Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="scourger" data-source="post: 5471118" data-attributes="member: 12328">I, too, think the D&amp;D brand has too much value for 4e not to have been marketed as the new version of the game.&nbsp; As a personal example, we tried 4e when it was new.&nbsp; Most of us have been playing since Basic or at least 1e.&nbsp; 4e wasn't to our taste, but we wouldn't have even tried it if it hadn't been the new D&amp;D.&nbsp; Now, we're having great fun with Gamma World, which is essentially a simplified 4e with a genre shift to post-apocalyptic science fiction.&nbsp; And, it carries the D&amp;D brand.&nbsp; Luckily, many of the game concepts are familiar from years of d20 play and that little bit of 4e D&amp;D exposure to allow us to play Gamma World pretty easily.&nbsp; So, I would develop a non-D&amp;D 4e along the lines of Gamma World: everything you need in a box.&nbsp; For that matter, I would like to see D&amp;D developed that way; as the Ravenloft RPG announced at GenCon 2010 and cancelled at DDXP 2011 was supposed to be marketed.&nbsp; I even prepared a one-shot game with Gamma World for this week even though heretofore my preferred systems for such a game would have been Savage Worlds or Omega World d20.&nbsp; Speaking of Savage Worlds, that is the way to develop a generic game.&nbsp; If I had to develop 4e as a generic game, I think that is the good way to do it.&nbsp; Make it simple and portable to any genre.&nbsp; Then, the core rules engine is transferrable to other games.&nbsp; The more intersting question to me is, why would WotC want to market 4e as anything oither than (the new) D&amp;D?&nbsp; It seems that the game has to be periodically re-released in new versions to remain viable--or for the company to do so.&nbsp; Plus, there really are some good developments in game design that make it more fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="scourger, post: 5471118, member: 12328"] I, too, think the D&D brand has too much value for 4e not to have been marketed as the new version of the game. As a personal example, we tried 4e when it was new. Most of us have been playing since Basic or at least 1e. 4e wasn't to our taste, but we wouldn't have even tried it if it hadn't been the new D&D. Now, we're having great fun with Gamma World, which is essentially a simplified 4e with a genre shift to post-apocalyptic science fiction. And, it carries the D&D brand. Luckily, many of the game concepts are familiar from years of d20 play and that little bit of 4e D&D exposure to allow us to play Gamma World pretty easily. So, I would develop a non-D&D 4e along the lines of Gamma World: everything you need in a box. For that matter, I would like to see D&D developed that way; as the Ravenloft RPG announced at GenCon 2010 and cancelled at DDXP 2011 was supposed to be marketed. I even prepared a one-shot game with Gamma World for this week even though heretofore my preferred systems for such a game would have been Savage Worlds or Omega World d20. Speaking of Savage Worlds, that is the way to develop a generic game. If I had to develop 4e as a generic game, I think that is the good way to do it. Make it simple and portable to any genre. Then, the core rules engine is transferrable to other games. The more intersting question to me is, why would WotC want to market 4e as anything oither than (the new) D&D? It seems that the game has to be periodically re-released in new versions to remain viable--or for the company to do so. Plus, there really are some good developments in game design that make it more fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification