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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 4270018" data-attributes="member: 2732">I don't have the rules yet, but based on all the previews and such, I have a few concerns.There's a concept I tend to call "Trademark mining".  I use that term to refer to people trying to revive an older property--especially one that isn't used at all--and use it to either preserve their trademark rights or else to use a property--without doing any good research in why the property was successful.There's also a similar concept called "executive ego".  It's actually keeping a trademark and forgetting why those properties are successful.  It leads to what I consider stupidity in brand management--why Hanna Barbara can't figure out to do anything with their dozens of characters (with the exception of Scooby Doo and using the characters as lame parodies of themselves in Adult Swim shows), why Marvel releases failed "reinterpretations" of minor characters, why VH1 abandons any form of music programing and Cartoon Network tries to say "why can't a cartoon be live action".  I fear that with the new management regime Wizards has undertaken some of those two big mistakes.  I believe they think D&D at it's core is just a trademark they can repurpose for their own needs or the fads.  The key differences I saw between the 3e and 4e approach was this.  I got the sense that Peter, Ryan, and the trilogy of designers worked hard to consider what D&D meant to the fans.  They were willing to take the game into the future but also tried to respect the past.  Look at how Peter worked hard to rebuild bridges with the creators--inviting Gary and Dave to GenCon, working with the fans, doing research, etc.  There was also a pent-up desire for a new edition, and there was a bad sense from D&D's near death in the 90's.  I remember actually clarifying some things on Eric's old site as a playtester.  That was a far cry from the playtester blackout they seemed to have this time around.  I get the sense that the design team added new things "whether we wanted them or not".  Was D&D successful in the market solely because it was first, or gained the most marketing and established dominance, or was it something more?  And will changing the game cause a slow decline in the core fans?  Maybe this will be successful.  But this is the first edition of D&D I'm not very excited for.  I see a lot of people with not hatred but "eunni" towards it.  I can give you specifics from my perspective but it seems everybody else has nailed it.I do predict one thing.  If sales aren't as good, expect the next edition of D&D to be a more "back to basics" approach.  You'll see people delving into the history of the game, looking at its legacy.  If what's happened with games like Traveller is any indication I could see the next designers going back to 1e or 2e or "Basic D&D" as a base and working from that.</blockquote>

Verification