Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5702517" data-attributes="member: 22424">Gygax was wrong. Almost nobody ever actually ran AD&D without at least some houserules (or 'unspoken' house rules where they weren't using the RAW but maybe weren't conscious that they were "doing it wrong"). Both 3e and 4e are much closer to Gygax's "unified standard", but neither is even close to being the only game in town (or even the only D&D in town).The big problem here is not "rules bloat", but rather that published material too often does not exceed what fans can produce.Yes. At this point I have ten distinct Adventure Paths that I have never run. Each of these is good for at least a year of play. I have to question what use there is in continuing to buy even high-quality adventure material.This is especially true when you consider that actually the format of published adventures doesn't really suit my game structure. We play for 3 hours every 2 weeks. Existing adventure paths, with long sequences of encounters, really don't work for us - there's too much 'filler' material designed to give PCs Xp/treasure, bogging the story down. I'm better served homebrewing my own adventures.Nope. Paizo's success is that they produce uniformly high-quality material, they listen to their fans, and, crucially, they're small enough to thrive in the current environment.Paizo have certainly hit on a great strategy for them, using adventures initially to detail the world, then detailing the world in its own right, and only then selling the rules (and that only because of issues with 4e and the GSL). And selling everything via subscriptions was a very wise move.However, as time goes on they may find that they run into problems. People only need so many adventures - once you have a bank of 10 adventure paths waiting to be run (not to mention half a dozen of your own campaigns), what need do you have of more adventures? How many words can you write about a game world before your only left with niche topics?So we'll see.It's also worth noting again that size is a huge factor. If WotC were doing exactly the same things Paizo were doing then they would probably fail and be gone within a year. Adventures and settings sell, but they only sell a certain amount, and considerably less than rules (especially player-targeted rules). They sell enough for Paizo, but they almost certainly don't sell enough for WotC.I disagree. That creative aspect of D&D is a big draw for a lot of people. And for all their quality, Paizo's adventure paths have a nasty habit of feeling a bit same-y. They've done ten paths now, and while they're all high quality, there is a distinct pattern to them.The dirty little secret is that we don't need the publishers. I have the 3e Core Rulebooks; I never need to buy anything ever again and I am sorted for life.That's a problem for both WotC and Paizo - they can't sell me things I need for their games, because I already have them. If 5e requires too much of a buy in, I can just ignore it. And I won't suffer for it, because I'm already set for life.That means that they have to work hard to make me really want things that are not necessary. (Either truly necessary, or even necessary in terms of the game.) I have to want to pick up the latest splatbook, or the latest adventure, or the new campaign setting. I have to want to update to 5e, and then I have to want to stay current.They should work to make core 5e a sleek, elegant system that is manifestly better than 3e, 4e or Pathfinder. Keep it simple in the core, keep the buy-in fairly low, but make damn sure it's better. Make people want to update.Back that core rulebook(s) with a really strong Starter Set. I've described my ideal set in the past; the new Pathfinder Beginner Set is almost exactly what they should be looking at. But there should be no mistake: the Starter Set is the single most important product in the entire line. It is not an afterthought; it is the single thing they should be sure to get right.Once they've got the core down, they can start expanding. Here, the focus needs to be on products that make the game play better. Whether that means splatbooks, adventures, settings, or whatever is another debate. The answer is probably 'yes'.Ick. D&D isn't Magic.No, but a good online service can certainly be a massive boon. The existing DDI has huge flaws, but it's a massive boon for those running 4e. The concept is absolutely sound, even if the implementation leaves a lot to be desired.And in the future, the vast majority of support for D&D is almost certainly going to come in the form of the DDI or similar.Honestly, I think they're doomed. I'm inclined to think that there will be a 5e, but that it won't last long (regardless of quality). I strongly suspect that D&D (as an RPG) is just too small to be worth Hasbro's while, but that the D&D IP is too valuable for the licensing rights for them to consider selling (unless Bill Gates decides that he simply must have it).My guess (and note that this is a guess) is that the DDI represents something of a last throw of the dice for D&D - that the books were judged to be insufficiently profitable, but that someone sold management on the idea of an online subscription service to bring in the money. However, the investment required has been much higher than was anticipated (we know this to be true). My guess would be that the subscription numbers, while decent, and while they would absolutely delight any other RPG company, may well not be the WoW-like numbers that were projected (again, this is a guess). And so D&D limps onwards, but is just never going to meet the expectations that are held for it.But that it very much a guess. I hope I'm wrong, because while I'm set for life, I would rather see D&D continue than not.</blockquote>

Verification