Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 4833273" data-attributes="member: 2732">To be honest, Clark has a good idea regarding at least WoTC considering the adoption of either (a) &quot;classic support&quot; for other D&amp;D games, or (b) making settings rules-neutral.&nbsp; With each new edition of D&amp;D, there is a fracturing of the consumer base.&nbsp; I don't believe this is necessary, as you can revise a game without having to make fundamental revisions.&nbsp; Why not at least send out test balloons, or consider making a third party company the exclusive producer of those games and get royalty payments.&nbsp; If it turns out demand for 1e or 3e is better than 4e, then maybe they need to adjust their plan.&nbsp; Settings that are rule-neutral or rule-agnostic might also be a good idea.&nbsp; Instead of forcing massive reboots, keep the campaign settings to their core and publish lore.&nbsp; Since it turns out in many cases the novel lines are more successful, this would please those people as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnRTroy, post: 4833273, member: 2732"] To be honest, Clark has a good idea regarding at least WoTC considering the adoption of either (a) "classic support" for other D&D games, or (b) making settings rules-neutral. With each new edition of D&D, there is a fracturing of the consumer base. I don't believe this is necessary, as you can revise a game without having to make fundamental revisions. Why not at least send out test balloons, or consider making a third party company the exclusive producer of those games and get royalty payments. If it turns out demand for 1e or 3e is better than 4e, then maybe they need to adjust their plan. Settings that are rule-neutral or rule-agnostic might also be a good idea. Instead of forcing massive reboots, keep the campaign settings to their core and publish lore. Since it turns out in many cases the novel lines are more successful, this would please those people as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification