Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6178083" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Where's your litany of successful RPG's marketed towards those who prefer your views?  Or, in other words, I don't find this comment overly helpful (in fairness, it's in good company with a lot of other comments, as much mine as anyone else's).As I look back on 39 pages of comments, I think the comments that most suggest there is an unbalance are those that suggest Bard's are just silly characters, and it's therefore good that they are underpowered, and that small fighters should be expected to be less skilled in combat than larger fighters, so it's good that they are.  I don't believe they should be, and I'm not convinced that they are at present.  That said, I am in favour of D&DNext maximizing balance between choices for characters, minimizing or eliminating "trap choices" and otherwise promoting equivalence, between characters of the same level as the default model.Whether that is by maintaining an already attained balance, or by making broad sweeping changes to eliminate huge existing disparities is irrelevant.  There is no "status quo" with a new edition that seeks to go back to the drawing board and make broad, sweeping changes.  As a possible customer, WOTC can better court my gaming dollars by designing a game of balanced character choices than by deprioritizing or ignoring that objective.  That can't be taken in isolation, but it also can't be a low or zero priority for the game to meet my objectives.  WOTC gets the thrill of assessing which priorities will best meet the objectives of the largest possible market.  I'm sure they would gladly sacrifice your or my little cadre of gamers (or both!) if they could attract a couple of dozen new long-term buyers in doing so.The majority always tends to  be silent.  Whether that mean they have no opinion, will buy whatever WOTC puts out, match the percentages of opinions expressed, all agree with me, all agree with you or some other possibility is not determinable.  Given the size of the gaming community, and its shrinkage in the past 10 - 20 years, I'm not sure existing gamers as a whole, even if you could get them all polled, is the pool you want to market to - but I don't see a practical means of polling the non-gaming community to figure out how to get them to buy D&D Next either.In your opinion.  I don't know your players well enough to know better, so your guess is better than mine, but I doubt you had a full, frank and objective exit interview either.  I don't when players leave my gaming group.  I do know a lot of people who have abandoned a lot of game-type hobbies because they felt they were unable to "play competitively", whatever they interpret that to mean.  Again, in your opinion, though I'm inclined to share this one.  I've seen some posters comment on very successful games with large groups, and it seems like older rule sets (and scenarios) were based around larger player groups.  Another sign of the diminishing market, perhaps, that 6 - 8 players has become 3 - 5 players.To circle back...Pleased to meet you, Mr. Pot.  Kettle's the name.  Some mutual acquaintences suggested we have some common interests.It is amazing, though, how a small and shrinking group like our own, RPG players, is so good at finding further divisions.  For the record, I have not said anything intended to offend, and I apologize if anything I said was, in fact, taken in such spirit.  It would not be the first time my comments in various venues have been ill considered and have not conveyed the intended spirit.</blockquote>

Verification