Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 6218852" data-attributes="member: 3400">Well isn't that nice. Because I disagree with you, I have a psychological problem.And you're entitled to have that opinion. I, however, disagree and it's not like I wasn't involved online in the run up to and publication of the new edition. I remember some heated posts on ADND-L over it. There was a sizeable contingent who didn't think AD&D needed a new, major edition (I was one of them). But the issue died down in relatively short order as people started to figure out what the new edition was about and investigated it.Hatred and vitriol aren't necessarily indicators of an objective or rational assessment of difference in the campaigns. For one thing, it helps to look at the state of the market. WotC had done a lot of pump priming in the years they owned TSR before 3e's release. Their online policies were different and a lot more permissive compared to TSR's days of C&D letters. They posted free content online. They put the materials that were in the pipeline through to the printer even though they knew they were going to be putting out another edition in a short time. And they were dealing with a market that had taken a few hits because of TSR's money woes.All of that makes it kind of hard to call the marketing exactly the same. The context in which it was conducted was markedly different. Additionally, the marketing included plenty of bones thrown to 1e AD&D fans over TSR's stewardship of the game during the 2e era. Demons and devils were back as demons and devils. Half-orcs were returned to the core. Even the assassin made a comeback. The Back the Dungeon motto tried to harken back to the days of 1e modules rather than the heavier-handed story pushes in later published adventures.It doesn't take any hatred of 2e or Gygax to see those differences and think WotC pulled off an edition introduction with 3e better than they did with 4e. 2e was my favorite incarnation of the game - in some ways it's better than 3e. In others, not so much. I'd happily play an edition a bit more like it but with some more of the customization options that 3e/PF have developed (so Next is looking like a positive edition).Maybe, but the point I have is nobody did things like this in any significant way. Stopping production on AD&D wasn't borne of arrogance - it was borne of normal procedure, just as TSR did with 2e. Plus, it's not like there weren't alternatives to buying and playing 3e. The activity at Dragonsfoot showed that amply enough - and yet 3e was still a pretty big success.Even if you do believe that there was a lack of an alternative to 3e once WotC stopped supporting 2e, you can still argue there are differences in the 4e effort. The OGL that wasn't there for 2e was obviously there for 3e. A segment of the market had obviously hived off to form the old school movement with Dragonsfoot and then the OSR-style games. In that environment, wouldn't following the 3e marketing template suggest considerably more arrogance? They had plenty of evidence there would be detractors, a market split of some undeterminable size, and a method of creating a safe haven for their style of gaming - either via messageboard communities or by using the OGL. And they still thought people would have no alternative but to upgrade to 4e?Ultimately, I'm just not seeing much that's persuasive in your point of view.</blockquote>

Verification