Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8911751" data-attributes="member: 7006">The question of &quot;failure&quot; here is twofold, so we would need to split the two sides up before we could answer anything.&nbsp; OneD&amp;D &quot;failing&quot; can mean two separate things-- no one enjoys playing the game itself... OR that the 2024 books and possible VTT do not bring in enough revenue for WotC's liking.It can be entirely possible for one side to be a rousing success and the other side a failure purely from the views of the people who are concerned with each side.&nbsp; So we could not state with any certainty an answer to the original thread question unless we got what I would suggest is a highly unlikely scenario-- which is nobody enjoys the 2024 D&amp;D game, AND the VTT and/or D&amp;D Beyond lose tremendous amounts of money.&nbsp; If both sides of the interest came up snake-eyes... then yeah, a claim of OneD&amp;D &quot;failing&quot; would be obvious.But if most people love the corrections, edits, and additions to the 2014 5E game that gets publish in the 50th Anniversary edition... but not enough people go in on the VTT and it does not make the revenue the executives hope for?&nbsp; Is that a &quot;failure&quot;?&nbsp; Probably only to some, and not at all to many others.&nbsp; So if someone says that OneD&amp;D &quot;can't&quot; fail... I'm guessing it is because they don't see how these new books could be so radically different from the 5E that most people love so as to change people's feelings on the &quot;new&quot; game.&nbsp; The same way that most people did not think the corrections that came about in 3.5 were a failure... or the corrections that Paizo did in their &quot;3.75&quot; Pathfinder were a failure either.&nbsp; And in that regard, I tend to agree-- I just don't think the game ultimately changes enough to remove/ruin everything in 5E that most people love.That being said... if WotC's money-making plan via the VTT still drops a goose egg... then it wouldn't matter that the 2024 game itself wasn't a &quot;failure&quot;... it'll possibly be treated as such by the executives anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8911751, member: 7006"] The question of "failure" here is twofold, so we would need to split the two sides up before we could answer anything. OneD&D "failing" can mean two separate things-- no one enjoys playing the game itself... OR that the 2024 books and possible VTT do not bring in enough revenue for WotC's liking. It can be entirely possible for one side to be a rousing success and the other side a failure purely from the views of the people who are concerned with each side. So we could not state with any certainty an answer to the original thread question unless we got what I would suggest is a highly unlikely scenario-- which is nobody enjoys the 2024 D&D game, AND the VTT and/or D&D Beyond lose tremendous amounts of money. If both sides of the interest came up snake-eyes... then yeah, a claim of OneD&D "failing" would be obvious. But if most people love the corrections, edits, and additions to the 2014 5E game that gets publish in the 50th Anniversary edition... but not enough people go in on the VTT and it does not make the revenue the executives hope for? Is that a "failure"? Probably only to some, and not at all to many others. So if someone says that OneD&D "can't" fail... I'm guessing it is because they don't see how these new books could be so radically different from the 5E that most people love so as to change people's feelings on the "new" game. The same way that most people did not think the corrections that came about in 3.5 were a failure... or the corrections that Paizo did in their "3.75" Pathfinder were a failure either. And in that regard, I tend to agree-- I just don't think the game ultimately changes enough to remove/ruin everything in 5E that most people love. That being said... if WotC's money-making plan via the VTT still drops a goose egg... then it wouldn't matter that the 2024 game itself wasn't a "failure"... it'll possibly be treated as such by the executives anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification