Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[Dannager]

I think I should clarify what I mean by "extinct". I mean that those editions are "extinct" in the marketplace - you can't buy them anymore except for second-hand copies.

Alright, but bear in mind that, under the evolutionary metaphor, "extinct" doesn't mean you can't buy it. "Extinct" means it is not being played.

That's where the metaphor stumbles. In nature, a new species takes over when it's better adapted than the old species - it out competes the old species. Here, there's really no competition - the old game is made extinct in the marketplace by the company and only the new game is offered. It's not really true evolution, it's evolution being dictated by the company, not by competition.

But that's exactly what's happening here. 4e and PFRPG are out-competing the competition, because they are stealing environmental resources (potential players) away from the games that already existed. This evolution is not being dictated by any company. Certainly, a company releases a new game in the hopes that it will be attractive enough to gamers to cause them to drop whatever they were playing before and instead play the company's new game, but they don't have direct control over this; the "environment" (again, the environment is the whims of gamers) has the control.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think calls for a "unified OSR" (which have been sounding in various quarters for four or five years) convey a misunderstanding of exactly what the OSR is about. Yes, it's about "old school" D&D. But it is also a DIY/indie movement.

It is essentially a group of fans tired of waiting for designers to make the D&D they want to see taking up the reigns and making it themselves. Allowing some top-down designer to dictate what D&D is, is completely contrary to the OSR.

Exactly the point I was making earlier. See my post # 246.

 

[Azgulor]

The last time we got this pep talk, they launched a new edition, I don't think 5e is coming, but something is.

Thunderfoot's post really has me wondering. I went and re-read the original article. It starts out saying how players want to know where the game is going in the future and then spends the entire discussion talking about the past & the experience of D&D. So, the future really isn't discussed at all. Clearly, this is something that is going to be built up to over some period of time.

While re-reading, I ran across the link to the second article in the series and the topic is... MINIATURES?!?

I have no axe to grind with miniatures. Sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't. What I find odd is that Mr. Mearls chooses this topic in light of the current fate of the D&D Miniatures. Is it salt in the wound for some or a set-up for hyping the VTT?

I'm really not sure what the objective of these articles are. (That's a speculative statement, not a judgement so turn the burners on the flame-throwers down...) Make no mistake, however, there is an objective. This isn't Mearls' personal blog. He's writing in an official WotC capacity and while I can't see the picture yet, I think there's an underlying purpose to it all.

I just can't determine if it's intended to be 1) a marketing campaign disguised as gamer musings (harmless), 2) an attempt at improving/repairing WotC-gamer relations (commendable), or 3) a slow build to a major shake-up of some sort. If it's the latter, I think that at best, we'll see a risky (in WotC's view) change in business plan, and at worst a "disruptive announcement" (like a new edition, new lawsuit, price hike, new owner, etc.).

My SWAG is just that, a guess, but I tend to think it's #1 or #3 as those are more readily tied to an measurable business goal/objective. The fact that the 2nd article is about miniatures when they recently pulled back/dumped a miniatures line has me thinking Scenario #3 is the most likely.

So, maybe it's as simple as "Hey Mike, can you write a regular column for us about D&D?". If so, then I spend way too much time at ENWorld & conspiracy-think has taken hold. However, if it's more than that, I'm hoping for #1 but betting on #3.

YMMV.

 

[WheresMyD20]

But that's exactly what's happening here. 4e and PFRPG are out-competing the competition, because they are stealing environmental resources (potential players) away from the games that already existed. This evolution is not being dictated by any company. Certainly, a company releases a new game in the hopes that it will be attractive enough to gamers to cause them to drop whatever they were playing before and instead play the company's new game, but they don't have direct control over this; the "environment" (again, the environment is the whims of gamers) has the control.

Actually, I'd argue that in the case of D&D, the company has lots of direct control. 4e and PFRPG didn't out-compete other versions of D&D for resources, the other versions (3e and earlier) were starved of resources by WotC. Since WotC holds the rights, they can simply prevent older editions from competing in the market. If WotC had its way, I'm sure they'd starve PFRPG too, but that's out of WotC's control because they don't hold the rights to PFRPG.

 

[WheresMyD20]

A noble goal but the OSR is quite a diverse group. What should the standard be?

OD&D purists will want 3 classes, 3d6 in order, etc.

AD&D fans will want the standard to be more like OSRIC

Basic D&D fans will be somewhere between these.

Despite being similar enough to each other to convert material on the fly the differences are great enough to cause friction should one of the flavors be declared " OSR standard"

I'm not sure what the standard should be, nor would I dictate one... nor am I even sure that there actually needs to be an "OSR standard". However, I think that the OSR would benefit greatly from having an in-print game with a large enough following to act as a "standard bearer" for the OSR - something that game store owners can steer customers toward if they're interested in that Old School experience.

I think if this is going to happen, it won't be someone "dictating" it. It will be a publisher putting some resources and support behind and old school product and the old school community gravitating towards it in an organic grass-roots fashion. It won't get the whole OSR community on-board (nothing will) but if it reaches a critical mass it could be the third major branch of D&D along with 4e and Pathfinder.

 

[Dannager]

Actually, I'd argue that in the case of D&D, the company has lots of direct control. 4e and PFRPG didn't out-compete other versions of D&D for resources, the other versions (3e and earlier) were starved of resources by WotC.

Again, this isn't supported by the metaphor. In choosing to no longer produce 3e, WotC did not directly starve it of resources. The environmental resources this metaphor assumes are the players and their investment in a given game. Perhaps WotC's decision made it more difficult for 3.5e to expand, but that decision alone did not cause the decline of 3.5e we observe. For instance, we can safely assume that if WotC stopped producing 3.5e but never created a new edition (and Paizo never produced Pathfinder), more people would be playing 3.5e than are currently doing so. We are forced to acknowledge that the added presence of new games (4e, PFRPG) contributed significantly to the starvation of 3.5e's resources.

If you'd like to look at this another way, imagine WotC had (granted, foolishly) continued to produce 3.5e material while releasing 4e (and while Paizo released Pathfinder). Given the presence of all three supported games on the market, would you assert that 3.5e would maintain the same level of playerbase it had before 4e and PFRPG were released? I very much doubt it. The presence of newer games better "adapted" to the desires of the tabletop gaming community meant that 4e and PFRPG posed extremely strong competition to 3.5e.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Regarding the whole "Evolution" metaphor:

One thing that rarely gets pointed out are the similarities between 4e and Pathfinder in respect towards 3.5 - and there's far, far more similarities then people who focus on only one game tend to notice, especially between the APG and Essentials. In both games, SoDs were cut down and altered albeit in different ways. HP was raised in both games along with the desire to make combat longer and more fulfilling and to extend the "Sweet spot" across better. In Pathfinder, Druids and clerics and their buffs were significantly brought down to help fighters regain niche control. Enemy saves are higher in both and, in Pathfinder, SR is a much bigger deal.

Let's go farther. Classes (other then PF fighter) that have distinctly more options that the player chooses from - often which are either "every five minutes" (per encounter) or are Daily; hell, a number of them are near identical to some 4e options (compare Rogue powers and Rogue talents). A paired down skill list. Drastically increased emphasis on single classing. Both of them saw full attack supremacy as a problem and worked to fix it, though I'm admittingly less pleased with PF's result of the Vital Strike chain. Fighters can impose conditions, with the caveat that it's through the critical strike chain.

APG only makes the comparisons more clear. Drag and Reposition make for tactical positioning. And Dirty Trick makes for condition imposing. The APG also brings in the class variants that read like 2e kits...or like 4e sub-builds. Even the Cavalier has a daily marking ability.

Certainly both games are different, but they grew from the same shared problems.

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>
Last time it went something like this:
1) No holiday lay-offs (check)
2) Abrupt end to the publishing schedule (check)
3) Touchy-feely pep talk (check)
4) RPGA structure change (rumors abound)
5) Late GenCon participation (pending)
6) Announcement at GenCon (TBA)

Take it for what its worth, but frankly, I don't think any of it is going to matter after August....

Number 4 is now (check) - The announcement of the restructuring of the RPGA to a new format for the ever-changing "D&D Encounters" I believe counts as a structure change. So we are now to 4 out of 6....

 

[pemerton]

I don't know the exact numbers, but judging by the number of OSR websites and the number of retro-clones, there's certainly a sizable market for older material. Considering that PDFs and print-on-demand have negligible overhead, I don't see why this market can't be supported. WotC doesn't have to support it itself, it could always license a third party to do it.

But it is supported. Via a licence issued by WotC - a free, non-revocable licence called the OGL!

The only thing that is not licensed is the D&D trademark and trade dress. But why is this so important?

I do get the feeling that there's some desire to participate in a shared nostalgia that might be accessible were WotC to post prior edition material as purchasable PDFs.

And maybe this is the answer to my question.

 

[Imaro]

But it is supported. Via a licence issued by WotC - a free, non-revocable licence called the OGL!

The only thing that is not licensed is the D&D trademark and trade dress. But why is this so important?

I can only answer for my self, but contrary to a few/some/many people's belief that no one enjoys the fluff of D&D... some do, especially when it comes to older editions. Mystara, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Planescape, Hollow World, Birthright... and so on are all things one cannot get from other companies because they are the IP of WotC.