D&D (2024) Is Combat Tedious on Purpose?

[Micah Sweet]

"It might make them less money "

And that's why it won't happen. Even the most charitable nice RPG companies don't aim to make less money.

In the short term. Please read the whole sentence.

 

[tetrasodium]

The words “fiduciary responsibility” come to mind. They are part of a publicly traded company. I agree there needs to be more emphasis on stewardship but that is definitely the business argument for it.

Thats quite the selective quote to stop just before a word like and with a sentence directly addressing fiduciary responsibility.

Are you claiming that "making a slightly changed half-edition is the only way to accomplish that goal"?

Alternately should we assume that your choice to stop the quote immediately before such a relevant sentence is evidence that it was obviously not the only option that accomplishes said goal?

 

[MGibster]

Last week my group started the classic module White Plume Mountain. For those of you unfamiliar, White Plume Mountain was originally released in 1979 and is essentially a fun house dungeon. i.e. A Wizard, Keraptis in this case, set up a dungeon with wacky traps and situations with the prize of three magical weapons for adventurers willing to give it a go. I won't give specific spoilers, but we had a combat encounter in a rather tiny space, barely enough squares to fit all six of our PCs. It was a lot of fun watching them scramble to rearrange themselves so everyone could hit the enemy. In another encounter, it was fun when one PC had a grey ooze attached to her and one of the other party members cast a spell doing 17 points of damage. They hit the ooze of course but also got the PC. Good times.

 

[GrimCo]

As a very small shareholder, i want Hasbro to do well. So far, it's couple of bucks up. Wouldn't mind if it goes to at least 70 bucks, but more, the better, since it's dividend yielding stock at 4.55% dividend.

As a gamer, i couldn't care less about some nebulous "hobby". I care if companies make good products people wanna buy and make money in the process, cause if they make money, they will be making more products down the line.

 

[MGibster]

Back in 2000, OGL was beneficial because of print and low penetration into markets. Now, its beneficial because its brought a boom to the RPG space and folks can pull people in without them having to learn a new system every time. The good news is that the OGL is no longer the only space to rely on, there is also the ORC.

I remember there were some good OGL/d20 products including Spycraft, Mutants & Masterminds, and surprisingly Call of Cthulhu d20, plus a few others. But what I most strongly associate the OGL/d20 with is a glut of horrible, horrible products.

 

[payn]

I remember there were some good OGL/d20 products including Spycraft, Mutants & Masterminds, and surprisingly Call of Cthulhu d20, plus a few others. But what I most strongly associate the OGL/d20 with is a glut of horrible, horrible products.

I think that was the rub. The OGL and D20 familiarity allowed these good things to be made, along side a bunch of crappy ones. There would have been much less of both variety without it.

 

[TiQuinn]

I have said that I believe it would be a better business decision in the long run,more than once. It's the demand for immediate "number go up" gratification that's the problem IMO.

And my primary concern is the health of the hobby and its fans, not any one publisher (but see above).

You’re not just railing against one company, you’re railing against the entire system which just isn’t really going to get anywhere.

 

[TiQuinn]

Thats quite the selective quote to stop just before a word like and with a sentence directly addressing fiduciary responsibility.

Are you claiming that "making a slightly changed half-edition is the only way to accomplish that goal"?

Alternately should we assume that your choice to stop the quote immediately before such a relevant sentence is evidence that it was obviously not the only option that accomplishes said goal?

It was a fully formed thought that I was discussing and I’ll quote as I please, thank you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As a very small shareholder, i want Hasbro to do well. So far, it's couple of bucks up. Wouldn't mind if it goes to at least 70 bucks, but more, the better, since it's dividend yielding stock at 4.55% dividend.

As a gamer, i couldn't care less about some nebulous "hobby". I care if companies make good products people wanna buy and make money in the process, cause if they make money, they will be making more products down the line.

That is certainly your right.

 

[Minigiant]

Thats quite the selective quote to stop just before a word like and with a sentence directly addressing fiduciary responsibility.

Are you claiming that "making a slightly changed half-edition is the only way to accomplish that goal"?

Alternately should we assume that your choice to stop the quote immediately before such a relevant sentence is evidence that it was obviously not the only option that accomplishes said goal?

I'm not saying that's the only option.

But suggesting "Make less money for a not guaranteed more money in the long term when your customer base is shout at you to don't do it and treating not to buy" is not likely to ever happen.

When D&D Next was announced, almost every single D&D celeb or notable figure not employed by WOTC was saying "New Edition Bad. I won't buy".