Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Endie" data-source="post: 9644759" data-attributes="member: 7044061">I've heard you talk about these (and your &quot;candles&quot; metaphor) often on your podcast. I'm no anti-WotC zealot - I do DM a 5e campaign fortnightly (albeit I admit I'd prefer 2nd Edn in my dreamworld!) - but I think it's interesting that three of these are either partially or wholly involuntary on their part:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Physical books. This edition was never, ever going to be digital-only. No major publisher is going down that route, yet.&nbsp; They wouldn't leave that much money on the table (regardless of which narrative on 2024 sales volumes one listens to). There's no credit for them on this one: it's like saying Ford gets credit for not showcasing an all-fusion powered lineup in 2025.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Support for multiple VTTs.&nbsp; Again, sure, but this is because their alternative - Sigil - was failing.&nbsp; If they had thought it feasible, then of course they would have supported only their own: I would, in their position!&nbsp; As an engineering director at a product-org tech company I am quite confident that they've known that this was at best a highly risky gamble for at least 24 months.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Lo, a 5.2 SRD is born unto us.&nbsp; This is the position most forced on them of all. Saying that this makes them good guardians of D&amp;D is like saying &quot;fair play to Mussolini: he didn't annex Greece in 1941!&quot;&nbsp; No, but the fat, incompetent gimp did give it his best shot.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The starter set. I've not seen the content, just the form, but the form does look inventive and nicely simplified.&nbsp; Will it be a second* Phandelver? We'll see. But the physical learning tools and gimmicks look good.</li>
</ul>*Third, in fact, with number two having been an impressively poorly-executed product given that they started with gold and ended up with pewter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Endie, post: 9644759, member: 7044061"] I've heard you talk about these (and your "candles" metaphor) often on your podcast. I'm no anti-WotC zealot - I do DM a 5e campaign fortnightly (albeit I admit I'd prefer 2nd Edn in my dreamworld!) - but I think it's interesting that three of these are either partially or wholly involuntary on their part: [LIST] [*][B]Physical books[/B]. This edition was [I]never, ever[/I] going to be digital-only. No major publisher is going down that route, yet. They wouldn't leave that much money on the table (regardless of which narrative on 2024 sales volumes one listens to). There's [I]no[/I] credit for them on this one: it's like saying Ford gets credit for not showcasing an all-fusion powered lineup in 2025. [*][B]Support for multiple VTTs[/B]. Again, sure, but this is because their alternative - Sigil - was failing. If they had thought it feasible, then of course they would have supported only their own: I would, in their position! As an engineering director at a product-org tech company I am quite confident that they've known that this was at best a [I]highly[/I] risky gamble for at least 24 months. [*][B]Lo, a 5.2 SRD is born unto us[/B]. This is the position most forced on them of all. Saying that this makes them good guardians of D&D is like saying "fair play to Mussolini: he didn't annex Greece in 1941!" No, but the fat, incompetent gimp did give it his best shot. [*][B]The starter set[/B]. I've not seen the content, just the form, but the form does look inventive and nicely simplified. Will it be a second* Phandelver? We'll see. But the physical learning tools and gimmicks look good. [/LIST] *Third, in fact, with number two having been an [I]impressively [/I]poorly-executed product given that they started with gold and ended up with pewter. [/QUOTE]

Verification