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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Abstruse" data-source="post: 5947298" data-attributes="member: 6669048">Yes, we do need D&D Next to be the "One Edition".4th Edition continues to sell, proving that there is a market for that style of gameplay.3.x continues to sell via Pathfinder, proving that there is a market for that style of gameplay.0e-2nd Ed continues to sell via OSR systems, proving that there is a market for that style of gameplay.The fact that all of these editions still have a demand prove that there is still a fanbase for Dungeons & Dragons, but it is a fractured one. Which is not a good thing for either gamers or the company.It's not good for the company because the market is divided. If someone's buying used TSR/WotC products off eBay or Amazon, that's money being spent that's not going to Wizards of the Coast. If someone's buying Pathfinder products, that's money being spend that's not going to Wizards of the Coast. You can argue that may be a good thing to show them what they're doing wrong, but 4th Edition still outsells Pathfinder if you include all markets including retail bookstore chains rather than only counting independent game/comic stores. Also, Wizards of the Coast is giving money away to Paizo since the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Bestiary is somewhere around 90% work that they did and paid for when writing 3rd Edition and 3.5. This is bad for the company.It's also not good for gamers because it creates situations that make it difficult to game with the people you want to game with. I'd love to run a game with 4 of my friends. However, as DM I prefer 1st Edition style exploration games or 4th Edition style action games depending on the campaign I have in mind. Player 1 likes 2nd Edition best, Player 2 only plays 4e, Player 3 doesn't know the rules for anything but 3rd Edition, and Player 4 is a power gamer who is obsessed with character optimization in Pathfinder. This means we have to come to a compromise over what edition to play and any choice we make is going to make other people unhappy. If we play Pathfinder, there's too many options for the 2nd Ed player, the 4e player feels the game is unbalanced, and I can't run my dangerous exploration style game or my action-oriented campaign without lots of work adapting the source material. If we play 4th Edition, the 3rd Ed and 2nd Ed players are completely lost and confused, the Pathfinder player is annoyed he can't charop the same way he used to, and I can't run my slower exploration-based games. If we play OSR or 1st Ed, I'm the only one that's happy because only the 2nd Ed player and myself understand crap like descending AC and racial limits on class/level, and I'm killing players left and right if I try to run my action-based game.And this is the important part...It doesn't matter which system I choose because I will then have to explain a completely different ruleset to multiple players. I have to teach the rules and subtle differences to each different player. I have to remind the 4e player constantly that standing from prone provokes in Pathfinder, the 2nd Ed player that rogue backstab requires flanking or some other condition in PF/4e rather than just being behind them, the 3.5 player that disarm is a combat maneuver in Pathfinder, etc. Not only do I have to teach the new rules to half the table while the other half who knows the rules is bored senseless, but I have to keep the different rules for different editions straight myself.If Next does what it's trying to do (and it looks like it might pull it off), there will be exactly one set of rules to learn. I'll be able to switch between my exploration-style game and my action game seemlessly, my 4e player will get the game balance and tactics he wants, the 2nd Ed player will get the streamlined play he wants, the Pathfinder player will have options to trick out his character and fine-tune it all he wants, and the 3rd Edition player will have very simple rules to learn that aren't coming completely out of left field. And we can all play at the same table without having our personal preference for game style to dominate the game for everyone else.It will also be good for the industry as a whole as all those different styles of play will need to be represented by products. If they do some sort of OGL for the system (and considering the amount of material to be represented and the complex legalities of copyrighting rules systems, I don't see why they wouldn't have something even if it is as restrictive as 4e's version), that will allow 3rd Party publishers to fill in the gaps. Even if they don't, Wizards would probably be willing to license off campaign settings they won't have the time or resources to develop but which have a strong following like Blackmoor, Ravenloft, and Dragonlance.</blockquote>

Verification