Not Reading Ryan Dancy

[Banshee16]

There were roughly 4 years between 3.0 and 3.5. Say what you want about 3.5 (and god knows, a lot has been said) it was very successful commercially. How much of the 3.0 player network upgraded to 3.5? My guess is 60% or more initially, and probably as much as 80% in the present.

A ".5" style "revision" (especially if it contained a Monster Manual with 75% new monsters, and a spell section in the PHB with 75% new spells) would likely be very successful. I could see adding a big section to the DMG on how to design monsters and/or gods too. If that line is announced in Spring of '07 for release in spring of '08, it would be right on the ".5" timeline. And I suspect it would be just as commercially successful as 3.5 was.

Ryan

Maybe I didn't quite phrase my opinion on the matter clearly....I'm not saying that something like a 3.75, with collated rules, more core classes from some of the post 3.5 launch supplements etc. being included wouldn't be successful. You may be right. And given that I skipped paying for the 3.5 core books, by using the SRD instead, I might actually be tempted to buy copies of those 3.75 hard covers. I might not agree with all the changes that 3.5 instituted....but I can admit that there were some good things, and more, at this point my original 3.0 launch core books are starting to get a little beaten anyways....so replacing them would not be a bad idea.

I'm saying that a wholesale edition change...a 4.0 that changes everything again, and requires that not only do many gamers have to retrofit/convert 2nd Ed. stuff, but also now 3.0 and 3.5, and then are marketed 4.0 versions of books they just bought in 3.5, may not generate the success they anticipate.

How old is the average player? I seem to remember that it's more like 30 than 14. If that's the case, that means that we've got an aging customer base in the industry. It also might mean that the industry hasn't grown through the creation of new players, so much as it has through the "reawakening" of older players who might have stopped playing years ago. I'm not going to make a prediction...I just think it's food for thought. Because if it's generally the same group of players now that it was 20 years ago, with some new blood, then there's probably more players than they think, that are in their 30's, and have several editions worth of books....and probably have little desire to feel like they're being sold the same thing over and over, in decreasing time intervals.

I've got two copies of Drow of the Underdark (2nd Ed.) and will likely buy the new one in 2007. Plus I have Plot and Poison. I know P&P and DotU 2E are both great books. Who knows about the new one? But at some point, I'm going to have to ask myself if I really *need* the newest one. And the addition of 4E would only complicate matters.

You've been knee-deep in the inner workings of the industry, whereas I obviously haven't. So I see this as a debate, more than saying "Ryan Dancey is wrong". That's not what I'm trying to say. But I've been a pretty avid consumer for a good 16-17 years. And despite some conventional wisdom which would say that as a kid, I bought more than I would as an adult, I think I've bought more 3E product in my 20's and early 30's than I ever did of 2nd Ed. because I've had far more disposable income.

If there *is* a sizable proportion of the player base who are like me, I'm just not how sure how often they can continue to tap the player base for the same books. Once every 10 years is one thing....once every 4 years is something very different.

I wouldn't mind some clarified, errata'd, and expanded rules, integrating some of the best stuff created since 3.5 was launched. But a new edition that invalidates everything else I've purchased, I'm not so sure of.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

And frankly, we really had pretty much hit a point of saturation. Within the core "high fantasy" genre, all the real meat was off the bone, and publishers were getting increasingly desperate to find something worth publishing a book about. Most of the D20 glut wasn't worth upgrading to 3.5 anyway.


Ryan

I know my experience with some lines, like Swashbuckling Adventures, was that at least on the message boards and mailing lists, the arrival of 3.5 divided an already divided customer base. They already had dual stat books, with R&K and 3.0 rules. When 3.5 arrived, many of us really didn't like the changes 3.5 inflicted on the game.....so many didn't want the line to change to 3.5...whereas others said they wouldn't buy if the game *didn't* change to 3.5. In the end, the line failed. Whether 3.5 was the reason, I have no idea. But I'd bet it was a factor, because it divided part of the customer base for that game.

And 3.5 wasn't completely compatible with 3.0. Plus, it made changes many of us didn't like....paladin mounts appearing like genies, shortened spell durations going even further towards forcing us to play in the X fights/day, kick down the door style of play. On a personal level, this helped lead me into purchasing more 3rd party products which preserved the older feel of play...Conan, Midnight, Black Company,Iron Kingdoms, etc.

Banshee

 

[dcas]

I'm not sure how that would work. Do you mean you would have a combatant roll a saving throw to determine whether he was within the 6" + 1"/level range of an M-U's Message spell?

I would have to look up that particular spell; is it an area-of-effect spell? I wasn't referring to ranges in my post regarding saving throws but to areas of effect.

If so, that 1) seems like a wierd way to handle it;

Well, I don't think it's weird. It's why I prefer saving throws to be abstract rather than linked to ability scores or "reflexes," etc. For example, if someone rolls a successful saving throw against a magic-user's fireball spell, it isn't because he has superior reflexes (how can you have wonderful reflexes against an effect that is instantaneous, anyway?), but because he wasn't in the AOE in the first place.

and 2) just validates my point that in order to do without minis the DM is probably going outside the normal rules to adjudicate most situations involving distance/movement/facing/etc.

It's not moving outside the normal rules, it's using the normal rules.

That's fine, but if the defender is using a shield you need to know which attacks are falling on his shield side, his off-shield side, etc. in order to match a specific attack roll with the right AC.

I would think that the PC would turn so that attackers were on his shield side. If he's facing more attackers than his shield can handle (depending on the size of the shield and the number of attacks from each attacker), then yes, some on-the-fly DM adjudication is required to determine which attacks are falling on his off-shield side. Likewise, if the PC is surrounded, some adjudication is required to determine which attacks are falling on the rear.

If playing "right" means tracking distances, movement and position exactly for every creature involved in a combat then playing the game "right" without using minis and a ruler/battlemat is just as hard for 1e as it is for 3e.

I don't think playing "right" necessarily involves these things in combat.

But 3e makes minis and battlemat more necessary because some of the rules (attacks of opportunity, frex.) depend on knowing where the PCs and their attackers are at all times. If you prefer to fudge these rules then no, minis and battlemat are not strictly necessary.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I'm virtually certain that the only company to really benefit from 3.5 was Wizards of the Coast. That doesn't mean they were the only company that >could< have benefited, only that they >were< the only company that benefited.

So if the revision could have been taken advantage of, would you imagine it would have been from established companies through products that were successful in 3.0 and were being revised to 3.5? If not and the bubble did burst at this point (and I see no logic to refute that), what could have been done to ride the wave? Is there something we could have done or were we just too late to the party?

 

[Ranger REG]

There are powerful forces inside WotC that believe (not without quite a bit of market research and product experience to back them up) that gamers will buy a "revision" to a games' core rules every 3-4 years and that not inducing those purchases is just leaving money on the table.

I'm sorry, but my wallet and I heavily oppose those forces. I'm not in favor of buying revisions every 3 years. I oppose any [silver-spoon] fans who support this marketing ploy. They might as well send ther full wallet to me since they got money to burn.

You can revise your TCGs as little as 18 months, but don't do that to my favorite RPGs.

 

[Ourph]

I would have to look up that particular spell; is it an area-of-effect spell? I wasn't referring to ranges in my post regarding saving throws but to areas of effect.

Since I specifically referred to spell "ranges" in my original post I thought it was clear that I wasn't talking about areas of affect, but whether the target of a spell was within the spell's listed range. Using saving throws to adjudicate that seemed very strange to me; thus, my question. Obviously you were misunderstanding my original comment when you brought up saving throws.

I don't think playing "right" necessarily involves these things in combat.
But 3e makes minis and battlemat more necessary because some of the rules (attacks of opportunity, frex.) depend on knowing where the PCs and their attackers are at all times. If you prefer to fudge these rules then no, minis and battlemat are not strictly necessary.

I'm using the word "right" in reponse to Falstaff's use of the word "correctly". It seems to me that accurate application of the facing rules, spell ranges, etc. in AD&D "depend on knowing where the PCs and their attackers are at all times". As you point out, so do many rules in 3e. I don't see the difference between the two situations. In both games you are either applying the combat rules strictly and completely or you are handwaving spacial relationship stuff that is cumbersome to track without some sort of concrete physical representation. IMO, both games require the use of minis/counters and a battlemat/ruler to run "correctly" (where we're defining correctly as making complete and accurate use of all the rules at all times - which is, I assume, the meaning Falstaff was attaching to the word) but both games function just fine if the DM replaces minis/counters and a battlemat/ruler with on-the-fly adjudications and reasonable estimates.

Minis and a battlemat are only "more necessary" in 3e if the players aren't willing to handwave the exact same types of things that you seem to be saying you're more than comfortable handwaving for AD&D. I don't see the difference between handwaving AoOs and handwaving the shield/facing rules.

 

[dcas]

Since I specifically referred to spell "ranges" in my original post I thought it was clear that I wasn't talking about areas of affect, but whether the target of a spell was within the spell's listed range. Using saving throws to adjudicate that seemed very strange to me; thus, my question. Obviously you were misunderstanding my original comment when you brought up saving throws.

I apologize for any misunderstanding (and you are quite right, I used the word "range" myself) -- I use saving throws to adjudicate whether a PC or NPC is in the area of effect, not whether he is in the range of a spell. I suppose I would do the same for a spell with a range that also allowed a saving throw, or I might rule differently (for example, the PC was looking away when a light spell was cast, so he wasn't blinded).

I guess for a ranged spell with no saving throw I would make a ruling on-the-fly as to the location of the would-be target. I would probably determine a % chance that the target character was in the range, and then roll the dice.

I'm using the word "right" in reponse to Falstaff's use of the word "correctly". It seems to me that accurate application of the facing rules, spell ranges, etc. in AD&D "depend on knowing where the PCs and their attackers are at all times".

I think it depends on what one means by "accurate." Since AD&D does not model combat accurately, it seems a bit weird to try and determine PC and attacker position and direction accurately. (Of course, I am surely parting ways with the author of AD&D here.)

Minis and a battlemat are only "more necessary" in 3e if the players aren't willing to handwave the exact same types of things that you seem to be saying you're more than comfortable handwaving for AD&D. I don't see the difference between handwaving AoOs and handwaving the shield/facing rules.

Oh, I agree that one could "handwave" AoOs. But wouldn't that result in a lot less of them happening? (Not that that wouldn't be a bad thing. . . . ) If not, then I could see players getting upset when their characters are provoking AoOs for seemingly no reason.

It just seems to me that 3e has more rules that would require "handwaving." I could be wrong, I haven't looked at the 3e combat rules in ages.

 

[Ourph]

Oh, I agree that one could "handwave" AoOs. But wouldn't that result in a lot less of them happening? (Not that that wouldn't be a bad thing. . . . ) If not, then I could see players getting upset when their characters are provoking AoOs for seemingly no reason.

It just seems to me that 3e has more rules that would require "handwaving." I could be wrong, I haven't looked at the 3e combat rules in ages.

IME PCs don't go around provoking a lot of AoOs. Unless they are in a contained area, it's usually possible to move around without provoking. Plus, anyone taking an action that would precipitate an AoO usually orchestrates a way around it (enough ranks in Tumble for movement, enough ranks in Concentration for spellcasting or having a high enough AC that the attack is not likely to connect). Other things that provoke, like grappling, don't require knowing exactly where other combatants are. The ones you are most likely to misjudge without minis are the movement-based ones and, like I said, those are fairly rare in my experience, so misjuding on a few isn't going to drastically affect the game (at least not any moreso than missing a few AC adjustments due to shield facing or handwaving the range of a few spell effects in AD&D).

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm sorry, but my wallet and I heavily oppose those forces. I'm not in favor of buying revisions every 3 years. I oppose any [silver-spoon] fans who support this marketing ploy. They might as well send ther full wallet to me since they got money to burn.

I suspect that your opposition will count for exactly nothing. Given that Dancey at this point has nothing to gain from misleading any of us concerning the likely future of the game, I see no reason not to believe his statement that there are powerful forces at WotC backed by market research that believe that a new edition/revision every four years or thereabouts is a viable product strategy.

Sure, get indignant and vote with your feet, refusing to buy a new edition if you think it has been released "too soon". That's your right, and power as a consumer. But, if we believe Dancey's statement, your opposition will be swamped under the mass of gamers who will go ahead and spend their money on the new books.

I oppose the continued broadcasting of Supernanny, Nanny 911, Wife Swap and Trading Spouses, yet somewhere there are people who watch those shows and keep their ratings up. I suspect the same would be true for you vis-a-vis a new edition of D&D that you would not buy. Enough people would that WotC would still make money.

So, in the end, your opposition would amount to nothing that WotC would care about.

 

[Maggan]

I oppose any [silver-spoon] fans who support this marketing ploy.

Good for me I work hard for my money then, so I can spend it as I chose, without risk of being viewed as someone who's born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Seriously, you don't know why people buy the books, you don't know what else they forsake, you don't know how they got their money. For all I know they could be working double shifts at the pizza place to pay for the books.

/M