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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5320390" data-attributes="member: 59082">Yes, agreed, although as I said earlier the two aren't mutually exclusive and when they both align then you get a new edition. I also can agree that there is a palatable window of opportunity for a new edition, and if it comes before that window it is problematic. I would say that 2008 was at the early end of the window for 4E; it really couldn't have come any sooner, but could have come later, even a couple years. If it had come too late it would be even more problematic. More on that in a moment.I like a lot of what you said and won't respond point by point. I will say that system mastery is one of the big things I disliked about 3.5E and the move towards balance in 4E is one of its (positive, imo) hallmarks.I agree, of course, that a company's goals are quite different than my own, or even that of its game designers. It is unclear to what degree WotC is pushed by Hasbro to make profits or if they have people within the sub-company that are business people first, gamers second. One of the things I've always liked about the RPG industry is that it seems populated more by the latter than the former. Again, they aren't mutually exclusive but if you are in the industry on pretty much any level save, perhaps, the executive table at Hasbro, you probably love RPGs and almost certainly play them. If we move beyond WotC I would have a hard time believing that anyone at Paizo or Goodman, for instance, isn't a gamer.Wizards may be the lone exception, but not because it is WotC but because it is owned by Hasbro. But I'm just speculating. I've heard different views as to the degree to which Hasbro lords over Wizards operations, anything from they are completely hands-off to dire whisperings that they have ninjas spying on Mike Mearls.Good point, although I think it is more relevant to OGL game companies than it is to players. In a sense the move to 4E and the GSL instead of the OGL put a lot of small businesses out on the street, and the biggest mistake I think WotC made was not reviving the OGL in some form or another. But let's go back to 2007 or whenever 4E design really got rolling. There were literally a hundred 3E/3.5E hardcover books, with hundreds--if not thousands--of third party d20 products available on every conceivable subject. To put it mildy, the 3.5/d20 market was saturated. So what should Wizards have done? What could they have done and remained viable, and for D&D to continue as vital and growing?One option would have been to do a revision, a "3.75E" along the lines of Pathfinder. They could then cherry-pick their entire lineup and come out with revised and re-formatted books ala the 2E black covers in the mid-90s. Maybe they could squeeze out some more supplements, come out with another big setting, and try to keep the 3E juggernaut alive. Sure, they probably could have done that for a few more years, but how long? Let's say this alternate history occurred and it is September of 2010 and 4E never saw the light of day. I suppose they would also have developed online tools for 3.5E (or 3.75E). But the already saturated market would be now quite drenched. We would likely have what we saw in the mid and late 90s when TSR was coming out with some truly atrocious books. I suppose that WotC could have tried to keep things somewhat fresh by coming out with a new campaign setting or two and focusing more on adventures, but we all know that neither really sells enough to support a company of WotC's size.So where would we be, in 2010? Well, looking towards 4E. Actually, D&D would need 4E or it would face another Dark Age like the late 90s. Maybe 2008 was a bit too soon. Maybe 2009 would have been better. But 2010 would have been overdue, and 2011 might have been too late. A game like D&D needs new editions to keep moving forward, to keep growing and evolving, and to integrate whatever cultural-media elements are relevant to potential new players. I may not like Dragonborn or Tieflings or other "Warcrafty" elements, but I can understand and accept why they are there. And when I say new editions I don't mean mere revisions, but new versions along the lines of the difference between 2E and 3E, or 3.5E and 4E. Reboots, if you will; Daniel Craig, not just more make-up and another face-lift for Roger Moore.So I will embrace 5E when it comes. If I don't like it I will continue to play 4E, or I might try to start an Ars Magica or Talislanta campaign, or I might even finally get around to putting together all of my ideas for a "Fantasy Heartbreaker" and play my own damn game <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. But chances are, unless it completely goes the way of computer-reliance, I'll enjoy it and I'll still keep (many of) my 4E books, just as I have a shelf-full of older editions of D&D. And they won't be invalidated or useless no matter what game I'm playing.I like every edition of D&D. Why? Because I simply love Dungeons & Dragons, as I suspect does everyone reading these words. The more editions, the merrier. It is all part of the story of the Great Game that is Dungeons & Dragons. Think of it this way: If there weren't these "edition crises" and controversies, we wouldn't get to spend all this time haggling over D&D minutiae. Part of the joy of the game is talking about the game, which is what we're doing right now and I, for one, am enjoying myself!</blockquote>

Verification