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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khur" data-source="post: 371558" data-attributes="member: 5583">What's that on my shoe?You're right, at this time Hasbro/WotC seem to be inconsistent in their application of their normal business policy. I think what we're seeing are steps towards consistency.  Thanks. I just wanted to know. It irks me when people post and don't know what they're talking about. Actually, I agree with you on both these points (I did vote yes on this poll). My other points are merely trying to show people how the direction WotC is heading could be good for the industry. If they follow their money mantra to its nirvana, they get out of the way for people who do want to make games, and D&D lives on as a prettier critter. You get better product as a result too. You're right again. But this is the mantra for many corporations, such as: Microsoft, Quark, and etc. Many companies cut corners on quality, sitting on their loyal (entrapped) consumer base to ensure success. Consumer choices, like electoral ones, are more often popularity contests than quality contests. The consumer won't see savings, but he may see an improved marketplace in general. (On a tangent, RPGs are an incredible entertainment value, even at current prices.) You're right again. Hasbro did make crappy games with Microprose. My point wasn't about that, it's about the fact that Hasbro doesn't care about making games, they care about the dollar. Hasbro doesn't make video games any more, BTW ... Infogrames owns what Hasbro used to (which is one of the reasons Master Tools became E-tools). Hasbro understands one thing: money-making. They don't care about the gamer mentality; they care about margins. They're gonna cut WotC down and down, until the margins are where they want them. The'll license and use the OGL to make the money they want. I think you and I agree almost completely with one another. I can agree with the spirit of this argument, but not its application. The time it takes to create a character has no ramifications on the creativity involved in creating said character. That's like saying you can't create a beautiful work of art with a difficult technique. The only thing in 3E that does have ramifications on character creativity are the limited choices created by the rules, such as monks not being able to multiclass. One of the reasons 1E took a few minutes is because so many things were alike (and more restricted). And, I'll assert that it doesn't take that much longer to create stat blocks at all, while it does take longer to create creatures and characters themselves.As for what Rounser said, he's right ... 1E was a lot easier to run on the fly. Seriously, I voted yes to this poll, yet I wrote a lot of stuff defending WotC's current course according to Hasbro's overarching policy. That doesn't mean I think that all of WotC's stuff is golden. My opinion was based more on their business policies, than any personal feelings about the quality of their output. Maybe I was a little off topic, considering the first post in this thread only mentions production and design issues. I did say that the core material has to appeal to the widest audience (that is, has to be generic) and does serve a decent role of catering to a beginning player (who doesn't have any idea what a Fiend Folio is, and doesn't care). On the flip side, I will say that some of the work is below my standards and useless to me personally. Further, I think some of the material is a bad example for new players.And, I'm not trying to insult you, but come on ... do you really think 200 people equals any kind of majority, or even a minority? And the fact is: if you dislike WotC's non-core books, you don't need them to play the game ... in any fashion. Whoever said anything about destroying the market in the first place was wrong ... it can hardly be destroyed by even a vocal majority (barring political action usually forbidden in the US). That said, you have a wide variety of product to spend your change on, and the opportunity to make your own, if you're bold. Exactly one of my points. Thanks. Hasbro won't discontinue D&D, the OGL, or anything else like that. At worst, D&D will be sold to someone else for a large bucket o' change. Chances are, if that happens it'll be better off, other than the OGL might go "poof". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> hee, hee! That was good, I laughed out loud ... thanks. Okay, so I admit that Dragon has been faltering a bit here and there, but most of my gripes would be with production, not content. I liked this issue, and I've liked others. I think the extraplanar dragons were pretty cool (more interesting than typical D&D wyrms), the "hag" items were inspiring adventure ideas as I read them, and the undead templates are indispensable (that is, should have been in the MM to begin with). I've felt that way about most of my Dragon issues ... they have enough good stuff in them that it's worth $3.16 a pop (considering the subscription rate and the fact that it's delivered to me). I guess you and I just disagree on this point.That's okay, with a sense of humor like that, you're still welcome at my gaming table!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification