The trends of 2005

[Belen]

Oh, I think it'll do well in terms of what a publisher like TLG expects from a publication of theirs. This implication that it'll take the gaming world by storm, on the otherhand, is absurdly optimistic, I think. Akrasia hit the nail on the head; it's got to get out of the nostalgic "ghetto" if you will. People don't seem to be really associating it with "a rules lite alternative to d20" so much as they do "a d20 version of BD&D."

Right now it's mostly got the attention of those who want a nostalgic experience moreso than those who want a rules lite experience. Which is unfortunate, as the latter market is probably a bigger one.

I am not sure my interest has anything to do with nostalgia. I am hoping for a better game. I am tired of 3e and its million and one rules, so I want a game that will be easier and more fun to play. I never played DnD because I wanted to play a tactical wargame or needed "options."

If C&C can give me a more basix system that still allows for a good resolution mechanic, then I will be happy.

3e is fine and dandy, but it has gotten overly complicated and crunchy. Heck, I have been using 3.5 for almost 18 months and I am still finding new little rules all the time. I am tired of it.

I'll bet that I am not the only one. So, if C&C can get people like me + a good portion still playing the older editons, then it could be poised to grab it's own marketshare.

Big if though.

 

[Davelozzi]

Paizo (I mean Erik) will turn Dragon Magazine around...

That's great, and I agree. Erik has done wonders for Dungeon and I'm hoping to see similar improvements in Dragon now that he's at the helm there too.

 

[Akrasia]

Castles and Crusades will do well, I believe. Personally, I would like to see what people are saying over at Dragonsfoot about the game. If strong interest can be found there, then the game could gather an instant and large following. ....

C&C has its own forum over at Dragonsfoot:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=37&sid=42253ebe5edb11c203b7d7b9a79f041c

It has had a very positive response over there, so far.

As for Psion's point about the "old school" market being fractured, it is worth mentioning that C&C material will be compatible with pre-3E D&D (people will only have to change the ACs). So even those 'old schoolers' who reject any new 'd20' system will get use out of C&C material (modules, etc.). (Heck, even Hackmaster fans can use C&C material, if they change the ACs and add 20 hp to every creature.) How much this will add to C&C's overall success -- well, I don't know.

That aside, I really do think TLG would be better served by emphasizing the 'rules lite' aspect of C&C.

While there seems to be enough interest in C&C to ensure its viability as a non-WotC/WW game system (and certainly its connection to Castle Greyhawk, renamed 'Castle Zagyg', will help its initial sales), it will only be an 'impressive' success if it can market itself as a rules lite system.

 

[Nisarg]

I think a slight dent in this logic is that the Forgotten Realms and Eberron address the same market segment. Although there will be some overlap, Eberron addresses all those "FR haters" out there, while FR is more in line with the traditional fantasy crowd.

I do not agree with your concept because Eberron has not been marketed as an "anti- Forgotten Realms"; on the contrary, its been marketed as "More total D&D than the Forgotten Realms".. more high fantasy, everything and the kitchen sink, etc etc.
But even if it had been, then Wizards would have to be very careful to avoid as much overlap as possible. It would still end up marketing one principally, and the other only secondarily with fewer and more specialized releases.

Any way you look at it, there is no financial sense in having TWO flagship lines. Either FR is going to cut down or Eberron will. Wizards is not doing it "for the love of the game" (though there are surely people that love gaming in Wizards), they are a company. They wouldn't want to shoot themselves in the foot in the exact same assinine way that TSR did by having settings that principally compete with each other. The other gaming companies are so far behind in the market that Wizards has to worry mainly about being their own principle competition, if they release products that are too much alike.

So if Eberron is a hit, we won't see the end of FR, but future FR releases will be fewer and far more geared to a more particularly FR fanbase with particular FR flavour, and Eberron will release more sourcebooks with more general D&D appeal. If Eberron isn't proving to be a sustainable hit, then vice-versa.

Nisarg

 

[Belen]

Any way you look at it, there is no financial sense in having TWO flagship lines. Either FR is going to cut down or Eberron will. Wizards is not doing it "for the love of the game" (though there are surely people that love gaming in Wizards), they are a company. They wouldn't want to shoot themselves in the foot in the exact same assinine way that TSR did by having settings that principally compete with each other. Nisarg

I have to agree with Nisarg on this one. When Eberron was released, I was fairly certain that FR's time would come to an end, unless Eberron tanks.

 

[Nikosandros]

I was surprised that they split off their Glorantha IP to Issaries, Inc.

As far as I know, it was Greg Stafford decision to leave Chaosium and take the Glorantha IP with him.

 

[Turjan]

I do not agree with your concept because Eberron has not been marketed as an "anti- Forgotten Realms"; on the contrary, its been marketed as "More total D&D than the Forgotten Realms".. more high fantasy, everything and the kitchen sink, etc etc.

WotC would be stupid to market Eberron as "anti"-FR. Why damage their best supported setting? This works on a more subtle basis by underlining those aspects of Eberron that are different from the FR, like "no high-powered NPC's". Which setting do you think this statement is set against ?

But even if it had been, then Wizards would have to be very careful to avoid as much overlap as possible. It would still end up marketing one principally, and the other only secondarily with fewer and more specialized releases.

Well, as I said, I don't see much overlap. Therefore, I don't see the need for letting one setting down. Of course, if sales go down, then the setting in question will not be supported anymore. I don't see this as a question of principles, though, just good business sense.

Any way you look at it, there is no financial sense in having TWO flagship lines. Either FR is going to cut down or Eberron will. Wizards is not doing it "for the love of the game" (though there are surely people that love gaming in Wizards), they are a company. They wouldn't want to shoot themselves in the foot in the exact same assinine way that TSR did by having settings that principally compete with each other. The other gaming companies are so far behind in the market that Wizards has to worry mainly about being their own principle competition, if they release products that are too much alike.

Right. All your argumentation depends on the fact that FR and Eberron, indeed, struggle for the same customers. Despite a small overlap, I don't see this happen.

So if Eberron is a hit, we won't see the end of FR, but future FR releases will be fewer and far more geared to a more particularly FR fanbase with particular FR flavour, and Eberron will release more sourcebooks with more general D&D appeal. If Eberron isn't proving to be a sustainable hit, then vice-versa.

I'd like to change this to "So if Eberron hit and the FR see a concomitant slump in sales, ..."; then I'll agree .

 

[Kanegrundar]

I plan on taking a look at C&C, but it sounds like it's moving closer to older editions in terms of style and a few mechanics (saving throws for instance) and I don't like that. While I had fun with 1 and 2E in their day, I was still driven away from fantasy gaming in general by those editions. 3E brought me back. I think there's a bit of a rules glut, but if you use only the Core Rules, it's really not that bad. However, a system that keeps the feel of 3E while making it a little simpler would be a product I can get behind. I product that's too similiar to older editions won't be a game for me.

Kane

 

[johnsemlak]

My take on C&C

I think it will be a strong product for TLG... because at last, it is a niche that they failed to find with their "also ran" core d20 products.

That said, I don't think it will be spectacular by any means. The "old school" subgroup is simply too fragmented. As I recall, several prospective members stomped out of the C&C playtest group when they figured out that d20 was going to be a central baseline. Others still cling to hackmaster, or their old books.

I remember being surprised by the lukewarm response to C&C at the dragonsfoot forums. The hard-core old-school crowd can be a difficult crowd to please, and as you say, rather fragmented. Plus, most importantly, they're just a smaller group.

 

[johnsemlak]

double post