, it just broke more or less at random based on the DMs mistakes and the fall of the dice. Each edition of the game was flawed, but had fans who loved it for those flaws as much as for the things it may have gotten right.
Why try to wrench devoted fans of one edition or another away from their favorite game? Why not just sell to them? Retro-clones are doing great, most notably Pathfinder, of course. There's clearly enough interest to re-print AD&D. But why stop there? Why not offer up the whole library of past D&D products, either in print, or pdf or print on demand or in full books where demand is strong enough? Why not continue to support and expand each edition for those fans who can't bear to move on from it?
Of course, we could also have a "Next" edition for organized play and continuing to trawl for new players. It could be the face of the game, the thing that's on all the store shelves, but the 'hard stuff' could be behind the counter or on order for more devoted fans, too.
D&D did well in the early 80s with three editions in print at once - OD&D, AD&D, and the Basic set - /and/ unauthorized 3pp 'Arduin Grimoire,' as well, not to mention a host of imitators and new computer RPGs. That's 4 competing versions of the game, and the game prospered. The Rules Cyclopeadia stayed in print into the 90s while 2e was being launched.
So, today, we have 3.5 and 4e and a legal analogue to 'Arduin' in Pathfinder. There's no reason WotC couldn't have rolled with that and just re-started support for 3.5 again. There's no reason they couldn't re-print AD&D (in fact, they /are/ reprinting AD&D - there's no reason they couldn't re-start support for it, as well, the demand is probably there). They could even put out edition neutral products to support all of them. And, they could count all that revenue as "D&D," in trying to hit Hasbro's impossible survival numbers.
It's not just that people have different preferences, it's that there are different styles that work better in different eds, as well. Players who like the rich setting of 2e are not only not going to like the spartan suggestion of a setting in 4e, but they're not going to like playing with other gamers who /do/ like having only a vague hand-waved history of Nerath and Arkhosia to hang their character concepts on. Players who like the consistency and balance of 4e aren't just going to be unhappy playing less-robustly balanced 3.5, they'd be unhappy playing anything at the same table with game-busting system-masters whom it attracts.
Having gamers self-select by editions into groups that get along better seems like a positive, when you think about it.
D&D Next's noble goal is to get setting buffs and tacticians and narrativists and powergamers all sitting at the same table, again - and most likely, glaring at eachother in open disgust. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, does it?