Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Where are the options?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6844397" data-attributes="member: 12731"><p>So let's meet your specific arguments one at a time, shall we?</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's a hopeless stance to take. So you honestly mean "let's commit to never making changes ever because that's the only thing keeping us from shoveling out crapware"? </p><p></p><p>I'm not familiar with Paizo route?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Who said anything about an update?</p><p></p><p>By my scheme, the first printing's classes would be as valid and welcome to the gaming table as printing #20.</p><p></p><p>Nothing would get "updated". You would have new content just like WotC plans, only that new content would be carefully selected to shore up existing choices and not only add completely new choices.</p><p></p><p>I give you that a DM with an older PHB could want to check your newer PHB if for some reason she doesn't trust you when you say your Ranger can invoke Ranger's Mark (say) as a class feature instead of having to cast Hunter's Mark as a concentration spell. So bring it.</p><p></p><p>And if another player at that table also wants the new Ranger feature (despite also having the old PHB), why, let him!</p><p></p><p>In practice, the changes wouldn't be so many. Most players and DMs would snap them up easy. </p><p></p><p>The important part is to stay away from "updating" the game. No new rules, only options to fix what doesn't get used much.</p><p></p><p></p><p>A bit doom and gloom, but... you did read my suggestion to tell the player base that this kind of update won't happen again for at least 24 months. </p><p></p><p>Or some other sufficiently distant time that the market research dept is reasonably confident most buyers can't hold off making their purchase that long <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, frame it like "an ugly surprise" - that's not at all pessimistic. And who gave you the idea people "are told" things, like this was the Soviet Union or something?</p><p></p><p>Let me respond by an alternate phrasing:</p><p></p><p>Lastly, it creates a situation where people find out for themselves that the character options they thought were crap, are now strong viable options to explore, leading to a wonderful surprise.</p><p></p><p>Do note that we reach completely different conclusions based on exactly the same source material.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree. </p><p></p><p>And I never said anything about "wave after wave" of communist invad... I mean incremental changes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't agree. </p><p></p><p>A visual cue to make it easy to see which printing you've got yes, but basically stick to the same appearance to give the notion "it's the same book - you and I are playing the same game".</p><p></p><p>I believe by keeping the same cover you send a strong signal that the book is the same, the playing base is the same, the game is one and the same.</p><p></p><p>As opposed to the divisive effect 3.5 had; splitting the player base into "we play 3.0":ers and "we play 3.5":ers. </p><p></p><p>I think, no I know, WotC wants to make sure there is only one player base: "we play D&D".</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>I think that the important thing is for WotC not to ask folk to repurchase the book. </p><p></p><p>They have always done that. A new edition, a new cash cow.</p><p></p><p>But the idea is to stick to the PHB as an evergreen.</p><p></p><p>So there should be no big marketing push, no loud trumpeting of "all new PHB". </p><p></p><p>Just a firm and clear but not loud message: "as of yesterday, all new PHBs shipped will contain these twenty changes: </p><p>1) Ranger's Mark...</p><p>2) ... </p><p></p><p>The next such update is not planned, but will not happen before March 10 2018, if ever."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 6844397, member: 12731"] So let's meet your specific arguments one at a time, shall we? That's a hopeless stance to take. So you honestly mean "let's commit to never making changes ever because that's the only thing keeping us from shoveling out crapware"? I'm not familiar with Paizo route? Who said anything about an update? By my scheme, the first printing's classes would be as valid and welcome to the gaming table as printing #20. Nothing would get "updated". You would have new content just like WotC plans, only that new content would be carefully selected to shore up existing choices and not only add completely new choices. I give you that a DM with an older PHB could want to check your newer PHB if for some reason she doesn't trust you when you say your Ranger can invoke Ranger's Mark (say) as a class feature instead of having to cast Hunter's Mark as a concentration spell. So bring it. And if another player at that table also wants the new Ranger feature (despite also having the old PHB), why, let him! In practice, the changes wouldn't be so many. Most players and DMs would snap them up easy. The important part is to stay away from "updating" the game. No new rules, only options to fix what doesn't get used much. A bit doom and gloom, but... you did read my suggestion to tell the player base that this kind of update won't happen again for at least 24 months. Or some other sufficiently distant time that the market research dept is reasonably confident most buyers can't hold off making their purchase that long :cool: Yeah, frame it like "an ugly surprise" - that's not at all pessimistic. And who gave you the idea people "are told" things, like this was the Soviet Union or something? Let me respond by an alternate phrasing: Lastly, it creates a situation where people find out for themselves that the character options they thought were crap, are now strong viable options to explore, leading to a wonderful surprise. Do note that we reach completely different conclusions based on exactly the same source material. I agree. And I never said anything about "wave after wave" of communist invad... I mean incremental changes. I agree. I don't agree. A visual cue to make it easy to see which printing you've got yes, but basically stick to the same appearance to give the notion "it's the same book - you and I are playing the same game". I believe by keeping the same cover you send a strong signal that the book is the same, the playing base is the same, the game is one and the same. As opposed to the divisive effect 3.5 had; splitting the player base into "we play 3.0":ers and "we play 3.5":ers. I think, no I know, WotC wants to make sure there is only one player base: "we play D&D". I agree. I think that the important thing is for WotC not to ask folk to repurchase the book. They have always done that. A new edition, a new cash cow. But the idea is to stick to the PHB as an evergreen. So there should be no big marketing push, no loud trumpeting of "all new PHB". Just a firm and clear but not loud message: "as of yesterday, all new PHBs shipped will contain these twenty changes: 1) Ranger's Mark... 2) ... The next such update is not planned, but will not happen before March 10 2018, if ever." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Where are the options?
Top