What would you have had them do?

[Shemeska]

I strongly reject the "nothing left to do" argument as I've said in other places.

And I strongly agree with you there.

I remember Scott Rouse asking around here around the time of 4e's announcement about flavor heavy books that people still wanted to see in 3e. We never saw any of the books that people were mostly often asking or begging to see. Fey, FCIII, Giants, etc.

I would have bent over backwards to help work on a Fiendish Codex III. Really wish they would have made one. Especially now when most of the fiends that would have appeared in that book now don't exist in the core PoL quasi-setting (making their appearance in any settings close to nil given 4e design thus far).

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I think over-specialized books like that are really only a boon for hardcore players. I mean, what does a casual group want with three FC? There were many directions into which to expand 3.5. I just don´t believe there were many ways to sell that in acceptable quantities to make it worthwile.

 

[Tetsubo]

I would have preferred option A. End the run of D&D with the best set of rules that was ever done for that system, 3.5. If they had their hearts set on a new tactical miniatures game with a fantasy slant, such as 4E, then start up an entirely new line. Calling 4E the fourth edition of D&D is completely disingenuous to my mind. It has as much similarity to D&D as does Earthdawn or GURPS. Less even as I don't see it as a fully functional actual role-playing system.

Let the memory of D&D live on rather than resurrecting its corpse in name only.

 

[Drowbane]

...much wisdom...

At this late/early hour I cannot begin to convey just how much your post resonants with my own thoughts/opinions... so um...

QFT!

I would have preferred option A...

Preach on brother!

I would have bent over backwards to help work on a Fiendish Codex III.

I would love to see your take on FCIII. It would no doubt put the two official books to shame. I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks so (not that the other two FCs were bad...). Perhaps Paizo has use for a N/E Fiend book/article.

 

[rounser]

Take the game back to formula? Really think about what makes D&D what it is and put the hard work into producing a real "new" edition of the game that rightfully deserves that title? Well obviously this is what they did

Bzzt. Thanks for playing.

IMO they went a bridge too far, indulging too much in their own game design ideologies and marketing needs, and slapping a familiar name on the result that it didn't deserve. IMO the new "D&D" is an imposter to the D&D name, a changeling, an unproduct. It didn't have to be that way, so please don't pretend otherwise.

I'd go with F, but the actual game I'd design would be fairly different from the 4e we got.

We have a winner! It is possible to rebuild the game in a way very different to what has been created.

The problem with the OP is that it assumes the design is objectively good, and pointed towards the right goals, and the only way the game could possibly have been rebuilt. That's where we differ, and where the straw man set up in the guise of this thread falls flat on it's face, catches fire, and burns the farm down.

 

[Negflar2099]

Excuse me, I don't assume the design is objectively good at all. In fact my basic assumption is exactly the opposite. We're all different. We all want different things out of D&D. My only assumption is that it is impossible to create a single edition of D&D that everybody would like. I happen to like 4e. I don't hide that. There are things I would change though. If you made your perfect version of D&D you would love it (by definition since it's your perfect version) but not everybody else would.

My argument is just that Wizards can't create the perfect version of D&D because there is no such thing! It is impossible to create and will never exist. No matter how much we like all like a given version no version will ever be considered the ultimate. However Wizards exists in the real world and has to do the best they can with what they have. It's my opinion and my argument that they had to create a new version or D&D as we know it would disappear and I can't believe it's a good idea to let that happen. Even if I hated everything about 4e I would still be happy that D&D is still viable and I would be hoping that that the next edition would be something more my personal style.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

F, definitely. I think we can (and do!) argue about whether they went too far, or not far enough, or a little bit of one and a bit of another, or achieved a good balance, with the changes WotC did with 4e, but that's it.

A "3.75" probably wouldn't have satisfied anyone in the long run, and would definitely have been taken as a blatant money grab by a vocal section of gamers.

And ending the D&D line just doesn't make any sort of business sense, so it's right out.