Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9677290" data-attributes="member: 18">I love that these two posts are right next to each other.For the record my opinion is closer to [USER=59816]@FitzTheRuke[/USER] here. I don't think we'll see any difference in the number of books being release for 5E for at least 2 years, and it won't necessarily go down either - late 3.5E had absolutely tons of books coming out.Just look - there's no real "throwing the brakes": <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks" target="_blank">List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks - Wikipedia</a>They don't even slow down until literally the official previews for 4E come out! So why would anyone expect them to throw brakes early this time?That definitely used to be true, but I think it's obviously no longer true from the fact that game design is mentioned over and over in the Head of Game Ecosystem, including what are clearly entirely rules. That is not a role that exists merely to "keep the ship upright" like you're suggesting. It could be new rules for 5E, maybe, indeed likely for a year or three at least, but it's not "just don't screw it up!!!".I agree that's likely to be a major concern. It's part of why I think a new edition is a bit more likely, because did not prove particularly easy to adapt as a videogame in a playable way. Larian had to take a lot of liberties and still ended up with something pretty fiddly, and Solasta, which took less liberties is, sorry, not "playable" in any normal sense, it's a serious nerds-only deal (and even for me, who is one of those, it's clunky).Also, why did the 3D VTT fail? I would argue that it was in significant part because 5E's rules are not trivial to implement in a really user-friendly and accessible VTT. They're actually quite hard to implement in something truly user-friendly (which neither Foundry nor Roll20 are, to be clear). Many of the early ideas they had about how the 3D VTT would work had to be abandoned because it was too hard to make them work.That has got to be weighing on the mind of WotC too.So I agree, but I don't draw the same conclusion.I agree that we don't know, but to see the level of turnover of really major, high-level positions and to see them not being directly rehired, but new positions created instead or alongside those, with very different responsibilities and titles? That's significant.And it doesn't say "Wow those guys were doing a bang-up job and totally met expectations!" either lol.</blockquote>

Verification