Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 6012616" data-attributes="member: 54877">Forking two branches at once would be business suicide.&nbsp; Might as well detonate the meteor swarm at your feet, and forgo the saving throw. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp;Now, you could make a case for taking the existing 3.5 and 4E platforms and continuing them with mild support while working on Next.&nbsp; I don't think I'd buy that argument when it was done, but maybe someone has a surprise slant on it.&nbsp; Presumably, this would eventually morph into something where they lines weave in and out, with particular lines eventually being dropped, after some other line has largely taken over their responsibilities.&nbsp;However, I think overall the modular solution of one base platform is a better architecture for WotC, fans, and ultimate financial success.&nbsp; See, the problem with the branching is that it assumes things such as 4E people all being totally enamored of the grid while 3E people don't like it.&nbsp; When reality is that people put up with some things in their favorite version because they like other things.&nbsp; Options on top of a base lets, to a certain extent, each table pick their version.&nbsp; &nbsp;An RPG is part product, part building element.&nbsp; The &quot;branch&quot; argument treats it too much like all product. If you buy a Mac, you probably don't want the PC, or vice versa.&nbsp; (You may have some of each, especially if a business, but one person won't use both at the same time.)&nbsp; Where as the building element is more like parts that you then turn around and use the way you want.&nbsp; Quick, for the flooring in your new house, do you want all carpet or all tile or all hardwood?&nbsp; Do you want all green paint or all beige paint?&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 6012616, member: 54877"] Forking two branches at once would be business suicide. Might as well detonate the meteor swarm at your feet, and forgo the saving throw. :D Now, you could make a case for taking the existing 3.5 and 4E platforms and continuing them with mild support while working on Next. I don't think I'd buy that argument when it was done, but maybe someone has a surprise slant on it. Presumably, this would eventually morph into something where they lines weave in and out, with particular lines eventually being dropped, after some other line has largely taken over their responsibilities. However, I think overall the modular solution of one base platform is a better architecture for WotC, fans, and ultimate financial success. See, the problem with the branching is that it assumes things such as 4E people all being totally enamored of the grid while 3E people don't like it. When reality is that people put up with some things in their favorite version because they like other things. Options on top of a base lets, to a certain extent, each table pick their version. An RPG is part product, part building element. The "branch" argument treats it too much like all product. If you buy a Mac, you probably don't want the PC, or vice versa. (You may have some of each, especially if a business, but one person won't use both at the same time.) Where as the building element is more like parts that you then turn around and use the way you want. Quick, for the flooring in your new house, do you want all carpet or all tile or all hardwood? Do you want all green paint or all beige paint? ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification