S
shurai
Guest
Wow . . . I can see that this is a very ticklish issue. If I'd known you were all so sensitive I would've phrased things differently, sheesh.
In any case, for the record, I know the new edition will be lots more pages, and supposedly new material as well. I maintain the same opinion I had before, though: Most of the game will remain the same, because, as I said before, most of the material I already own, in spirit if not in letter. You're right, 'bug fix' is an inadequate inadequate description, which is why I never said that's what I thought of it, I merely assumed 'some' were correct for the purposes of exaggeration, to help make my (former, people!) opinion clear.![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
'More money' means more money than I paid for it originally, plain and simple. I believe I made it clear that I was expressing my opinion that nearly tripling my net investment in the game for less then half again as much content was not a good idea. You can say it's the same price for more content all you want, but given that I already own the game, I'd be paying $90 for the revisions. At that rate I can revise it myself and save the cost of two weeks of food in the process.
"What does morality have to do with business?"
That you believe this is a rhetorical question disturbs me. Anyway, what I was getting at is that Microsoft can get away with being a nasty company, at least for now, but Wizards cannot, because a group can change which roleplaying game they play a bit more easily than they can change their operating systems and applications software. A lot of people who play D&D have played some other game, and many of them play some other game concurrently. So if Wizards decides to be greedy and nasty about things, we can take our business elsewhere with relative ease.
I really don't see the point of badgering me about how Wizards does, in fact, own the rights to their own game. You make it sound like if I don't come along quietly and keep my mouth shut they'll come to my house with a restraining order and confiscate my rulebooks. That's what I'm getting at, people: If they don't play nice, we don't play D&D, and I think they understand that, which is why I was using this public forum as one part warning (in case they forget) and one part applause for a good idea.
But you're missing something else here too, I think: you say that if everyone thought like me, Wizards would lose money and D&D would fail. But that can't be right, since if everyone thought like me they still would have bought the core rulebooks back in the day. Given that I would have spent more money on non-core books if I could have, Wizards would still be making plenty of money, and their revised rulebooks would be a flop. The outcry from the outspoken, forums-posting everyone (they think like me, remember) would be a roar in their ears, and they'd turn their attention to publishing a $10 rules upgrade that contains all the revisions. After that, they'd publish lots more high-quality books full of, say, interesting setting ideas and plot hooks, and those of us with money would pay for it since I find that sort of thing valuable.
For that matter, if everyone thought like me, an open-source free game community would probably spring up out of nothing, because somebody would host a website and people would start gathering there. Eventually they'd create an infrastructure for having good roleplaying game development completely outside a company's control. Then there would be a kick-ass game, that's downloadable for free, to anyone who wants to play it, with mountains of quality content right there on the website. Within a few years it'd be perfectly balanced, emminently playable, and richly detailed, since the revisions could be implemented in days instead of months, with no slowdown in adoption by the community, since after all, it's not like it costs anything.
In any case, I hope I've, um, revised my expression of opinion enough for you.
-S
In any case, for the record, I know the new edition will be lots more pages, and supposedly new material as well. I maintain the same opinion I had before, though: Most of the game will remain the same, because, as I said before, most of the material I already own, in spirit if not in letter. You're right, 'bug fix' is an inadequate inadequate description, which is why I never said that's what I thought of it, I merely assumed 'some' were correct for the purposes of exaggeration, to help make my (former, people!) opinion clear.
'More money' means more money than I paid for it originally, plain and simple. I believe I made it clear that I was expressing my opinion that nearly tripling my net investment in the game for less then half again as much content was not a good idea. You can say it's the same price for more content all you want, but given that I already own the game, I'd be paying $90 for the revisions. At that rate I can revise it myself and save the cost of two weeks of food in the process.
"What does morality have to do with business?"
That you believe this is a rhetorical question disturbs me. Anyway, what I was getting at is that Microsoft can get away with being a nasty company, at least for now, but Wizards cannot, because a group can change which roleplaying game they play a bit more easily than they can change their operating systems and applications software. A lot of people who play D&D have played some other game, and many of them play some other game concurrently. So if Wizards decides to be greedy and nasty about things, we can take our business elsewhere with relative ease.
I really don't see the point of badgering me about how Wizards does, in fact, own the rights to their own game. You make it sound like if I don't come along quietly and keep my mouth shut they'll come to my house with a restraining order and confiscate my rulebooks. That's what I'm getting at, people: If they don't play nice, we don't play D&D, and I think they understand that, which is why I was using this public forum as one part warning (in case they forget) and one part applause for a good idea.
But you're missing something else here too, I think: you say that if everyone thought like me, Wizards would lose money and D&D would fail. But that can't be right, since if everyone thought like me they still would have bought the core rulebooks back in the day. Given that I would have spent more money on non-core books if I could have, Wizards would still be making plenty of money, and their revised rulebooks would be a flop. The outcry from the outspoken, forums-posting everyone (they think like me, remember) would be a roar in their ears, and they'd turn their attention to publishing a $10 rules upgrade that contains all the revisions. After that, they'd publish lots more high-quality books full of, say, interesting setting ideas and plot hooks, and those of us with money would pay for it since I find that sort of thing valuable.
For that matter, if everyone thought like me, an open-source free game community would probably spring up out of nothing, because somebody would host a website and people would start gathering there. Eventually they'd create an infrastructure for having good roleplaying game development completely outside a company's control. Then there would be a kick-ass game, that's downloadable for free, to anyone who wants to play it, with mountains of quality content right there on the website. Within a few years it'd be perfectly balanced, emminently playable, and richly detailed, since the revisions could be implemented in days instead of months, with no slowdown in adoption by the community, since after all, it's not like it costs anything.
In any case, I hope I've, um, revised my expression of opinion enough for you.
-S
). Has WotC announced that they won't be updating the SRD when the Revised edition comes out? That would be a very serious blow to their reputation and the whole OGL movement. Does anyone have a link if this is indeed true?
).
