tomBitonti
Hero
While unification is a good goal for the hobby, I wonder how Hasbro/WotC can support a true unification given the disparate versions of the game now being played, and that each game has a features which may be seen to work against corporate goals:
1) Pathfinder
Pathfinder seems to be a the best current successor to classical D&D, or, at least, to the 3E/3.5E versions. In my view Pathfinder has created the richest background and story options, and the richest world books and modules.
How can the players of Pathfinder be brought into a player base which is overseen by Hasbro/WotC? Without a unification of Hasbro/WotC with Paizo, at the very least as contracted cooperative agreements (which might not be legal, from a monopoly point of view), how will this be possible?
2) 4E
While many dislike 4E, there are very many that prefer it. However, 4E is rather a different game, representing in at least two areas, edge cases of game design. Foremost, the very strong limitation on game elements (shifts, very few keywords, very little rule adjucation), which was set specifically to work well with non-campaign play with strangers, and to work well with virtual tables. Second, 4E was designed with a strong separation of action descriptions from their effects.
In addition, 4E was setup to break open gaming trend. More on that in the next section.
The main issue here is how to present the strong features of 4E in a play options continuum, while both retaining the vitality of 4E as a very specific style of play, yet providing inclusivity to other play styles.
3) 3E/3.5E
A vast amount of player content was created under 3E and 3.5E, however, that was created under open gaming rules. I can see these options and content being made available again, but, what of the open gaming issues?
That is, will there be a return to open gaming? Since 4E very much did *not* use open gaming, that supports a view that the corporation does not want to continue in that direction. How will 3E/3.5E players react to a republication of the prior 3E/3.5E content stripped of the open licenses?
Thx!
TomB
1) Pathfinder
Pathfinder seems to be a the best current successor to classical D&D, or, at least, to the 3E/3.5E versions. In my view Pathfinder has created the richest background and story options, and the richest world books and modules.
How can the players of Pathfinder be brought into a player base which is overseen by Hasbro/WotC? Without a unification of Hasbro/WotC with Paizo, at the very least as contracted cooperative agreements (which might not be legal, from a monopoly point of view), how will this be possible?
2) 4E
While many dislike 4E, there are very many that prefer it. However, 4E is rather a different game, representing in at least two areas, edge cases of game design. Foremost, the very strong limitation on game elements (shifts, very few keywords, very little rule adjucation), which was set specifically to work well with non-campaign play with strangers, and to work well with virtual tables. Second, 4E was designed with a strong separation of action descriptions from their effects.
In addition, 4E was setup to break open gaming trend. More on that in the next section.
The main issue here is how to present the strong features of 4E in a play options continuum, while both retaining the vitality of 4E as a very specific style of play, yet providing inclusivity to other play styles.
3) 3E/3.5E
A vast amount of player content was created under 3E and 3.5E, however, that was created under open gaming rules. I can see these options and content being made available again, but, what of the open gaming issues?
That is, will there be a return to open gaming? Since 4E very much did *not* use open gaming, that supports a view that the corporation does not want to continue in that direction. How will 3E/3.5E players react to a republication of the prior 3E/3.5E content stripped of the open licenses?
Thx!
TomB
