Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 6215539" data-attributes="member: 23716">1. I think your first point is very astute, but the quotes from WOTC seem to point more towards managing the overall Brand of D&amp;D well (i.e. everything from lunch boxes to movies to video games) to generate profit for the company rather than depend so much on the P&amp;P RPG.&nbsp; This could be a good thing if done well, and take a lot of the pressure off of the published RPG to perform and give more creative leeway to the designers &amp; developers.&nbsp; Also, all this talk of the &quot;story element&quot; kind of smacks of the 2e philosophy that started with late 1e (perhaps DragonLance, isn't there a thread on this right now?) and could be perceived as a slight to the play style of die-hard OSR people.&nbsp; I could be ready to much into your point though.&nbsp;&nbsp; 2. I agree that 3e was far too simulationist &amp; 4e went too far down to road of gamiest tendencies.&nbsp; Each edition is a reaction to what came before it.&nbsp; Maybe 5e will be too narrative driven to round out the set.&nbsp; I think 2e wanted to be narrativist, but did not have mechanics that really went to far in that direction.&nbsp; 3.&nbsp; It does seem likely that 5e will come out this year.&nbsp; From the quotes provided, it sounds like they had a good part of the game nailed down for a while, which does seem to conflict with a lot of Mike's L&amp;L stuff of late.&nbsp; I have long held that the public play test was more of a mass-market focus group than a fine-tune the balance and details play test, and I hold no rancour towards WOTC for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gadget, post: 6215539, member: 23716"] 1. I think your first point is very astute, but the quotes from WOTC seem to point more towards managing the overall Brand of D&D well (i.e. everything from lunch boxes to movies to video games) to generate profit for the company rather than depend so much on the P&P RPG. This could be a good thing if done well, and take a lot of the pressure off of the published RPG to perform and give more creative leeway to the designers & developers. Also, all this talk of the "story element" kind of smacks of the 2e philosophy that started with late 1e (perhaps DragonLance, isn't there a thread on this right now?) and could be perceived as a slight to the play style of die-hard OSR people. I could be ready to much into your point though. 2. I agree that 3e was [I]far[/I] too simulationist & 4e went too far down to road of gamiest tendencies. Each edition is a reaction to what came before it. Maybe 5e will be too narrative driven to round out the set. I think 2e [I]wanted[/I] to be narrativist, but did not have mechanics that really went to far in that direction. 3. It does seem likely that 5e will come out this year. From the quotes provided, it sounds like they had a good part of the game nailed down for a while, which does seem to conflict with a lot of Mike's L&L stuff of late. I have long held that the public play test was more of a mass-market focus group than a fine-tune the balance and details play test, and I hold no rancour towards WOTC for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification