The trends of 2005

[Akrasia]

... by continuing to stress that C&C modules should be adaptable on-the-fly to earlier editions -- whether this turns out to actually be true or not). It's entirely possible that the C&C modules (the Gygax Castle Grey...err...Zagyg modules in particular) will end up appealing to a substantially different group of consumers than the ruleset is appealing to. I wonder how, or if, TLG will resolve that conflict...

If the modules can be used equally well with both rulesets, then I don't see what the 'conflict' consists in.

(Also, the modules are adaptable 'on-the-fly' -- all you have to do is change the ACs and ignore the references to the 'primes'. Nothing could be easier!)

 

[Mark]

Let's look at this logically:

That ship sailed for you. Read the posts above to understand why.

Let's say right now, Wizards is making:

5 FR books a year
selling 50 000 copies total
capturing 50% of the market share

(those are totally made up figures btw, this is just to demonstrate my point)
where in "market share" means people who are already role players.

Making up ficticious numbers to support bad logic doesn't make the logic suddenly good. It's like saying "All people who buy Brand X are named Gracin". Then to prove the point, let's just pretend that people named Nisarg are actually named Gracin, and let's further pretend that Nisarg buys Brand X, and additionally let's pretend he's the only one buys Brand X. SEE???!!! *ALL* people named Gracin buy Brand X.

You're falsifying evidence to make your case. "Your Honor? Let's just say that your gavel is the murder weapon. Now, if we pretend that the defendant has left his fingerprints on..."

 

[T. Foster]

(Also, the modules are adaptable 'on-the-fly' -- all you have to do is change the ACs and ignore the references to the 'primes'. Nothing could be easier!)

...and convert all move rates, and convert or re-roll a lot of creature and character HD and hit points, and convert a lot of creature and character special abilities that may be different or not function in quite the same manner, and convert wapon and creature damage values that may not be the same, and if the encounter is a spell-user convert spell allotments that probably won't match up and spell choices/names that may be different, and convert xp values (if C&C's statblock provides them), and convert treasures/magic items, and convert stat checks and/or saving throws, etc. In other words convert (or at least doublecheck) almost every number and stat in the module.

Sure, converting C&C material to 1E will be a LOT easier than converting most 3E material, probably just a bit harder than converting 2E or B/X D&D material, but the notion that C&C modules will be equivalent to those "generic-statted" modules from the 80s where once you knew that "Hits to Kill" = hp, "Armor Rating" = AC, "Health" = Constitution, "Wizard" = magic-user, and a few other jargon substitutions, all the numbers otherwise lined up exactly, and even tended to be in the same format, as what you would find in AD&D, is inaccurate.

Maybe TLG never meant to give this impression, but when I see statements from them like "the C&C mods they are 99% compatible with everything prior to 2000" (made by Davis Chenault in this thread at rpg.net earlier today) that's what I am led to expect (even though I know better -- the various pre-2000 editions aren't even 99% compatible with each other, so obviously nothing can be 99% compatible with all of them). Having to change -- or at least doublecheck -- almost every number in every statblock (even if those changes are for the most part pretty easy to make) doesn't strike me as 1% incompatability. 15% maybe. But then saying their modules are "85% compatible with everything prior to 2000" doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

What is "from a bell tower", Alex?

Oh, that's good. That made me laugh.

Brad

 

[Desdichado]

Let's look at this logically:

I already did.

By making up numbers, you don't satisfy any logic, nor do you convince anybody of anything.

 

[Nisarg]

The numbers were made up because they weren't supposed to be statistical evidence, but rather a lesson in basic economics for the uninformed.

And basic economics still dictates that doubling your production in this industry only works if you can actually expect to at least double your sales and market share.
Otherwise, you're actually throwing money away.

Nisarg

 

[Nuclear Platypus]

I admit a lot of this is just wishful thinking but still...

Green Ronin will unleash a new version of Dragonfist with a possible chanbara supplement later on.

A few flash in the pan PDFs supporting that WWE wrasslin' rpg for other federations like WCW / nWo, ECW, etc.

Someone will pick up the TMNT license to milk the current cartoon's popularity. Definitely hold the 'cowabunga'.

Dark*Matter returns from oblivion, possibly as a different setting using d20 Call of Cthulhu as a base if not d20 Modern or Grim Tales.

Spycraft 2E will be a hot item, especially if any other spy movies are released. This time we'll have rules to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Throw me a frickin' bone here AEG!

Episode III will be the biggest blockbuster of the year. Or does it get released later?

Either DC or Marvel (doubtful) will license out their characters for an RPG tho I'm guessing with the popularity of JLU and Teen Titans, it'll be DC, especially with the new Batman movie. Should superhero gaming end up on the rise, Chaosium cleans up and reprints Superworld.

Savage Worlds (PEG) has a few more sleeper hits as does GoO with its own house system.

Iron Kingdoms gets volume 2 of its core books (the atlas I believe).

Did I mention Dragonfist seeing print?

 

[TheBadElf]

One thing that I'll be interested to see in 2005 is the continued success (or lack thereof) of licensed RPGs and settings. Right now there's some really good stuff out there, and a couple more coming up (Black Company and Thieves' World) that I expect to be excellent. I have to wonder, though, if the well is starting to run dry. How many gaming-friendly settings are left that would have enough name recognition to sell and aren't either prohibitively expensive (E. R. Burroughs properties and the like) or controlled by authors not interested in licensing them for RPGs (J.K. Rowling, Mercedes Lackey)?

 

[Acid_crash]

Personally, I think C&C is being written by Gygax as his way to tell the world that this is how he would have written D&D 3e and not how WotC wrote it. Who knows? All I know is that I am going to buy it, play it, and have fun.

 

[madelf]

And basic economics still dictates that doubling your production in this industry only works if you can actually expect to at least double your sales and market share.
Otherwise, you're actually throwing money away.

Nisarg

While I agree that it would be unwise to put the same emphasis on both lines unless actual sales figures show there is enough demand, I also think you're underestimating the potential cross-over buyers.

I don't know many gamers who only play one game. I think Forgotten Realms and Eberron books will quite often be purchased by the same people. Of course some will only buy one line or the other, some will buy more of one line than the other, but some will also buy books from both lines. In a scenario like that, it could be less than obvious which line is the more successful, and having both lines may very well drive total book sales higher overall.