Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5429729" data-attributes="member: 10479">Aside from <a href="http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q=the+rolling+stones+vs+beatles&amp;aq=2m&amp;aqi=g2g-m1g-v1g-o1&amp;aql=&amp;oq=rolling+stones+vs+bea&amp;pbx=1&amp;fp=77a6fa40f303a0e3" target="_blank">The Rolling Stones</a> (a debate over who is better rages to this day) and Elvis, there were plenty of alternatives, not to mention that there was plenty of non-Rock competition throughout the years the Beatles were together.&nbsp; Might be better to compare Classic D&amp;D to early network television.Anyway, WotC seems more like one of those owners of a sports franchise that is mostly content with local turnout.&nbsp; Their corporate standing and Hasbro ownership requires certain business practices with an eye toward stockholder satisfaction.&nbsp; Although it is unlikely, I think they should sell the property to a smaller company.There's always been fragmentation based on basic assumptions about what makes D&amp;D D&amp;D both within the company and without.&nbsp; Fact of the matter is that whoever owns the brand can slap it on whatever they like and it is officially D&amp;D.&nbsp; It used to be that only people who didn't game would generically call Medieval/Fantasy RPGing D&amp;D regardless of the brand.&nbsp; I played wargames before D&amp;D came on the scene in 1974, then starting playing D&amp;D along with my other gaming, and I have never until recent times seen so many people playing various Medieval/Fantasy RPGs and calling them D&amp;D when they weren't actually branded that way (then going on to explain why they did so, whether it was PF, Osric, C&amp;C, etc, etc.).&nbsp; The fragmentation now borders dangerously on brand dilution.&nbsp; I wouldn't be surprised to see some big legal steps coming to curb that if it continues.&nbsp; It certainly hasn't been staunched in the traditional manner (by producing a game that all players acknowledge as actual D&amp;D even if they don't play it or like it).The only way I see to reach 90% of the fans would be to stop creating new editions and focus on *all* past and present editions (and even then 10% would not buy anything).&nbsp; It requires a different creativity than seems to be currently rewarded by the edition-cycle business model in that you don't just take the old flavor and put new mechanics underneath, you have to come up with new and expanded flavor to fit the mechanics that are already in place with four (six, eight?) variations of the game.&nbsp; Some of that creativity would work with all variations and some would only work with a limited number of the variants.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 5429729, member: 10479"] Aside from [url=http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=the+rolling+stones+vs+beatles&aq=2m&aqi=g2g-m1g-v1g-o1&aql=&oq=rolling+stones+vs+bea&pbx=1&fp=77a6fa40f303a0e3]The Rolling Stones[/url] (a debate over who is better rages to this day) and Elvis, there were plenty of alternatives, not to mention that there was plenty of non-Rock competition throughout the years the Beatles were together. Might be better to compare Classic D&D to early network television. Anyway, WotC seems more like one of those owners of a sports franchise that is mostly content with local turnout. Their corporate standing and Hasbro ownership requires certain business practices with an eye toward stockholder satisfaction. Although it is unlikely, I think they should sell the property to a smaller company. There's always been fragmentation based on basic assumptions about what makes D&D D&D both within the company and without. Fact of the matter is that whoever owns the brand can slap it on whatever they like and it is officially D&D. It used to be that only people who didn't game would generically call Medieval/Fantasy RPGing D&D regardless of the brand. I played wargames before D&D came on the scene in 1974, then starting playing D&D along with my other gaming, and I have never until recent times seen so many people playing various Medieval/Fantasy RPGs and calling them D&D when they weren't actually branded that way (then going on to explain why they did so, whether it was PF, Osric, C&C, etc, etc.). The fragmentation now borders dangerously on brand dilution. I wouldn't be surprised to see some big legal steps coming to curb that if it continues. It certainly hasn't been staunched in the traditional manner (by producing a game that all players acknowledge as actual D&D even if they don't play it or like it). The only way I see to reach 90% of the fans would be to stop creating new editions and focus on *all* past and present editions (and even then 10% would not buy anything). It requires a different creativity than seems to be currently rewarded by the edition-cycle business model in that you don't just take the old flavor and put new mechanics underneath, you have to come up with new and expanded flavor to fit the mechanics that are already in place with four (six, eight?) variations of the game. Some of that creativity would work with all variations and some would only work with a limited number of the variants. [/QUOTE]

Verification