Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5980429" data-attributes="member: 87792">Once upon a time two boys found a cake. One of them said: “Splendid! I will eat the cake.” The other one said: “No, that is not fair! We found the cake together, and we should share and share alike; half for you and half for me.” The first boy said, “No, I should have the whole cake!” The second said, “No, we should share and share alike; half for you and half for me.” The first said, “No, I want the whole cake.” The second said, “No, let us share it half and half.” Along came an adult who said: “Gentlemen, you shouldn’t fight about this; you should compromise. Give him three quarters of the cake.”
- Raymond Smullyan
Compromise isn't inherently good.&nbsp;&nbsp;But my point is that D&amp;D Next needs to do one hell of a lot more than &quot;offend no one&quot;.&nbsp; It needs to actively attract people to it.&nbsp; The only possible way to unite the fanbase is to produce a steaming turd and have everyone in unison say they don't want it.&nbsp; That's a united fanbase.&nbsp;&nbsp;And from the stated design goal that is literally the only thing that will help drive sales.The thing is I don't think that sales cannibalism is that big a risk.&nbsp; I'd love to get my hands on pre-Faction War Planescape and Spelljammer.&nbsp;&nbsp;The problem is what the NA on the table is.&nbsp; An insipid edition, unsure what it is, and that pleases no one.&nbsp; Not dynamic enough to be able to bring in new players or radical enough to energise part of the fanbase.&nbsp; It's more or less retiring from arguments.&nbsp;&nbsp;Get the balance right and the result you will hear is &quot;I can almost play the game I've been playing for the past n years by using three separate modules, learning a new set of rules that will leave everyone confused for a while, and having most of my existing shelf of rulebooks as incompatable with the new game.&quot;&nbsp; That is quite literally the goal they are aiming at with their compromise edition.&nbsp; And I just don't get why that wouldn't encourage people to stay away in droves or work with their retroclones (or Pathfinder) of choice.&nbsp;Fundamentally I see the &quot;negotiated agreement&quot; being offered as almost indistinguishable from one of the WATNAs you propose.&nbsp;And this is why I'm suggesting that WotC veer hard the other way.&nbsp; If they fail, they will at least have made a heroic failure rather than a miserable failure.&nbsp; And if they succeed, they succeed.&nbsp; As a 4e fan, I do not mind if this comes out looking very different from my D&amp;D of choice as long as there is a good reason to play it over other game systems.&nbsp;&nbsp;And here's a compromise!&nbsp; Compatability with one old system, which, ipso facto, means it isn't compatable with any more modern system.&nbsp; As far as I know, none of the 3e or 4e fans are asking for this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5980429, member: 87792"] [INDENT][I]Once upon a time two boys found a cake. One of them said: “Splendid! I will eat the cake.” The other one said: “No, that is not fair! We found the cake together, and we should share and share alike; half for you and half for me.” The first boy said, “No, I should have the whole cake!” The second said, “No, we should share and share alike; half for you and half for me.” The first said, “No, I want the whole cake.” The second said, “No, let us share it half and half.” Along came an adult who said: “Gentlemen, you shouldn’t fight about this; you should [/I]compromise[I]. Give him three quarters of the cake.”[/I] [I]- [/I]Raymond Smullyan [/INDENT]Compromise isn't inherently good. But my point is that D&D Next needs to do one hell of a lot more than "offend no one". It needs to actively attract people to it. The only possible way to unite the fanbase is to produce a steaming turd and have everyone in unison say they don't want it. That's a united fanbase. And from the stated design goal that is [I]literally[/I] the only thing that will help drive sales. The thing is I don't think that sales cannibalism is that big a risk. I'd [I]love[/I] to get my hands on pre-Faction War Planescape and Spelljammer. The problem is what the NA on the table is. An insipid edition, unsure what it is, and that pleases no one. Not dynamic enough to be able to bring in new players or radical enough to energise part of the fanbase. It's more or less retiring from arguments. Get the balance [I]right[/I] and the result you will hear is "I can [I]almost[/I] play the game I've been playing for the past n years by using three separate modules, learning a new set of rules that will leave everyone confused for a while, and having most of my existing shelf of rulebooks as incompatable with the new game." That is quite literally the goal they are aiming at with their compromise edition. And I just don't get why that wouldn't encourage people to stay away in droves or work with their retroclones (or Pathfinder) of choice. Fundamentally I see the "negotiated agreement" being offered as almost indistinguishable from one of the WATNAs you propose. And this is why I'm suggesting that WotC veer hard the other way. If they fail, they will at least have made a heroic failure rather than a miserable failure. And if they succeed, they succeed. As a 4e fan, I do not mind if this comes out looking very different from my D&D of choice as long as there is a good reason to play it over other game systems. And here's a compromise! Compatability with one old system, which, ipso facto, means it isn't compatable with any more modern system. As far as I know, none of the 3e or 4e fans are asking for this. [/QUOTE]

Verification