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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5324701" data-attributes="member: 59082">Yes, true. It is really too bad - it was a bold experiment but it ended up creating its own end. The release date of 4E was likely directly caused by the existence of the OGL itself; it may be that if there had been no OGL, or a more limited form of the OGL, 4E would have been delayed by a couple years.I hope you are right. WotC has not been forthcoming as to what its plans are, or what we might see for 4E after Essentials comes out. Are we going back to the one-hardcover-a-month cycle? Or are they playing wait and see with Essentials and maybe expanding the line with digest softcovers and box sets? I honestly have no idea, and maybe they don't either, but just have a few possible courses depending how well Essentials sell.I know you aren't asking me, but I originally used the term in reference to company size, viability, and sustainability. In other words, is a new edition necessary to keep WotC at a similar size, profitable, and from going into steep decline. It is my view that some kind of new edition is necessary. Some have said that just revised versions every few years with possible expansions in other directions - card games and other "gimmicks," DDI, board games, further adventures and campaign settings, etc. I honestly wonder how long that works until a company like WotC "needs" a re-boot. I mean, as I said elsewhere, how many face lifts could Roger Moore possibly have had before a new Bond was necessary to revive the franchise? If and when 5E comes out we probably won't see the same kind of radical change that we saw with 4E, for at least two reasons: 1) Public Relations and damage control, and 2) 4E has a more modular core to build from, so it could easily be ported over into 5E while changing some of the tangentials.So I think we'll still see some kind of 5E in 2014 or 2015, because it is the most lucrative thing for WotC to do, but they'll find some way to minimize the controversy; e.g. "Fully Backwards Compatible with 4E!" They seem to have done a pretty good job with Essentials, which is generally being embraced and probably will sell quite well. Another option would be for WotC to add a tool to DDI that allows quick and easy conversion of monsters and characters across editions. That would certainly please fans.Do you think that a company the size of WotC, let alone Hasbro, is content with simply remaining "in position, generating a steady stream of revenue?" The game designers themselves are probably fine with this, but not the bigwigs, and certainlly not Hasbro. I am not a business type, but I imagine that most medium to large businesses want to find new ways to make profit; in the case of a company like WotC, this is in fits and starts. You come out with a new edition and you make tons of money, then the profits start dwindling until you come out with a new idea like Essentials. But in order to get those big spikes in money you either have to come out with a new edition or a major innovation; I'm sure WotC is trying to come up with innovations, probably in relation to DDI, but the clock is ticking and at some point they have to show their hand to Hasbro and if they don't have anything, a new edition will probably be called for.That's the business side. In terms of the game itself, of "game evolution," you are probably right that revisions every five years or so would be enough considering that RPGs aren't changing substantially in terms of game mechanics. Most of the innovations happened in the 90s; until someone comes out with a clever new mechanic that revolutionizes the game, the core of D&D will remain unchanged and as I and others have said, 4E's core is simple and modular enough that no major changes are necessary for the foreseeable future.But is WotC and Hasbro content to merely remain "afloat"? Smaller, more gamer-run companies might be, but I doubt WotC is. Mike Mearls probably is, but what about the CEO of Hasbro? Well one thing that still remains a kind of Holy Grail of RPGs is a science fiction equivalent of D&D. I know, you've got Traveller, Star Wars, GURPs, etc, but none of them come close to D&D in terms of popularity. Why is this? SF is as popular as fantasy, so why not a SF RPG? I honestly don't know, but it may relate to the question of why D&D is far and away the most popular RPG with no one even close, and the answer is probably simply name-brand recognition and the fact that most of us grew up with it and were imprinted in those crucial age 10-14 "Golden Age" of blossoming imagination.That's what I was thinking. As soon as you take out real, living DMs and replace them with computer programs you move away from what separates tabletop RPGs from CRPGs and MMORPGs. I think WotC has to be very careful about this; the idea should be to get people over from WoW, not to make D&D more WoW-like so that tabletop RPGs start moving in that direction. I would even say that if WotC takes this route it will eventually usher in the death of the TTRPG, or at least on the scale it is now. Maybe that is inevitable?Here, here!</blockquote>

Verification