|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 5:12PM
#21
|
|
|
While some of the hardcore are never going to leave their game, they aren't really consumers at this point anyway.
.
You can't be consumers of a product that isn't being produced any longer. If pre-3rd material was still being produced by WotC my groups (and 7.3 metric fecal tons of others) would still be forking over money quicker than we could earn it. But WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
In fact, that last line so succinctly epitomizes this whole ball of wax that I'm gonna commit a serious faux pas and sig quote myself.
I know and it would be so simple to divorce the descriptions of the adventures from the rules, and then provide little thin edition centric index books that tie the rules into the encounter. Here is an example:
Orc Warren Gate
This gate is the entrance to the Orc warrens that run under Tall-Tall mountain. Sentries guard the entrance but aren't too attentive.
"The looming Tall-Tall mountain rises into the air splitting the clouds like a great spike. Thunder rumblings can be heard in the distance as a storm begins to brew. The sounds of guttural Orc drift out of the entrance of a large cave. Inside you can just barely make out reddish glows flickering off of the walls. Two powerful Orcs stand one on either side of the entrance they seem to be deep in a philosophical conversation."
Characters that know Orc can understand that they are debating the merits of the bitter taste of wild boar over the sweet taste of horse.
1E rules pamphlet - 2 orcs with short swords.
2E rules pamphlet - 2 orcs with short swrods.
3E rules pamphlet - 2 orcs [insert wall of stats] with short swords
4E rules pamphlet - 2 orcs [insert reference to MM page]
Basically sell the main module for 75% of the normal price of a module, but then sell the different pamphlets for 25% of the price. They would make out like bandits.
Course they are too hard headed and 'you gotta do it our way or the highway' to realize this...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 5:45PM
#22
|
|
|
Let me list and discuss the primary factions as I see them.
Faction #1: Old School Renaissance (OSR)
Faction #2: 3e Lives & Thrives
Faction #3: Old Guard of 4e, 4eVengers
Faction#4: 4e Unified
Faction#5: 4e Essentials Only
I must belong to a particularly small fringe faction, All of the Above.
Played 2nd, had fun. Played 3rd, had fun. Played 3.5, had fun. Playing Pathfinder, having fun. Playing 4th, having fun. Playing Essentials, having fun. Will play Next, will have fun. Etc.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 6:11PM
#23
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
Let me list and discuss the primary factions as I see them.
Faction #1: Old School Renaissance (OSR)
Faction #2: 3e Lives & Thrives
Faction #3: Old Guard of 4e, 4eVengers
Faction#4: 4e Unified
Faction#5: 4e Essentials Only
I must belong to a particularly small fringe faction, All of the Above.
Played 2nd, had fun. Played 3rd, had fun. Played 3.5, had fun. Playing Pathfinder, having fun. Playing 4th, having fun. Playing Essentials, having fun. Will play Next, will have fun. Etc.
Personal opinion...
Must be a Monkey thing because I'm an all of the above sort as well. 
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 6:20PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2008
|
I did say primary. There will always be "monkey" outliers.
On another note, just to show the strength of pre-4e crowd. Some of you may remember the infamous adventure:
RAPPAN ATHUK
Please check out the following website: http://www.talesofthefroggod.com/index.php
and the KICKSTARTER link. Frog God Games, I love these guys!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 7:15PM
#25
|
|
|
Let me list and discuss the primary factions as I see them.
Faction #1: Old School Renaissance (OSR)
Faction #2: 3e Lives & Thrives
Faction #3: Old Guard of 4e, 4eVengers
Faction#4: 4e Unified
Faction#5: 4e Essentials Only
I must belong to a particularly small fringe faction, All of the Above.
Played 2nd, had fun. Played 3rd, had fun. Played 3.5, had fun. Playing Pathfinder, having fun. Playing 4th, having fun. Playing Essentials, having fun. Will play Next, will have fun. Etc.
[Sarcasm]Your part of Faction#6: Easily amused[/Sarcasm]
Seriously though. People that will play any edition even the new one aren't in issue. Its those that may or may not switch over...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 7:30PM
#26
|
|
|
@OP: I think you forgot a "faction."
"Faction" #6: These players came into the game during a pre-3e edition. They enjoyed the edition they played, but they found that later editions actually improved some of the problems the game suffered from. Therefore they adopted the new editions when they came out and were pleased with the improvements. These players feel that every edition so far has been an improvement on the past editions. While they are nervous about DDN bringing back some of the problems in an attempt to appeal to fans of older editions, they are excited about how DDN will improve their game.
That's the "faction" I'm in.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 8:09PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
@OP: I think you forgot a "faction."
"Faction" #6: These players came into the game during a pre-3e edition. They enjoyed the edition they played, but they found that later editions actually improved some of the problems the game suffered from. Therefore they adopted the new editions when they came out and were pleased with the improvements. These players feel that every edition so far has been an improvement on the past editions. While they are nervous about DDN bringing back some of the problems in an attempt to appeal to fans of older editions, they are excited about how DDN will improve their game.
That's the "faction" I'm in.
Heh,after 1e I didnt play 2e at all or more than one session of 3e, but honestly based on reading every edition brought with it improvements to what we had before.... but I was certain 4e would be another conservative subtle improvement, but they suprised the chingas out of me and got me likeing things they had brought forward which I thought I would never like ... so its utterly possible a new edition could bring elements forward in a way which I will like. Yes I am nervous they will not apply reasonable prudence in attempts to capture an audience they probably cant and the act of doing so lose rather than gain but I am in wait and see mode. (and yes to remain optimistic I have to close my eyes and think happy thoughts when certain posters are lobbying for broken feature X)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 12:44AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
My group plays 3.5ed. Er never really looked into 4ed nor Pathfinder, because we didn't feel a need to do so. Most of the group members don't know how 4ed differs from 3.5ed.
I don't think that we are part of a community, so I wouldn't call us a faction, but we are probably part of the potential customer base for 5ed (or 5.5ed when it arrives)
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 1:11AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2006
|
@OP: I think you forgot a "faction."
"Faction" #6: These players came into the game during a pre-3e edition. They enjoyed the edition they played, but they found that later editions actually improved some of the problems the game suffered from. Therefore they adopted the new editions when they came out and were pleased with the improvements. These players feel that every edition so far has been an improvement on the past editions. While they are nervous about DDN bringing back some of the problems in an attempt to appeal to fans of older editions, they are excited about how DDN will improve their game.
That's the "faction" I'm in.
Me too. I played BECMI, 2ed for more than 10 years, 3.0, 3.5 and 4ed and found improvements all the time (I even like some essential stuff like the Vampire).
Currently I'm really fond of 4e which I find vastly superior to previous editions but will look at Next with an open mind. Personally I would have preferred to see a 4.5 but I can see there's a vast number of people that would like something more similar to the previous editions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 1:14AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2001
|
At this point Wizards needs to focus on the community they DO have, not the one they are trying to re-capture. Pathfinder players are more than just edition loyalist (though this is a part of it), they are prodominantly very anti Wizard of the Coast as a company and you can really feel this sentiment if you ever spend any time on there forum. When they refer to D&D today, they don't say 4th edition, they say "WOTC". Its a distincition with a difference, people aren't just anti 4th edition, hell most of them have never even bothered giving it an honest try, they hate it, because Wizard pulled the power of creativity from the community, and they play Pathfinder because it still has it. 4th edition did a lot more than change mechanics, they changed the dynamics of what D&D had become within the scope of the OGL. I think this sentiment is a lot wider and far too attention was given to that very specific change when 4th edition was created. Simply put, the OGL was the best thing that ever happened to the community, regardless of wether or not it was good for business.
I think any effrot to re-capture 3.5ers (Pathfinder players) is a waste of time unless you are ready to revert to an outdated design philosphy which would in turn alienate their 4th edition community they spent the last 4+ years building. Trying to capture 1st and 2nd edition players on the other hand is like trying to convince an 90 year old man that he needs an Iphone, it has far less to do with wether or not its good, and far more to do with the fact that its not the good old days.
You can't satisfy everyone and all the decesions that have lead to all these fractures in the community is permenant damage beyond repair. All they can do now is focus on the future and that is the 4th edition fans who love the current version and want to see an improved version of THAT system, not another re-imaging or some effort to blend the past with the future in some kind of attempt to correct 20 years of mistakes. TSR and Wizards of The Coast have both made a lot of really outragously stupid errors, but the past is the past. Companies need to be looking forward not backward for their business.
|
|
|
