D&D 4E Paizo and 4e.

[Darkwolf71]

Where are you posting from? North Korea?

In Mother Russia, you don't play RPGs, RPGs play you... and they win!

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Every product that comes out from the other companies fuels back into WotC in Core book sales (specifically Player's Handbook). That was the idea behind it and that's been the experience of the experiment. It is a little hard to wrap our heads around at times, but it has worked. The reason 3(0 and 5) have been so successful is the way the OGL worked in their favor. Think about it, the grand majority of role players have played 3rd edition in one form or the other for most of its cycle. They might have bought supplements from other companies, but the core books maintained themselves as continual strong sellers.

.

Fair enough, but consider the alternative: there are no third party materials, so everything is produced by WotC.

This means that core book sales will drop???

 

[Matthan]

Fair enough, but consider the alternative: there are no third party materials, so everything is produced by WotC.

This means that core book sales will drop???

Maybe not drop, but not grow as much as they could. Think back to what WotC achieved with 3rd edition. They basically decimated every other system out there. Everyone was playing 3rd edition and almost every publisher was producing for it. They allowed everyone else to make them the only game in town. That shifted a bit as time wore on, but the idea is the same.

See the concept here isn't, "How do we keep from losing money?"

The concept is, "How do we make the most money?"

In this case, it's by utilizing other people to support your products and funnel income into your company. By having so much support for D&D, they help to ensure that people stay with the system (hopefully buying new products and new core books if their's wear out), but also introducing new people to the game. And what game would those people be introduced to? Why, Dungeons and Dragons.

It's a different paradigm and an attractive one.

 

[The Little Raven]

But once a company decides to release a new edition, suddenly they are talking about "rebooting" and "fixing" and "evolving" the game. All of them, manipulative metaphors.

So, they need to tiptoe over eggshells to avoid upsetting some grognards that take umbrage that their One Ruleset to Rule Them All might actually have some problems? They shouldn't bill their changes as improvements, and should try to entice players through statements that don't present a positive look?

"Buy 4e! It's not better than 3e, it's just different. There's no beneficial reason to change, but do it anyway!"

I don't see that selling many books.

And by the way, I'm *excited* about 4e, mainly because I can't DM 3.5 without collapsing into a nervous pile of quivering jelly. But just because I look forward to 4e doesn't mean I think 3.5 needs "fixing".

If you collapse into a nervous pile of quivering jelly when you try to DM 3.5, then there's obviously a problem. That's like saying I collapse to the ground whenever I put weight on my right leg... but my right leg couldn't possibly be the problem. Sounds like denial to me.

 

[The Little Raven]

Except for the fact that every professional in the industry (not just WotC employees) who have commented on this has clearly denied it? I keep hearing this over and over and over again - except from any of the parties actually involved.

Just because it's a convenient conspiracy theory, that don't make it true.

I think it's because the 3.X magic item glut gave too many people tinfoil hats of conspiracy creation[/b].

 

[Odhanan]

So, they need to tiptoe over eggshells to avoid upsetting some grognards that take umbrage that their One Ruleset to Rule Them All might actually have some problems? They shouldn't bill their changes as improvements, and should try to entice players through statements that don't present a positive look?

"Buy 4e! It's not better than 3e, it's just different. There's no beneficial reason to change, but do it anyway!"

I don't see that selling many books.

If you want to support every single notion WotC's putting forth that's your choice, ultimately. I for one don't have to agree on notions like "newer is automatically better" and "progress is good... because!" that are in essence, just like Shortman pointed out, illusions and wishful thinking.

 

[jasin]

One aspect I haven't seen considered (but maybe that's just because I'm in a hurry so I was skimming ) is that nothing guarantees that people who aren't happy with the direction WotC is taking the game will be happy with the direction a hypothetical 3.75 will take.

By definition, diehard Paizo fans like Paizo's style, but so far, this has all been within the framework provided by a third party (WotC). With a hypothetical 3.75, every significant change is the potential for a split between those who'll like it and those who won't, and increases the number of customers lost because they've ended up on the "won't" side too many times.

 

[The Little Raven]

If you want to support every single notion WotC's putting forth that's your choice, ultimately.

I don't support every notion they put forth. But I find the suggestion that they should cease to use terms like improvement, fix, and upgrade to be completely silly. If a company isn't willing to call their new product and improvement over the last, then why should anyone buy it? Why should we buy the product of any company that doesn't think they're doing better than they were before? And most importantly, why should the feelings of those who choose to remain with a previous edition be the standard by which their marketing is set (no pointing out flaws, because grognards might not consider them to be flaws, and we don't want to upset them)?

I for one don't have to agree on notions like "newer is automatically better" and "progress is good... because!" that are in essence, just like Shortman pointed out, illusions and wishful thinking.

This statement implies that you've seen the finished product to be able to give such a firm assessment that their claims are just illusions or wishful thinking. It also seems somewhat insulting to imply that the developers don't have a firm grasp on the reality of the game they've been developing for years now (especially since many of them are veteran 3e developers), by suggesting that they're either delusional (illusions) or naive (wishful thinking).

And progress (to advance towards a higher or better state) is inarguably good. What is considered progress is what is subjective.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If you want to support every single notion WotC's putting forth that's your choice, ultimately. I for one don't have to agree on notions like "newer is automatically better" and "progress is good... because!" that are in essence, just like Shortman pointed out, illusions and wishful thinking.

I think his point is that it's kind of lame to criticize WotC for promoting their product in a way that anyone would do if they were in the same position. They're hardly going to avoid telling you that the new edition is better than the old edition. If you were working on the new edition, you'd probably be of the opinion that the work you did was an improvement, right? If you were in charge of marketing it, you'd be an idiot if you didn't give people the impression that there was a good reason to buy it, right? So why criticize them for having a completely rational and predictable stance on how to market their flagship product?

There are plenty of things to criticize that are worth criticism. I read this sort of thing as criticizing WotC for being a publisher.

 

[SteveC]

If you want to support every single notion WotC's putting forth that's your choice, ultimately. I for one don't have to agree on notions like "newer is automatically better" and "progress is good... because!" that are in essence, just like Shortman pointed out, illusions and wishful thinking.

This is sort of starting to drift away from the original intent of the thread, but WotC has been fairly forthcoming in why they feel the new edition will be "better," and many of the reasons make sense to me, namely:

Faster prep time for the GM
Less in-game accounting of resources
Lesser reliance on magic items
Altering the abilities of classes like wizards to even out their power curve

...and there have been others, but those are the primary ones that interest me.

I haven't seen the specifics on much of that yet, but it sounds pretty good to me. That combined with the "previews" in Tome of Battle + Star Wars Saga makes me think I'll like the new edition. Is that an "illusion?" I don't think so. The things we've seen so far have helped a lot of us to say "I think I'm going to like 4E," or the reverse.

From the perspective of Paizo, Necromancer and other companies, it's a lot more complicated than that, because they have to deal with the realities of producing and marketing products.

And to that end, I hereby predict that Paizo will produce 4E products, and that WotC will get the issue with third party SRD issues straightened out shortly. It just wouldn't be smart to let this keep going for too much longer...and the folks involved on both sides of this issue are pretty smart.

So I'm declaring this a stone-cold, lead-pipe lock.

--Steve