Feb 22, 2011 -- 9:05AM, Seeker95 wrote:

Amusing

and

sad

all at the same time.

But the amusement is waning fast. How do you add someone to your ignore list again?

I think you go to their profile and there's a link under their profile picture. Or something like that.

Click on their avatar, click on block user.

Yikes.  All I can say is yikes.

I was going to write up a big response, but in the end decided it just wasn't worth it.  I'm going to continue having a blast playing games with my friends, and I suggest you do the same.  It doesn't matter what game we play; that was the point Mr Mearls was trying to make.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 9:08AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Yikes.  All I can say is yikes.

I was going to write up a big response, but in the end decided it just wasn't worth it.  I'm going to continue having a blast playing games with my friends, and I suggest you do the same.  It doesn't matter what game we play; that was the point Mr Mearls was trying to make.

Do not be alarmed.

I stated earlier that this is how the community reacts.

It is not your fault.

I do not mock your game.

I do not mock how you play your games.

People should debate about games. 

It is good.

People should not ignore each other.

This is sad.

What poetic form is the poster using? is that you Lobrix?

I think it is dissapointed-super haiku.

Zeitgeist, D&D style.

And it gets worse: In Dragon Magazine 380 at page 85 one of Mearls's co-conspirators reveals himself by acurately predicting Dethand's reaction with a feat. Chris Sims.. I KNEW it.

In  the same issue Peter Schaefer also reveals himself by dedicating yet another feat to Dethand on page 20.

Its starting to scare me.

I don't know about how much anti-3E, anti-4E, anti-whatever that goes on here...but I just want to make a point.

Ever since WotC has gained  control of the D&D IP, backwards support has been non-existant.

Why can't WotC support legacy rulesets for D&D? If 4E is your thing, great...go get 'em! If you love 3E, go skill and feat yourself however you want. Same for 2E, 1E and Basic (in its various flavors).

My problem is that, I love Basic D&D (Moldvay, Cook, Marsh and Mentzer = heroes IMO). But I can't purchase anything for it anymore. I don't have time to write new worlds and dungeons for my gaming group. I want old school content. I also don't want to spend HOURS converting 4E and 3E adventures to Basic D&D. I want new content. Why can't I get it?

Why won't WotC republish prior versions of the game? Why can't I go buy a reprinting of AD&D 2E from the WotC website. I completely understand why they don't push these products to retail outlets...the demand for them is minimal, but they can provide them as direct purchases from their website.

You cannot lay demands for unity among the D&D fans and yet deny those who choose to not play your latest ruleset. If D&D is truly embodied with the mantra of "No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer", then why must WotC force me to purchase their new systems in order to get new content?

You could probably make more money by supporting ALL prior versions of D&D instead of rewriting the core rules every few years. Don't discontinue products. You don't have to stock shelves or keep a warehouse of goods. Partner with service providers like Lulu.com to publish past content at premium prices. I'll pay, I don't mind.

Just support those of us who choose to play a version other than your current "latest and greatest".

(edit: I think it's funny that I joined these forums in 2006, but I have never posted until today)

They don't have the rights to previous versions. The same reason no company is making star wars 7-9.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 11:54AM, blazian wrote:

They don't have the rights to previous versions. The same reason no company is making star wars 7-9.

AFAIK, When WotC purchased TSR, they purchased the right to every IP TSR owned. That includes every previous version of D&D.

Now, I may be wrong, perhaps some stipulation of legal agreements between TSR, WotC, Arneson, Gygax or other parties may prevent the re-publishing of prior generation D&D content, but that information has never been released that I am aware of.

WotC purchased TSR and all its intellectual property. They can republish any of the old TSR published material that they wish (perhaps they would be required to relinquish the TSR trademark from such a product, but they would want to do that anyway).

This is further evidenced by WotC's recent publication of Tomb of Horrors for 4th Edition. Tomb of Horrors was published by TSR in 1978. WotC recently converted it to 4th Edition (though I am not sure regarding the extent of changes made) and published it under the same name.

If they didn't have the rights to publish previous versions, this would, in fact, be copyright violation by WotC...but it isn't, because they do have the rights to republish any and all of the content that was once owned by TSR.

Of course, there is a chance I am wrong...but until a WotC lawyer chimes in and explains otherwise, I won't believe it. 

Feb 22, 2011 -- 11:40AM, Urieal wrote:

I don't know about how much anti-3E, anti-4E, anti-whatever that goes on here...but I just want to make a point.

Ever since WotC has gained  control of the D&D IP, backwards support has been non-existant.

Why can't WotC support legacy rulesets for D&D? If 4E is your thing, great...go get 'em! If you love 3E, go skill and feat yourself however you want. Same for 2E, 1E and Basic (in its various flavors).

My problem is that, I love Basic D&D (Moldvay, Cook, Marsh and Mentzer = heroes IMO). But I can't purchase anything for it anymore. I don't have time to write new worlds and dungeons for my gaming group. I want old school content. I also don't want to spend HOURS converting 4E and 3E adventures to Basic D&D. I want new content. Why can't I get it?

Why won't WotC republish prior versions of the game? Why can't I go buy a reprinting of AD&D 2E from the WotC website. I completely understand why they don't push these products to retail outlets...the demand for them is minimal, but they can provide them as direct purchases from their website.

You cannot lay demands for unity among the D&D fans and yet deny those who choose to not play your latest ruleset. If D&D is truly embodied with the mantra of "No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer", then why must WotC force me to purchase their new systems in order to get new content?

You could probably make more money by supporting ALL prior versions of D&D instead of rewriting the core rules every few years. Don't discontinue products. You don't have to stock shelves or keep a warehouse of goods. Partner with service providers like Lulu.com to publish past content at premium prices. I'll pay, I don't mind.

Just support those of us who choose to play a version other than your current "latest and greatest".

(edit: I think it's funny that I joined these forums in 2006, but I have never posted until today)

At the core, the reason is because it wouldn't sell.  While I feel for you, you are one a very small section of an already very small population.

But take heart!

There are modules and non-rule related content still being produced in the spirit of classic early D&D through various fanzines and small indie publications.  While I can't speak to the quality or playtesting of this content, or if there are any new rules at all tucked inside, the plain fact is that they exist.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 12:21PM, Urieal wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 11:54AM, blazian wrote:

They don't have the rights to previous versions. The same reason no company is making star wars 7-9.

AFAIK, When WotC purchased TSR, they purchased the right to every IP TSR owned. That includes every previous version of D&D.

Now, I may be wrong, perhaps some stipulation of legal agreements between TSR, WotC, Arneson, Gygax or other parties may prevent the re-publishing of prior generation D&D content, but that information has never been released that I am aware of.

WotC purchased TSR and all its intellectual property. They can republish any of the old TSR published material that they wish (perhaps they would be required to relinquish the TSR trademark from such a product, but they would want to do that anyway).

This is further evidenced by WotC's recent publication of Tomb of Horrors for 4th Edition. Tomb of Horrors was published by TSR in 1978. WotC recently converted it to 4th Edition (though I am not sure regarding the extent of changes made) and published it under the same name.

If they didn't have the rights to publish previous versions, this would, in fact, be copyright violation by WotC...but it isn't, because they do have the rights to republish any and all of the content that was once owned by TSR.

Of course, there is a chance I am wrong...but until a WotC lawyer chimes in and explains otherwise, I won't believe it. 

They might have rights to the names and trademarks, but not the copyright itself.  So they can publish a new Tomb of Horrors inspired by the original, but not republish the original.  Maybe.  I'm no lawyer.

More to the point, Tomb of Horrors for 4e is for 4e.  Republishing the original doesn WotC no good.

Now, if WotC does have the rights to publish all the old content, I think they could make a serious outreach by making all of the old stuff available in PDF form via direct download.  Even if nothing "new" is released (which probably wouldn't be worth development time), merely having the old stuff available would have tremendous PR benefits, and I'm sure some of the new players would be interested enough in the history of the game to explore the old content.  Plus, there is the "museum/library" aspect, a way to preserve the past permanently, so the content isn't lost to time.

That would be worthwhile, but it would require a shift of business practice on WotC part; namely, PDF sales and availability.  But that's another topic.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 11:54AM, blazian wrote:

They don't have the rights to previous versions. The same reason no company is making star wars 7-9.

I am pretty sure that WotC owns all the rights to all previous editions of D&D. I think that Kenzer also has rights to one of the older editions due to a lawsuit, but to the best of my knowledge, they are all owned (either partially or wholly) by WotC.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 12:25PM, Foxface wrote:

At the core, the reason is because it wouldn't sell.  While I feel for you, you are one a very small section of an already very small population.

We are truly a minority, but sales are sales. Hasn't sales of D&D been to a minority since its existence?

Feb 22, 2011 -- 12:25PM, Foxface wrote:

But take heart!

There are modules and non-rule related content still being produced in the spirit of classic early D&D through various fanzines and small indie publications.  While I can't speak to the quality or playtesting of this content, or if there are any new rules at all tucked inside, the plain fact is that they exist.

I know, and I am supporting them and love what they do.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 12:32PM, Foxface wrote:

More to the point, Tomb of Horrors for 4e is for 4e.  Republishing the original doesn WotC no good.

I disagree. If they were to republish the original, then I would buy it...since I don't have a copy of the original. I would love to own a fresh, newly minted copy.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 12:32PM, Foxface wrote:

That would be worthwhile, but it would require a shift of business practice on WotC part; namely, PDF sales and availability.  But that's another topic.

They used to sell them via PDF (via Paizo...but the quality was utter crap), and I picked up some things during that time, but I cannot legally print them (because of the quality and copyright) other than on my home printer (which is not nearly as good as printing them professionally).

It would NOT require a serious shift in business practice. Print small runs of older material, stock them until you sell out. Set schedules for runs to be printed and publish the schedule. WotC can probably print things for less than pennies on the dollar considering their vast printing history.

Even if you don't print them in runs, you could release printing rights to Lulu.com or some other intermediary (WotC still retains the rights), allow them to print the material and earn some profits. There's no risk involved to WotC. They earn profits, Lulu.com earns profits, the old school players get what they want. What's to lose?

There's loads of potential business models out there to support D&D fans who prefer older versions if WotC is willing to look at them.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 1:21PM, Urieal wrote:

I disagree. If they were to republish the original, then I would buy it...since I don't have a copy of the original. I would love to own a fresh, newly minted copy.

Answer this.  Why should WoTC lose a ton of money so that you and others can buy a few old modules?  Would you be willing to pay $1000 dollars a module or whatever inflated price they need to sell them at in order to cover basic costs?

It would NOT require a serious shift in business practice. Print small runs of older material, stock them until you sell out. Set schedules for runs to be printed and publish the schedule. WotC can probably print things for less than pennies on the dollar considering their vast printing history.

The bolded part is important.  None of their printing history includes anything prior to 3ed.  They would have to pay for things from the ground up, and they make money on things like that from bulk, not from a little here and a little there over decades. 

The marked for pre-3ed is very, very small and shrinking monthly. 

Even if you don't print them in runs, you could release printing rights to Lulu.com or some other intermediary (WotC still retains the rights), allow them to print the material and earn some profits. There's no risk involved to WotC. They earn profits, Lulu.com earns profits, the old school players get what they want. What's to lose?

This is slightly more feasible, but you'd have to find a company willing to lose money printing something that will sell sloooooowly.  And those smaller companies have less excess capital to be tied up in slow sellers.

There's loads of potential business models out there to support D&D fans who prefer older versions if WotC is willing to look at them.

The only real method that would work is for them to sell the PDFs, but then they get into their piracy issues again.

yeah, PDFs is the way to go for selling really old stuff, but given WotC feelings towards PDFs and piracy (whether unfounded or not), I doubt it would happen.

Personally, I'd like them to be released for free.  I think the goodwill and it would engender in the larger community, as well as the positive PR, might lead to increased 4e sales.  I dunno.  Just a thought.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 1:36PM, Maxperson wrote:

Answer this.  Why should WoTC lose a ton of money so that you and others can buy a few old modules?  Would you be willing to pay $1000 dollars a module or whatever inflated price they need to sell them at in order to cover basic costs?

I'm no printing guru, but I doubt that you are as well. It doesn't cost thousands of dollars to perform a 100 print run for a 35 page, saddle-stitched, printing of the original Tomb of Horrors. If you think it does, you're wrong. Even if their minimum print run was 1000 copies...it's still pennies on the dollar. Then all they have to do is stock it. If it all sells, produce another run. There's VERY LITTLE risk involved. The expenditure in organizing and printing could easily be swallowed in the cost of sales. Your markup of $1000 to cover cost is ludicrous.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 1:36PM, Maxperson wrote:

The bolded part is important.  None of their printing history includes anything prior to 3ed.  They would have to pay for things from the ground up, and they make money on things like that from bulk, not from a little here and a little there over decades.

I suppose "history" wasn't the right word.

The right word is "capability". WotC has the capability to print things cheaply. They probably (not sure though) own their printing facilities. They also probabaly have digital copies of the original TSR publications. If they don't, they could reproduce them. 

Here's an idea. Reproduce the original content with updated art and errata fixes, then sell it. They would sell.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 1:36PM, Maxperson wrote:

This is slightly more feasible, but you'd have to find a company willing to lose money printing something that will sell sloooooowly.  And those smaller companies have less excess capital to be tied up in slow sellers.

Lulu.com is an on-demand publisher. When you ask for a copy, they print it, bind it and send it to you. They do so at a very inexpensive price. They offer saddle stitch and other binding methods.

WotC doesn't have to "find" a company, the company is already found.

Once again, I reiterate...the risk is VERY minimal and while the payoff isn't going to be monstrous...it's still money in the bank. In my book...that's called profit.

Don't bash the idea until you can come up with a fully justifiable reason why it won't work. None of the arguments thus far have provided any sort of evidence of why it won't work. Yet, go and visit Lulu.com or any other on-demand publisher. They offer success stories. It can work. It would work, if WotC or Hasbro can start thinking outside the box.

My argument still stands:
You cannot lay demands for unity among the D&D fans and yet deny those who choose to not play your latest ruleset.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 1:54PM, Urieal wrote:

I'm no printing guru, but I doubt that you are as well. It doesn't cost thousands of dollars to perform a 100 print run for a 35 page, saddle-stitched, printing of the original Tomb of Horrors. If you think it does, you're wrong. Even if their minimum print run was 1000 copies...it's still pennies on the dollar. Then all they have to do is stock it. If it all sells, produce another run. There's VERY LITTLE risk involved. The expenditure in organizing and printing could easily be swallowed in the cost of sales. Your markup of $1000 to cover cost is ludicrous.

WoTC is not Lulu and they have to put out a certain level of quality for their printings that Lulu apparently does not.  There are quite a few initial costs that happen when you have to come up with a quality booklet from scratch.  You're right that I'm not an expert, but I do know that you are seriously underestimating the costs.

The right word is "capability". WotC has the capability to print things cheaply. They probably (not sure though) own their printing facilities. They also probabaly have digital copies of the original TSR publications. If they don't, they could reproduce them. 

That capability comes from printing things in very large bulk quantities AND from already having all of the initial costs covered.

Lulu.com is an on-demand publisher. When you ask for a copy, they print it, bind it and send it to you. They do so at a very inexpensive price. They offer saddle stitch and other binding methods.

At that point, why bother.  You're just as well off buying the PDF and just using your printer and a office depot fastener to make your own.  Better off, since you can just print it again if you spill soda or coffee on it.

My argument still stands:
You cannot lay demands for unity among the D&D fans and yet deny those who choose to not play your latest ruleset.

No, it really doesn't.  Your argument fails to take this thing called humanity into consideration.  Humanity will never achieve unity......for anything.  Even if you got your way, there still would never be unity.  The best you can do is ignore the extremely small groups that complain, since they aren't large enough to be worth bending over backwards for and try to please the greater group. 

Unfortunately for you, you are in the extremely small group, and 3.5/Pathfinder and 4ed are the currently large groups to be considered.  Pathfinder takes care of the 3.5/Pathfinder group and WoTC takes care of the 4ed group.  Any unity requests should be directed at those two large groupings, not the very few 1ed and 2ed fans out there.

You know, I caught wind of Mearl's article from another site (DF) and checked it out. I think he made a lot of great comments. I think his overall point was valid and he's simply trying to bring back the normalcy that is, "just game and have fun".

The man has his work cut out for him in asking everyone to just "get along" and "play nice". And not because of any fracturing of the community due to editions, that plays only a slight role; as Mike put it, regardless of edition, rules are just rules, it's what you bring to the table as players and the DM that matters.

And after reading this thread, I can see where the problem actually stems, it's from the community of players. Not only from the WotC forum members, but also from other forums, such as Dragonsfoot where the article was initially linked.

My point being that, the majority of you guys are just jerks. That's right....jerks.

There is no other polite way of putting it.

Here, Mearls is trying to make some peace over trivial b.s. that spans editions and most of you do nothing, NOTHING, but piss, moan, and argue over the same "pointless" crap that's been argued more times than matter.

You have people getting strung out because the game appears to be curtailing back to previous editions in some ways. You have some people posting the death knell of D&D because obviously they're not happy with the current edition/WotC/Harbro and would rather see the game die off.

WTF is wrong with you people? What does it matter if the game backslides in some ways, what does it matter if the game continues the 4E course? What does it matter if it switches gears in a new direction; these things have ZERO baring on how much fun you have with what you currently own. Are your heads so empty that the article went in one ear and out the other? Really!?

It's snotty, arrogant and piss poor attitudes like this, not editions, that ruin and fracture the community. How hard is it to just sit down at the table and just play the flippin' game!? You have the books, you have the dice, you have the accessories. Stop worrying about what WotC may or may not do, you know, the trite stuff, and just play already. Sometimes, it's not all about you and what you want.

And on DF, it's just as bad. Those guys are just as much jerks as posters here, dredging up imagined conspiracies and crying out, "Oh WotC ruined D&D, blah, blah, blah....".

Mike tries to bridge the gap for all parties and you still have people holding their breath and stamping their feet. Geesh.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 3:06PM, Jsharpe wrote:

blah blah blah I'm an account  newly created so I can be insulting on an account other than my primary account blah blah blah

That's what I got out of that post anyway.

Eh..... I kinda disagree with his premise (cause that would mean I'm a jerk) but overall I can somewhat see his point. Some people will never be happy no matter what... and unfortunately they tend to be the loudest and most widespread.

You can kind of see it. Anytime Essentials or the future of 4e is mentioned there are always those people who have to come and say everything they said everytime before, accuse people of being sheep, etc. And then there are the people like me who respond to them with snark and it kinda goes all downhill from there.

Disagree.... but I can understand. 

I never thought I'd ever register here but then again I avoid places like Knights and Knaves as well as rpgnet; I think I've posted there maybe 5 times.

With all that said I caught wind of this via grognardia. First off anyone can play any edition they want, doesn't bother me in the slightest. My group and I have what works for us and we are all set. If edition X works for them great for them.

What prompted me to register here was the fact that this was addressed to all editions of the game. If it wasn't for that I would have ignored it. Its a bit rich calling for unity when Wizards told me 11 years ago that they didn't want to produce for older editions of the game. So why should I care about unity when WotC dropped me as a customer?

Lest anyone fool themselves there is probably a sizable group that won't upgrade to 4th this still play stuff pre-3rd. Is it a small group? Don't know, I don't think anyone does. Would it be worthwhile, again, who know?

Its far to late for unity. That ended in 1985 with Gary leaving. I moved to 2nd edition was unaware of the problems surroundiing TSR. then 2000 came around and split the customer base. Now we have another rift 3.0/3.5 migrating to Pathfinder vs 4e D&D; history is repeating itself.

In closing: in the end I didn't leave D&D, D&D left me.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 3:30PM, blazian wrote:

Eh..... I kinda disagree with his premise (cause that would mean I'm a jerk) but overall I can somewhat see his point. Some people will never be happy no matter what... and unfortunately they tend to be the loudest and most widespread.

You can kind of see it. Anytime Essentials or the future of 4e is mentioned there are always those people who have to come and say everything they said everytime before, accuse people of being sheep, etc. And then there are the people like me who respond to them with snark and it kinda goes all downhill from there.

Disagree.... but I can understand. 

I didn't read the whole thing.  Once I saw that it was a newly created account with 1 post AND it was name calling, I just stopped reading.  Posts like that are usually a waste of time to read.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 3:30PM, blazian wrote:

Eh..... I kinda disagree with his premise (cause that would mean I'm a jerk) but overall I can somewhat see his point. Some people will never be happy no matter what... and unfortunately they tend to be the loudest and most widespread.

You can kind of see it. Anytime Essentials or the future of 4e is mentioned there are always those people who have to come and say everything they said everytime before, accuse people of being sheep, etc. And then there are the people like me who respond to them with snark and it kinda goes all downhill from there.

Disagree.... but I can understand. 

Yeah...I see it in the same light as political discourse in America.  There is nothing wrong with not liking something, or expressing the fact that you don't like something.  But it should be possible to do it without saying that those who disagree with you are Hitler.

There are plenty of people on these boards who are very respectful, even about things which they don't like.  (Off the top of my head Foxface comes to mind...he doesn't care for Essentials and yet has never called me any names just because I do like it.  There are many others.)

The problem, as blazian points out, is that the rude people tend to be very loud (on the forum that means their posts stand out), and they manage to draw the reasonable people down to their level.  That in turn brings the whole forum down.

I think a solution would be to respond to any rude posts with, "I disagree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  And then move on.

Aww shucks, Ari... ::blushes::  You shouldn't have...

I love you, too.  ::smooches::

EDIT: I've said some disrespectful things on this board and have been modded for them, but they are universally directed to people who spout sexist, racist, or otherwise culturally ignorant things, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I'm sure you remember the Race and D&D thread from a few months back, Ari.  The one that went on for...what was it?  70+ pages?  I got snippy in that thread...

The points have been made.

Some have been understood.

Some have not.

This is not your fault.

Understanding begins with the simple act of listening or reading.

If you do not or unable to do this you will never understand.

The point has been made previously.

It is part opinion, part speculation.

These are the points.

Understand them or do not. 

Feb 22, 2011 -- 4:00PM, Maxperson wrote:

I didn't read the whole thing.  Once I saw that it was a newly created account with 1 post AND it was name calling, I just stopped reading.  Posts like that are usually a waste of time to read.

This is not good.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 10:19AM, imaginaryfriend wrote:

Zeitgeist, D&D style.

And it gets worse: In Dragon Magazine 380 at page 85 one of Mearls's co-conspirators reveals himself by acurately predicting Dethand's reaction with a feat. Chris Sims.. I KNEW it.

In  the same issue Peter Schaefer also reveals himself by dedicating yet another feat to Dethand on page 20.

Its starting to scare me.

The point was made and understood.

The relevance is weighted with calls of unity.

There is no unity here.

Only scorn and derision.

This is not good.


 

Feb 22, 2011 -- 1:36PM, Maxperson wrote:

Answer this.  Why should WoTC lose a ton of money so that you and others can buy a few old modules?  Would you be willing to pay $1000 dollars a module or whatever inflated price they need to sell them at in order to cover basic costs?

This is the point made earlier.

Why would WotC want unity then with older editions?

Why did Mr. Mearls make this post and call for unity?

Unity is not happening.

This is not your fault.

It is the division of editions engendered earlier in this community.

This needs to change.

three posts probably wasn't necessary, particular with the (no offense) Captain Kirk sentence style, and i think unity can happen- while it's true that the earlier editions erode at the sales base, it's also true that the essentials material is selling very well and more to the point- bringing in new gamers, and bringing back old ones. Expanding the customer base makes the division far less of an issue, particularly since players beget more players (folk often get friends into this game), further expanding it.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 5:41PM, Foxface wrote:

Aww shucks, Ari... ::blushes::  You shouldn't have...

I love you, too.  ::smooches::

EDIT:  I've said some disrespectful things on this board and have been modded  for them, but they are universally directed to people who spout sexist,  racist, or otherwise culturally ignorant things, either intentionally or  unintentionally.

I'm sure you remember the Race and D&D  thread from a few months back, Ari.  The one that went on for...what was  it?  70+ pages?  I got snippy in that thread...

Oh yikes do I ever remember that thread...snippiness was definitely called for.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 6:25PM, dethand wrote:

The points have been made.

Some have been understood.

Some have not.

This is not your fault.

Understanding begins with the simple act of listening or reading.

If you do not or unable to do this you will never understand.

The point has been made previously.

It is part opinion, part speculation.

These are the points.

Understand them or do not. 

I'm not sure if this is extraordinarily insightful or pure drivel, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  (I made a little change there, did you see it?)  As an aside, I actually like your writing style...it has a very biblical feel to it.  You could try to play that up:

"And lo, it is part opinion, part speculation.

These are the points, and they are good."

You can really see these carved into big honking slabs of marble.

I think some people are reading too much into the whole 'unity' thing.  I think all that he is saying is this:  Have some perspective, its a game people.  I think the people who think we all need to be playing the same edition to get along are the ones who truly don't get it, the whole point is that me liking one edition and you liking another isn't the end of the world or even the end of gaming as we know it.  I can play the version I like, you can play the version you like, we can even discuss the pros and cons of each but We don't have to sit here and bash each other because the other enjoys something we don't.  It's a game FFS.

That's how I see the article and I agree. 

Feb 22, 2011 -- 7:46PM, Nyarlathotep wrote:

I think some people are reading too much into the whole 'unity' thing.  I think all that he is saying is this:  Have some perspective, its a game people.  I think the people who think we all need to be playing the same edition to get along are the ones who truly don't get it, the whole point is that me liking one edition and you liking another isn't the end of the world or even the end of gaming as we know it.  I can play the version I like, you can play the version you like, we can even discuss the pros and cons of each but We don't have to sit here and bash each other because the other enjoys something we don't.  It's a game FFS.

That's how I see the article and I agree. 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

The problem is however is the timing, its more then a bit odd that WotC is choosing to communicate this message at this time: i.e. with Pathfinder really giving it to WotC.

I have no dog in this race as I'm not playing either Pathfinder or 4e. I think a lot of the old school gamers would have far worse to say. I'm in the weird place personally, not old, old schoo,l but not new either.

And to the point of how difficult would it be to release older stuff? Not very. The deisgn would take next to nothing as the books are already complete. Scan them, drop them into InDesign and make a PDF. Direct to plate and its ready to be printed. Printing isn't the main cost as the more you print the cheaper it becomes. The biggest cost is bindery, there is no real way around that. And this is coming from someone with a  graphic design background and works IT now supporting said efforts. So the production point is a moot one if we are talking about reprinting what already exists: take a 1st edition book what have you cut it apart and use a sheet/page book scanner, could be accomplished fairly easily by a design group with the right equipment. And if its PDF only then we are talking about no printed costs on WotC part,  really it's minimal effort to do this. New stuff would be a different kettle of fish.

To the contention that anyone who plays 1st or 2nd is too small to matter. Who know really? I bet even WotC hasnt researched that out. It might be worthwhile for all we know and anything else is guessing.

TBQH- In the end I truly believe there is no putting this genie back in it's bottle.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 7:46PM, Nyarlathotep wrote:

That's how I see the article and I agree. 

Seems pretty apparent to me too, but as we know too well, common sense isn't so common.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 5:41PM, Foxface wrote:

Aww shucks, Ari... ::blushes::  You shouldn't have...

I love you, too.  ::smooches::

EDIT: I've said some disrespectful things on this board and have been modded for them, but they are universally directed to people who spout sexist, racist, or otherwise culturally ignorant things, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I'm sure you remember the Race and D&D thread from a few months back, Ari.  The one that went on for...what was it?  70+ pages?  I got snippy in that thread...

Yeah.  There have been a few times where you and I have gotten into it a bit, but I agree that you are very level headed and polite most of the time.  It has been a pleasure to debate with you.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:02PM, mouthymerc wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 7:46PM, Nyarlathotep wrote:

That's how I see the article and I agree. 

Seems pretty apparent to me too, but as we know too well, common sense isn't so common.

Too true, sadly.  I just never have gotten why so many people seem so downright offended that someone might enjoy some other version of the game.  They treat it like a political party or a religion rather than just a variant of an activity they both enjoy.  It seems more than a bit silly to me.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:01PM, Willmark wrote:

The problem is however is the timing, its more then a bit odd that WotC is choosing to communicate this message at this time: i.e. with Pathfinder really giving it to WotC.

But that isn't established truth.  There is no evidence that Pathfinder is doing better than 4E, or that Paizo is outselling WotC, or that profit margins are higher for one or the other.

There is literally no evidence.  The frequently spouted Amazon sales reports mean nothing.  They are updated by the hour.  Last I checked, Caverns of Icewind Dale is the best selling RPG item.  So 4E must be kicking ass ::rolls eyes::

At most, we have Eric Mona publically saying that they (Paizo) are pleased at their current sales, and that they remain a mere fraction of WotC's sales.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:05PM, Maxperson wrote:

Yeah.  There have been a few times where you and I have gotten into it a bit, but I agree that you are very level headed and polite most of the time.  It has been a pleasure to debate with you.

Only most of the time?!  ::fake indignance::  Well, I never!  ::huff puff::

But yeah, I almost never agree with you, Max, beyond the "As long as your group likes it, you're free to do whatever you want" stance.

Doesn't mean I don't enjoy going a few rounds in the ring with ya.  Now about refluffing greatswords as daggers...

EDIT: Oh!  We also agree that Alignment should be gone, because what little it adds is drowned out by all the potential problems, and also what it adds could be covered by a page in the PHB encouraging players to think about their personality and motives (which kinda already does exist).

Where is this "unity" stuff coming from, or at least the definition that folks seem to be applying to it (which seems to be "why can't we all play 4E?")

And how are people getting "capitulation" from reconciliation?

The inaugural article was clearly a call for an end to hostilities between fans of editions by focusing on what is common between us, rather than what is different.

There was a heck of a lot of wisdom there, but a lot of folks still want to argue.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:07PM, Nyarlathotep wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:02PM, mouthymerc wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 7:46PM, Nyarlathotep wrote:

That's how I see the article and I agree. 

Seems pretty apparent to me too, but as we know too well, common sense isn't so common.

Too true, sadly.  I just never have gotten why so many people seem so downright offended that someone might enjoy some other version of the game.  They treat it like a political party or a religion rather than just a variant of an activity they both enjoy.  It seems more than a bit silly to me.

It is sad that "treating it like a political party or a religion" has come to mean acting "downright offended that someone might enjoy some other version of the [insert whatever here]". 
Whether we are talking about politics, religion, or even something as silly as gaming (yes, it is silly, doesn't mean I don't love every second of it!), it is important to keep things in perspective.  Just because someone is different doesn't make them bad.  Just because bad people exist doesn't mean you can extrapolate that onto everyone.

Now, if I may attempt to hijack this thread:

Let us post ways in which we have enhanced our game (whatever version of D&D or other RPG that may be) by using stuff from other versions or games.

I was recently steered toward several Pathfinder quests as part of another thread.  I downloaded and read through one of them ("Revenge of the Kobold King") and found it to be quite good.  I hope to steal it for a future 4E game at some point.  Hmm..maybe sooner than I think...my current party has killed many foes.  The trick will be to find one that was memorable enough...

It's human nature. Sometimes I feel that if I really tried I could get a flame war going about how TGI Friday's is the superior eating establishment and anyone who would dare eat at Outback, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, or Hibachi are sinful sheep and not liking Jack Daniels sauce would be akin to heresy.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:58PM, blazian wrote:

It's human nature. Sometimes I feel that if I really tried I could get a flame war going about how TGI Friday's is the superior eating establishment and anyone who would dare eat at Outback, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, or Hibachi are sinful sheep and not liking Jack Daniels sauce would be akin to heresy.

Sadly, you probably could.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:58PM, blazian wrote:

It's human nature. Sometimes I feel that if I really tried I could get a flame war going about how TGI Friday's is the superior eating establishment and anyone who would dare eat at Outback, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, or Hibachi are sinful sheep and not liking Jack Daniels sauce would be akin to heresy.

Olive Garden is ambrosia, and you are a heathen. Show

I should tell you guys the story about how a fight broke out in the lobyy of an Olive Garden between two women and a bartender while I worked there.  Broken nails and bits of weave were EVERYWHERE!

PM for the details.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 7:30PM, The-Magic-Sword wrote:

i think unity can happen.

Unity among D&D players of all editions happens often:

1. When we are talking about GURPS.
2. When we are watching LARPers in the city park.
3. When we talk about video games.
4. When we send rulebooks to the troops.
5. When someone outside the game attacks roleplayers.

Outside of that, we have our little camps, set up at different tables, blissfully content with the rightness of the edition we play. And all is good.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 9:40PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:58PM, blazian wrote:

It's human nature. Sometimes I feel that if I really tried I could get a flame war going about how TGI Friday's is the superior eating establishment and anyone who would dare eat at Outback, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, or Hibachi are sinful sheep and not liking Jack Daniels sauce would be akin to heresy.

Olive Garden is ambrosia, and you are a heathen. Show

yes, I am kidding.

You should really stop drinking the kool aid sheep. TGI Friday's is the best eating establishment ever and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. I get ribs... what does Olive Garden give you? Knock off italian food? Pah-leeze.

And also I hate Olive Gardens because on page 7 of their menu they are making fun of Red Lobster by the way they named their seafood. And I have solid proof of this. 

Feb 23, 2011 -- 5:52AM, blazian wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 9:40PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:58PM, blazian wrote:

It's human nature. Sometimes I feel that if I really tried I could get a flame war going about how TGI Friday's is the superior eating establishment and anyone who would dare eat at Outback, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, or Hibachi are sinful sheep and not liking Jack Daniels sauce would be akin to heresy.

Olive Garden is ambrosia, and you are a heathen. Show

yes, I am kidding.

You should really stop drinking the kool aid sheep. TGI Friday's is the best eating establishment ever and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. I get ribs... what does Olive Garden give you? Knock off italian food? Pah-leeze.

And also I hate Olive Gardens because on page 7 of their menu they are making fun of Red Lobster by the way they named their seafood. And I have solid proof of this. 

Hey unless them is Beef Ribs puleeze who cares. And Outback is just so layed back the are actually an American menu pshah not aussie at all (awesome food though and cheaper than Red Lobster who also rocks).

And how far straight sideways can we actually run with this?

Olive garden offers bottomless soup, salad, and pasta at reasonable rates - a recursive loop that allows for arbitrarily high returns for your investment.  It breaks meals on its own.  If olive garden is available among your dining options you're literally hurting yourself by not eating there.

Hall Pass proves that Applebees^TM is the place to go.

Feb 23, 2011 -- 7:00AM, malisteen wrote:

Olive garden offers bottomless soup, salad, and pasta at reasonable rates - a recursive loop that allows for arbitrarily high returns for your investment.  It breaks meals on its own.  If olive garden is available among your dining options you're literally hurting yourself by not eating there.

Please... the only people who care about Olive Gardens are munchers who seek to OPed (Obesity personified). Any sane person would choose TGI fridays over Olive Gardens! I mean seriously? "Ima Olive Gardensa! I serve-ah the italiana fooda! Momma mia!" TGI fridays serves italien food, american food, and I'm pretty sure chinese cause I remember seeing pork dumplings. You just can't beat that level of customization.

And yeah.... outback is so laid back that no-one ever bothers to go there. Just be careful... or else the dingo'll get yo babee. 

Feb 23, 2011 -- 5:52AM, blazian wrote:

And also I hate Olive Gardens because on page 7 of their menu they are making fun of Red Lobster by the way they named their seafood. And I have solid proof of this. 

Red Lobster and Olive Garden are part of the same company, along with Smokey Bones' BBQ House.

All the restaurants are TEH SAME!!

Feb 23, 2011 -- 6:51AM, Garthanos wrote:

Feb 23, 2011 -- 5:52AM, blazian wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 9:40PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:58PM, blazian wrote:

It's human nature. Sometimes I feel that if I really tried I could get a flame war going about how TGI Friday's is the superior eating establishment and anyone who would dare eat at Outback, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, or Hibachi are sinful sheep and not liking Jack Daniels sauce would be akin to heresy.

Olive Garden is ambrosia, and you are a heathen. Show

yes, I am kidding.

You should really stop drinking the kool aid sheep. TGI Friday's is the best eating establishment ever and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. I get ribs... what does Olive Garden give you? Knock off italian food? Pah-leeze.

And also I hate Olive Gardens because on page 7 of their menu they are making fun of Red Lobster by the way they named their seafood. And I have solid proof of this. 

Hey unless them is Beef Ribs puleeze who cares. And Outback is just so layed back the are actually an American menu pshah not aussie at all (awesome food though and cheaper than Red Lobster who also rocks).

And how far straight sideways can we actually run with this?

You might be surprised.

You rib-eating huckster.

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:12PM, Foxface wrote:

 There is no evidence that Pathfinder is doing better than 4E, or that Paizo is outselling WotC, or that profit margins are higher for one or the other.

There is literally no evidence.

There is. 

It is your choice to ignore the evidence.

It is not important that you understand.

It is important that the point is made.

What is relevant is the timing as others seem to understand.

This is good. 

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:33PM, MalakLightfoot wrote:

Where is this "unity" stuff coming from, or at least the definition that folks seem to be applying to it (which seems to be "why can't we all play 4E?")

And how are people getting "capitulation" from reconciliation?

The inaugural article was clearly a call for an end to hostilities between fans of editions by focusing on what is common between us, rather than what is different.

There was a heck of a lot of wisdom there, but a lot of folks still want to argue.

This is the question that is asked of Mearls.

Why now?

Why not when 4e was released and all previous editions/incarnations labeled 'broken' or 'flawed'?

These are important questions that should be answered.

Feb 23, 2011 -- 5:13AM, Seeker95 wrote:

Unity among D&D players of all editions happens often:

1. When we are talking about GURPS.
2. When we are watching LARPers in the city park.
3. When we talk about video games.
4. When we send rulebooks to the troops.
5. When someone outside the game attacks roleplayers.

Outside of that, we have our little camps, set up at different tables, blissfully content with the rightness of the edition we play. And all is good.

This is not good. 

Once division is made and maintained, it is hard to unite under commonalities that we share.

Striving to understand previous errors is essential to becoming more tolerant.

This is a new point.

Feb 25, 2011 -- 11:40PM, dethand wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:12PM, Foxface wrote:

 There is no evidence that Pathfinder is doing better than 4E, or that Paizo is outselling WotC, or that profit margins are higher for one or the other.

There is literally no evidence.

There is. 

It is your choice to ignore the evidence.

It is not important that you understand.

It is important that the point is made.

What is relevant is the timing as others seem to understand.

This is good. 

Not evidence.  Not proof.

Those results only reflect sales at hobby stores and does not reflect big-box retailers or online sales.  It also represents only Q3 (which is July, August, and September), which had a lull of new or exciting products for 4E, and the release of the Advanced Player's Guide for PF.  So during that short time, PF sales presumably spiked, and 4E sales presumably lulled.

Furthermore, ICv2 provides no hard data or sales numbers, because their results are compiled from unofficial surveys, which would be subject to bias or error.

So no, this is not credible evidence, for numerous reasons.  Try again.

Feb 26, 2011 -- 12:04AM, Foxface wrote:

Not evidence.  Not proof.
 *snip*
So no, this is not credible evidence, for numerous reasons.  Try again.

You are wrong with your first statement.


There is room too agree with the second statement.


One does not invalidate the other.


It is established earlier by the Q4 results here and here.
 

It is established that sales are lower and profits are lower.


The point has been made.


What needs to happen is show that unity is possible with this community.


You do not show that there is any ability to unify with this community.


This is not your fault.


This needs to change.

First off, your sentences are not disconnected enough in content to necessitate new paragraphs.  Your poor formating harms the perception of your argument.

Your Q4 results?  Swing and a miss.  Profits are down, but there are still profits.  Hasbro didn't lose any money.  They just didn't make as much money as they thought they would.  The main culprit?  Lower than expected sales of Action Figures and Board Games.  The pre-school division grew.  The girl division grew (by 10%!).  NERF and G.I. Joe fell, but NERF remains their largest brand.

Action Figures didn't grow.  Coming after huge growth fueled by two movies (Transformers and G.I. Joe), they would've needed to grow by almost $400 million to compensate for the "after-movie" effect, and they claim they came close.  So even without a new movie fueling demand, they came close to last years record sales.  So, no growth, but still profit.

The biggest dark spot is Board Games, which rely on late quarter shopping (hello holidays!) to fuel reorders from retailers and distributors.  Customers didn't buy (this is the worst recession since the Great Depression, after all), so retailers didn't re-order, so Hasbro didn't grow here.  Though they note that the Board Game brands are doing well in non-traditional forms (like mobile gaming).

And the piece de restistance, they specifically call out Wizards of the Coast doing well with their biggest brand: Magic.  They don't even mention D&D.  Why not?  Because D&D is a drop in the bucket compared to M:tG.

Repeat.  D&D is a drop in the bucket of an already niche market.  Magic is dwarfed by NERF, My Little Pony, Transformers, Playskool, G.I. Joe, Strawberry Shortcake, Play-Doh, and the Board Games like Monopoly and Scrabble.  And Magic dwarfs Dungeon & Dragons.

This is not indicative of D&D failing, nor is it evidence of Hasbro ignoring D&D.  It's evidence and indicative of D&D's role in Hasbro's overall business model i.e. not much.  This is not some crime against D&D, nor is it neglect.  It's just plain business reality.

Feb 25, 2011 -- 11:42PM, dethand wrote:

Why not when 4e was released and all previous editions/incarnations labeled 'broken' or 'flawed'?

First, as already mentioned, yeah, stop with the new paragraphs every line.  It's pointless and annoying.

Second, the hammering of previous editions' flaws at the release of 4e, while overdone, was necessitated by the OGL, which seemed like a good idea at first, but in the end wasn't really, because it prevented WotC from moving forward when they were ready to.  If third party companies had free reign to release derivative versions of and expansions for 2nd edition back when 3rd was being released, do you think it would have been so universally accepted then?  No, probably not, as existing gamers would not have been motivated to abandon their existing library if they still were getting releases for it.

With the OGL in place, wizards couldn't put D&D on the shelf until demand for a new edition could grow, since some smaller company that could justify much smaller profit margines and print runs (like, say, paizo) would step in with releases for the current game and that demand would never materialize.

They also couldn't just keep releasing 3e products, because the market was becoming saturated.

So they went with a new edition, and tried, maybe a little too hard, to hammer in what made the new edition better (and, as such, what made the old edition worse).  And they dropped the OGL in the new edition because of how much it had restricted their options in the past.

Of course, the community wasn't exactly ready for a new edition (and, thanks to the OGL, never would be, despite 3rd edition's many real flaws), and the OGL couldn't be withdrawn for the old edition, so we got the split we did.  It didn't help that they made a number of other blunderous errors in terms of promising digital tools they couldn't deliver (a lesson they should already learned), and ending the publication of the magazines, and then the e-tools they did deliver (compendium and character builder) basically obsoleted their own books, but that's a separate issue.

So we got the split, and it has been fairly even it seems, with higher sales between 4e and pathfined going to whichever had the bigger release in a given month.  Which is bully for Paizo, but WotC needs a lot better returns to justify a product line the Paizo does, so we see layoffs and designers rotations galore at wizards, and eventually this essentials thing meant to capture some of that old edition feel - a mistake, imo.  As far as I can tell, the bridges have been burned between pathfinder and D&D.  Essentials isn't old school enough to bring anyone back, but it has proved to be old school enough to alienate a lot of the people who adopted 4e in the first place.

The thing is, as many issues as WotC has had, as many blunderous decisions as they've made, I'd still trust them with the future of D&D over paizo, because at least they're willing to show some innovation, while Paizo seems perfectly content to deliver the same D&D we've always had.  I look at the Pathfinder book, and I see some decent houserules for 3e, but nothing that addresses the core flaws in the game or brings any truely significant additions.  I look at the APG, and I see maybe one or two neat ideas, but nothing that really expands the game.  The witch is just a less good wizard, the oracle just a less good cleric.  Why bother?  Why bother with pathfinder at all, why I could be playing Warblades and Beguilers if I just stuck with 3.5, or Warlords and Shamen if I went with 4e?  And if I'm playing a fighter, I'd much rather it be in 4e, where I can actually contribute meaningfully to adventures regardless of what level we're at.  Yes, Paizo's adventures are better, way better.  But I'd rather just play them using 3.5, or convert them to 4.0.

Hey dethand, keep it up. 

Very entertaining.

I can't wait to read more.

Reminds me of other entertaining posters such as Lobrix and Xun-Val.

Feb 25, 2011 -- 11:40PM, dethand wrote:

Feb 22, 2011 -- 8:12PM, Foxface wrote:

 There is no evidence that Pathfinder is doing better than 4E, or that Paizo is outselling WotC, or that profit margins are higher for one or the other.

There is literally no evidence.

There is. 

It is your choice to ignore the evidence.

It is not important that you understand.

It is important that the point is made.

What is relevant is the timing as others seem to understand.

This is good. 

Man, you sound like Rorschach from Watchmen. This makes it hard to understand you. And it kind of scares me. 

But more concerning your point:
The information you are referring to is no evidence that what you are saying is true. DnD is not a major factor for Hasbro and even WotC makes a lot (a lot) more money on Magic. As far as I recall, DnD has never been mentioned in any of those reports you are referring to. DnD caters to a niche market and only breaks out of it when a video game is produced.
True, I have seen the chart with 4E/PF tied for first place in Q3 of 2010. But those "numbers" are not numbers at all. This is information based on interviews with store owners etc. The actual sales data was not reviewed.

And even if Pathfinder sold more in stores than 4E, what is your point? If you play PF, enjoy it! Why does this concern you? It is not even the system you are playing! As with 3rd edition, there already is so much stuff out there for 4E, everybody who really likes the system can play on forever and does not have to worry about another version of DnD. And Paizo seems very happy to continue publishing the OGL version of the game forever. And they can. Which, if you play that system, should please you. 

I have problems wrapping my head around the fact that a thread about the article is so long anyways. All he is saying is: Stop arguing too much about editions, they are just versions of DnD we all enjoy to play.
Which I agree with. This call for "unity" some people seem to find in the article is only based on the fact that everybody should play the version of DnD they prefer. It does not mean that WotC should support all the versions of DnD since the 70s. You do not ask Porsche to manufacture spare parts for their cars from the 70s either. Which they don't.
Face it: A new edition is a new edition. While you (or maybe I if 5E comes along) might prefer an older edition, we cannot expect WotC to cater to our taste. But we can all still expect everybody to stay calm about the fact that other people do not prefer the version we prefer. This is all Mearls is saying.

And the fact that they pointed out some "flaws" of the 3rd edition rules before and after they published 4E does not change that at all. It needed to be said. It is what happens naturally when a new edition is introduced. And we can argue about it in a civilized manner. There is no reason to get upset about it.

So in a way, you are right:

It is not important that you understand.

It is important that the point is made.

Feb 26, 2011 -- 5:16AM, Snot-Elemental wrote:

 
Man, you sound like Rorschach from Watchmen. This makes it hard to understand you. And it kind of scares me. 
 

OK damn that spooks me too... I wasnt before.

There were a few points made about the size of the the market for old school products.  I don't think anyone knows what that market size right now or could be.  Even the guys publishing in it.  Frog God Games (formerly Necromancer) recently published Swords and Wizardry Complete.   This is a clone of the original D&D rules with the first four supplements added in.   They ran through their entire first print run in 24 hours.  The server crashed and they had to go to doing sales via email and paypal to get the business done.  They were totally overwhelmed.  This is a small publisher that does no mass market advertising.  

I played at Total Confusion this past weekend, almost exclusively in the Old School games room where Tim Kask and Frank Mentzer were running  oD&D, Basic D&D and 1st ed AD&D.  Franks games always had at least five players and some that had as many as 15 players in a single four hour slot.  There were as many as four different old school games running at a time in that room with 30 or 40 players.   I ran 1st ed game on Saturday night that had 10 players, 5 of them below the age of 16.  There was also a very cool game of 10 year olds playing B2 Keep on the Borderlands- the kids were the adventurers and the adults played henchmen.  It was great and the kids had HUGE smiles on their faces the whole time.  They loved it.  Gary Con III at the end of this month has no problem getting 300+ players in the middle of Wisconsin to show up.  Again, no big mass market advertising, no big budget event.  Just a bunch of old farts from TSR and their fans.  

I live in a fairly rural area.  My town has a population of 1,000 in an area of 25 square miles.  I run a 1st ed AD&D game every two weeks and always have players.  Always.  I run into people all the time in their late 30's and early 40's that played in the 80's and tell me they would love to play again.  I keep hearing a story that has become very familiar.  They got out of college and life and work and kids made it impossible to play.  Their kids grew up, they have some disposable income they want to play again.  They looked at the 4e books, the mini's, the battle mats, the DDI subscription and decide that it is far too much expense and too much work to be fun.   The new game's feats and powers and skills has such a different feel to them that it is unrecognizable as D&D to them.  They look at the new game and say, "Bah, in my day we had level draining undead and we liked it."  How big is the potential market for a new release of the BECMI box sets or a Rule Cyclopledia in POD?  I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either.  I do know there is a 35+ demographic with disposable income, that would be willing to pay $20 for their D&D fix and WoTC has decided that this demographic doesn't pay enough to make it worth their investment.  

There are some high quality POD operations.  Ingram, one of the biggest book distributers in the world has a POD called Lightening Source.  You up load a PDF just like Lulu.  They have the ability to produce 10,000 copies and put them on store shelves in a week.  They have the infrastructure and the distribution system already in place.  Someone just has to push the button and make it happen.  Their prices are very reasonable for printing very high quality POD books.  Lots of university presses use Lightening Source to keep their back list material in print.   So WotC, could, if they wanted to, support older editions of the game.  They own the material.  They have the staff or could hire freelancers to clean up or create PDF's and a profitable model is out there for them to imitate. 

Feb 25, 2011 -- 11:40PM, dethand wrote:

There is. 

Has this survey been released for the 4th qtr or the total year of 2010?

Feb 28, 2011 -- 8:32AM, Wyrdbrew wrote:

There were a few points made about the size of the the market for old school products.  I don't think anyone knows what that market size right now or could be.  Even the guys publishing in it.  Frog God Games (formerly Necromancer) recently published Swords and Wizardry Complete.   This is a clone of the original D&D rules with the first four supplements added in.   They ran through their entire first print run in 24 hours.  The server crashed and they had to go to doing sales via email and paypal to get the business done.  They were totally overwhelmed.  This is a small publisher that does no mass market advertising.  

I played at Total Confusion this past weekend, almost exclusively in the Old School games room where Tim Kask and Frank Mentzer were running  oD&D, Basic D&D and 1st ed AD&D.  Franks games always had at least five players and some that had as many as 15 players in a single four hour slot.  There were as many as four different old school games running at a time in that room with 30 or 40 players.   I ran 1st ed game on Saturday night that had 10 players, 5 of them below the age of 16.  There was also a very cool game of 10 year olds playing B2 Keep on the Borderlands- the kids were the adventurers and the adults played henchmen.  It was great and the kids had HUGE smiles on their faces the whole time.  They loved it.  Gary Con III at the end of this month has no problem getting 300+ players in the middle of Wisconsin to show up.  Again, no big mass market advertising, no big budget event.  Just a bunch of old farts from TSR and their fans.  

I live in a fairly rural area.  My town has a population of 1,000 in an area of 25 square miles.  I run a 1st ed AD&D game every two weeks and always have players.  Always.  I run into people all the time in their late 30's and early 40's that played in the 80's and tell me they would love to play again.  I keep hearing a story that has become very familiar.  They got out of college and life and work and kids made it impossible to play.  Their kids grew up, they have some disposable income they want to play again.  They looked at the 4e books, the mini's, the battle mats, the DDI subscription and decide that it is far too much expense and too much work to be fun.   The new game's feats and powers and skills has such a different feel to them that it is unrecognizable as D&D to them.  They look at the new game and say, "Bah, in my day we had level draining undead and we liked it."  How big is the potential market for a new release of the BECMI box sets or a Rule Cyclopledia in POD?  I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either.  I do know there is a 35+ demographic with disposable income, that would be willing to pay $20 for their D&D fix and WoTC has decided that this demographic doesn't pay enough to make it worth their investment.  

There are some high quality POD operations.  Ingram, one of the biggest book distributers in the world has a POD called Lightening Source.  You up load a PDF just like Lulu.  They have the ability to produce 10,000 copies and put them on store shelves in a week.  They have the infrastructure and the distribution system already in place.  Someone just has to push the button and make it happen.  Their prices are very reasonable for printing very high quality POD books.  Lots of university presses use Lightening Source to keep their back list material in print.   So WotC, could, if they wanted to, support older editions of the game.  They own the material.  They have the staff or could hire freelancers to clean up or create PDF's and a profitable model is out there for them to imitate. 

I would love for the older edition stuff to be available POD, but I am less optimistic about the size of the market for such stuff as you are.  So I really can't fault WotC for not pursuing this if they don't see much profit there.

I played oD&D when it first hit the shelves here in the UK and I still have the three book boxed set, Greyhawk, Blackmoor and Eldrich Wizardry.  Now I play 4E, and love it.  Sure, there will be a market for the nostalgia editions - but it won't be 'all the old players' and it's not purely demographic.

Feb 28, 2011 -- 9:11AM, fjw70 wrote:

I would love for the older edition stuff to be available POD, but I am less optimistic about the size of the market for such stuff as you are.  So I really can't fault WotC for not pursuing this if they don't see much profit there.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a small market.  At present,  I think there is enough money in it for some small publishers to add to current revenue streams but it isn't going to be a big cash cow. I don't know if a bigger market could be created strictly on the nostalgia of the brand or not.  I've not seen a feasibility study on the subject. No one knows what a re-release of the old rule set might bring.  No one is seriously looking either though.  The great thing about POD is that the cost is so low.  They could hire one or two freelancers to go over the Rules Cyclopedia, clean it up and turn it into a good PDF.  What would that cost? 50K maybe? After that they up load the PDF to Ingram and cash the checks.  James Raggi sold 1,500 box sets priced at $70 each.  That's over $100,000 gross.  I have a hard time believing they couldn't sell a few thousand copies POD and at least break even.  

All that said, I don't expect WotC to actually DO anything that would enhance the goodwill of the players who've stopped buying WotC product.  If Mr. Mearls wants the support and goodwill of people who play the older versions of D&D, he's going to have to do more than write or talk about it.  Put your money where your mouth is Mike.  

I disagree that Mearls or anyone else needs to do something to get the goodwill of older edition fans. I am not aware of anything he or WotC has done to deserve a negative reaction from older edition fans. Up until a couple years ago PDFs of nearly all older edition stuff were available and the OGL was a boon for the Old School movement.

Second I don't think Mearls has much say on how old edition stuff is distributed.

Third, a break-even business proposal would not go very far. Also companies are very protective of their brands.

Lately, I will hope that such a POD scenario would happen someday. WotC dod give permission for outsiders to freely distribute and modify the old Star Frontiers stuff so maybe there is hope.

Feb 28, 2011 -- 9:38AM, Wyrdbrew wrote:

Feb 28, 2011 -- 9:11AM, fjw70 wrote:

I would love for the older edition stuff to be available POD, but I am less optimistic about the size of the market for such stuff as you are.  So I really can't fault WotC for not pursuing this if they don't see much profit there.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a small market.  At present,  I think there is enough money in it for some small publishers to add to current revenue streams but it isn't going to be a big cash cow. I don't know if a bigger market could be created strictly on the nostalgia of the brand or not.  I've not seen a feasibility study on the subject. No one knows what a re-release of the old rule set might bring.  No one is seriously looking either though.  The great thing about POD is that the cost is so low.  They could hire one or two freelancers to go over the Rules Cyclopedia, clean it up and turn it into a good PDF.  What would that cost? 50K maybe? After that they up load the PDF to Ingram and cash the checks.  James Raggi sold 1,500 box sets priced at $70 each.  That's over $100,000 gross.  I have a hard time believing they couldn't sell a few thousand copies POD and at least break even.  

All that said, I don't expect WotC to actually DO anything that would enhance the goodwill of the players who've stopped buying WotC product.  If Mr. Mearls wants the support and goodwill of people who play the older versions of D&D, he's going to have to do more than write or talk about it.  Put your money where your mouth is Mike.  

They actually have all of these in PDF form. They used to sell them from the D&D site store. So that's not a consideration...

Feb 26, 2011 -- 3:29AM, Foxface wrote:

First off, your sentences are not disconnected enough in content to necessitate new paragraphs.  Your poor formating harms the perception of your argument.

^ This.

Feb 26, 2011 -- 5:16AM, Snot-Elemental wrote:

 Which, if you play that system, should please you.

*points to self*
Does not play.

Feb 26, 2011 -- 5:16AM, Snot-Elemental wrote:

I have problems wrapping my head around the fact that a thread about the article is so long anyways. All he is saying is: Stop arguing too much about editions, they are just versions of DnD we all enjoy to play.

This is the best that can be said of the OP and it's various points/counterpoints.


Change can begin with understanding of this point. 

 

OK, Ok. Fine.  'Cause you asked nicely I'll break format and talk more directly with ya'.

Feb 26, 2011 -- 4:02AM, malisteen wrote:

Second, the hammering of previous editions' flaws at the release of 4e, while overdone, was necessitated by the OGL, which seemed like a good idea at first, but in the end wasn't really, because it prevented WotC from moving forward when they were ready to.  If third party companies had free reign to release derivative versions of and expansions for 2nd edition back when 3rd was being released, do you think it would have been so universally accepted then?  No, probably not, as existing gamers would not have been motivated to abandon their existing library if they still were getting releases for it.

It could have gone better. We can all agree on that.

I do think it's time to let some of that go. And guilty as charged, I did bring it up first. 

I am more concerned with where this call for unity is going than beating WotC over the head with Hasbro's quarterly reports and profit losses. How that data I presented (i.e. profit loss, lack of mention of D&D as a brand) factors in how Hasbro views D&D is more important that trying to prove who/what sells more books. And how Hasbro fares financially can have a direct effect on WotC's decisions in how D&D develops and is handled.

Feb 26, 2011 -- 4:02AM, malisteen wrote:

The thing is, as many issues as WotC has had, as many blunderous decisions as they've made, I'd still trust them with the future of D&D over paizo, because at least they're willing to show some innovation, while Paizo seems perfectly content to deliver the same D&D we've always had.

I disagree with trusting WotC with D&D at this point and give a nod to the fact that WotC has developed the game beyond 3e in new and innovative ways.

But, really that is an unfair comparison.

4e changed a lot of how D&D felt and how it is played. WotC wanted the fanbase to buy a brand new version of D&D. They didn't make a great attempt to bridge the gap with anyone who balked at those changes.
Paizo, didn't develop a new ruleset to make changes to D&D but, more to keep the style and feel of how D&D was played (i.e. Vancian magic, classical elves and dwarves, ect) while cleaning up 3e/OGL.

In my opinion, Paizo did it right. And that's not offered as fact. It's my opinon and why I did not sign up for 4e.

And it's one I am glad I made.

Feb 28, 2011 -- 9:08AM, fjw70 wrote:

Has this survey been released for the 4th qtr or the total year of 2010?

It is for the period prior to the OP.

It was presented as proof to the poster asking for it.

It is only to show that there is proof.

Feb 28, 2011 -- 10:01AM, fjw70 wrote:

I disagree that Mearls or anyone else needs to do something to get the goodwill of older edition fans.

It is Mearls asking for the input of older editions/non-4e D&D fans.

We all need to turn the page on the past mistakes and start moving forward.

If older edition/non-4e players of D&D do not feel welcome all the best intentions will be for naught.

This is not so good.

Feb 28, 2011 -- 12:41PM, lokiare wrote:

They actually have all of these in PDF form. They used to sell them from the D&D site store. So that's not a consideration...

Are those .pdf's of older D&D editions available in the D&D site store now? 

Feb 28, 2011 -- 8:59PM, dethand wrote:

How that data I presented (i.e. profit loss, lack of mention of D&D as a brand) factors in how Hasbro views D&D is more important that trying to prove who/what sells more books. And how Hasbro fares financially can have a direct effect on WotC's decisions in how D&D develops and is handled.

It won't.  First, there was profit loss, but I'm not sure you understand what that means.  They made less money this year than last year, but they still made money.  Part of that is because last year they made (as a company) boatloads of money.  Thank you Transformers.  Thank you G.I. Joe.  Thank you Iron Man 2.  Couple that with a re-designed My Little Pony, and you've got tons of money rolling in.  Hasbro didn't expect to match those numbers.  They knew they wouldn't do as well this year as last year.  They lowered their expectation this year.

What they didn't account for is how poorly their board game division was going to do.  They expected more sales and thus restocking than what actually happened.  The recession hit families during the holidays harder than Hasbro expected, and thus the underperformed what they projected.

But they still turned a profit in all divisions (including WotC).

So, Hasbro is not doing bad.  Nothing is going to happen to D&D.

Even if it was doing bad, D&D won't get shelved.  It is too small of a product line to have a positive or negative impact.  It is a blip on their radar.  D&D would have to catastrophically fail for Hasbro to notice.

If Hasbro reported loss this year, they would target the divisions that are causing the loss i.e. board games and action figures.  Over-performing divisions would also receive attention, if only to take advantage with what is "hot".

Judging by their own reports, Hasbro seems content to let WotC handle their own business.  Magic gets a special mention due to its size and sheer profitability.  But the don't bother mentioning Duel Masters, HeroScape, Avalon Hill and D&D because they don't really matter to Hasbro's bottom line, either good or bad.

But it sounds so much better to act like a prophet of doom.

Like you're pulling a curtain back to reveal the truth to all.

All those people who are blinded by the illusions created by WotC and Hasbro.

Lulling us into a false sense of security, content in what they release to us.

We must see the truth.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:09AM, Foxface wrote:

It won't.

This is speculation.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:09AM, Foxface wrote:

So, Hasbro is not doing bad.  Nothing is going to happen to D&D.

That is speculation as well.

Hasbro exists to make a profit.This is their business.

WotC is tied to those decisions. As is D&D.

The point is made to show the correlation between the two.

If you feel that D&D is secure in that partnership then all is well.

Wow. Half a page of posts I (gladly and willingly) can't see. Sweet.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 6:49AM, Seeker95 wrote:

Wow. Half a page of posts I (gladly and willingly) can't see. Sweet.

Yeah...you're not missing much.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 6:39AM, dethand wrote:

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:09AM, Foxface wrote:

It won't.

This is speculation.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:09AM, Foxface wrote:

So, Hasbro is not doing bad.  Nothing is going to happen to D&D.

That is speculation as well.

Hasbro exists to make a profit.This is their business.

WotC is tied to those decisions. As is D&D.

The point is made to show the correlation between the two.

If you feel that D&D is secure in that partnership then all is well.

Yeah... its not speculation when you do it though! Because you have hard evidence, facts, and inside knowledge of what is going on! Or atleast you have and will say you do. But on the internet that is good enough!

Can we go back to fighting over restaurants now? Or maybe just bang our heads against concrete walls? I feel that both of these situations would be much more productive and logical than any argument being held now and overall will have the same effect.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 12:17PM, blazian wrote:

Can we go back to fighting over restaurants now? Or maybe just bang our heads against concrete walls? I feel that both of these situations would be much more productive and logical than any argument being held now and overall will have the same effect.

^ This.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 11:45AM, blazian wrote:

Yeah... its not speculation when you do it though! 

It's an opinion.

One can be as relevant as the other.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:26PM, dethand wrote:

Mar 1, 2011 -- 11:45AM, blazian wrote:

Yeah... its not speculation when you do it though! 

It's called an opinion.

One can be as relevant as the other.

Not true.  If an opinion has no basis in logic, reasoning, or evidence, it's not a valid opinion.

It could be my opinion that "the government" only keeps pennies in circulation to collect or DNA from our shedded skin left behind, but that opinion is not valid.

You're entitled to hold whatever opinion you want, relevant or not.  But you can't expect others to automatically give it equal credence.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:42PM, Foxface wrote:

Not true.  If an opinion has no basis in logic, reasoning, or evidence, it's not a valid opinion.

Reason was given.

Validity of any opinion is subjective.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:42PM, Foxface wrote:

You're entitled to hold whatever opinion you want, relevant or not.  But you can't expect others to automatically give it equal credence.

Never asked for it.

It was stated.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:42PM, Foxface wrote:

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:26PM, dethand wrote:

Mar 1, 2011 -- 11:45AM, blazian wrote:

Yeah... its not speculation when you do it though! 

It's called an opinion.

One can be as relevant as the other.

Not true.  If an opinion has no basis in logic, reasoning, or evidence, it's not a valid opinion.

It could be my opinion that "the government" only keeps pennies in circulation to collect or DNA from our shedded skin left behind, but that opinion is not valid.

You're entitled to hold whatever opinion you want, relevant or not.  But you can't expect others to automatically give it equal credence.

OMG, the government does that? no wonder they can DNA identify a criminal even though they have no record...

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:26PM, dethand wrote:

Mar 1, 2011 -- 11:45AM, blazian wrote:

Yeah... its not speculation when you do it though! 

It's an opinion.

One can be as relevant as the other.

Except that for one you have to be unaware of the definition of profits and have to make a wide leap of faith while the other just needs an understanding of the word....

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:51PM, dethand wrote:

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:42PM, Foxface wrote:

Not true.  If an opinion has no basis in logic, reasoning, or evidence, it's not a valid opinion.

Reason was given.

Validity of any opinion is subjective.

Your "reason" wasn't well-reasoned.  You gave a fundamentally flawed "reason" that has no logic and lacks credible evidence.

Mar 1, 2011 -- 1:42PM, Foxface wrote:

You're entitled to hold whatever opinion you want, relevant or not.  But you can't expect others to automatically give it equal credence.

Never asked for it.

It was stated.

And people are rightfully calling you out for being ridiculous.

No more feeding please. Pretty please. With ochre jelly on top. 

(I can't resist checking what might have been added by someone speaking reasonably.)

Mar 1, 2011 -- 2:38PM, Foxface wrote:

And people are rightfully calling you out for being ridiculous.

Controversial.

Mar 2, 2011 -- 6:39AM, Seeker95 wrote:

No more feeding please. Pretty please. With ochre jelly on top. 

(I can't resist checking what might have been added by someone speaking reasonably.)

So, Olive Garden or Applebees?  Sadly, only a few Olive Gardens have Gluten Free noodles, and those are usually of the lowest quality so far as I have found (Debolls, ugh ), but Applebee's Gluten Free Options are slim to none.

Why does this matter to a discussion on the history of D&D, and the need for people to put aside differences and just play the god damned game?  It doesn't.  But apparently, that discussion cannot be currrently resolved peacefully (kind of like peace in the Middle East), so I went back to the value of restaurants in relation to what I can eat.

Kelnaur, you make me wish they would bring the Like button back, but without the CPU drain it was imposing.

Mar 2, 2011 -- 9:51AM, Seeker95 wrote:

Kelnaur, you make me wish they would bring the Like button back, but without the CPU drain it was imposing.

I totally know what you mean, Saaker95.

Mar 2, 2011 -- 9:17AM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 2, 2011 -- 6:39AM, Seeker95 wrote:

No more feeding please. Pretty please. With ochre jelly on top. 

(I can't resist checking what might have been added by someone speaking reasonably.)

So, Olive Garden or Applebees?  Sadly, only a few Olive Gardens have Gluten Free noodles, and those are usually of the lowest quality so far as I have found (Debolls, ugh ), but Applebee's Gluten Free Options are slim to none.

Why does this matter to a discussion on the history of D&D, and the need for people to put aside differences and just play the god damned game?  It doesn't.  But apparently, that discussion cannot be currrently resolved peacefully (kind of like peace in the Middle East), so I went back to the value of restaurants in relation to what I can eat.

Neither. Benihana's for life!

Mar 2, 2011 -- 4:43PM, blazian wrote:

Mar 2, 2011 -- 9:17AM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 2, 2011 -- 6:39AM, Seeker95 wrote:

No more feeding please. Pretty please. With ochre jelly on top. 

(I can't resist checking what might have been added by someone speaking reasonably.)

So, Olive Garden or Applebees?  Sadly, only a few Olive Gardens have Gluten Free noodles, and those are usually of the lowest quality so far as I have found (Debolls, ugh ), but Applebee's Gluten Free Options are slim to none.

Why does this matter to a discussion on the history of D&D, and the need for people to put aside differences and just play the god damned game?  It doesn't.  But apparently, that discussion cannot be currrently resolved peacefully (kind of like peace in the Middle East), so I went back to the value of restaurants in relation to what I can eat.

Neither. Benihana's for life!

Unfortunately, soy sauce is made with wheat.

Also, I am allergic to nuts and I seem not to be able to process alcohol or red meat.

In a not unrelated note, I usually eat at home.

On the note of interesting food facts:

Did you know that Oreo cookies are vegan-friendly?  There is not a single bit of animal related content in an Oreo, including the "cream".

Well, to be frank, I don't have a problem with 4th edition. It's a solid game that some love and some don't, I'm on the 'don't' end of the spectrum. I've played, I've DM'd and in the end it just wasn't for me. All the books that came out made it feel like too much of an investment for my collector mentality and the system itself just didn't grow on me.

What irked me was the transition. How the cancellation of my favorite magazines was handled, how people were kept in the dark, and how the advertising campaign was downright dismissive towards people who liked 3.5. Personally I think Wizards fumbled that bit, second edition was in painful need of an overhaul when Wizards took over, the internet wasn't quite as strong during that changeover, and the industry was in need of the revolution that the d20 license provided. The way Wizards moved towards 4th edition didn't strike me as quiet confidence as much as it felt like 'to hell with you if you actually liked 3.5'. Sure that's not what was said but as a fan of the game since 2nd edition it kind of hurt to have a company feel so blatantly like they didn't give a damn.

I'm not going to boycott wizards, hell, I love the map tiles and think they're one of the best and most afordable gaming products out there. The essentials line might be something I pick up when I move should I join a friends gaming group who pretty much do 4th edition (though I'm going to hunt for Savage Worlds myself, seems to be a system that's right up my alley). As for this call for unity? It was well written, to be sure, but I think it came a year or so too late, and quite honestly: these are RPG's, not the USA's silly little bipartisan squabbles :P

3.5's Descendants (Pathfinder, True 20 etc) and 4e are two very different games mechanically, both with their merits and flaws, I think at this point all the division is really over a matter of preference rather than any real ongoing hostilities. Whenever 5th edition shows up I might check it out, until then I'll stick with my other RPG's and maybe enjoy some 4th for some 'light' gaming should I have a free wednesday to make it to the FLGS. 

Anyway, slightly bitter, sure, hard feelings? Nah. I have other things to worry about than what I dislike about system X as opposed to system Y.

Happy Gaming
Doom. 

Mar 7, 2011 -- 1:30AM, Devilofroses wrote:

3.5's Descendants (Pathfinder, True 20 etc) and 4e are two very different games mechanically, both with their merits and flaws, I think at this point all the division is really over a matter of preference rather than any real ongoing hostilities. Whenever 5th edition shows up I might check it out, until then I'll stick with my other RPG's and maybe enjoy some 4th for some 'light' gaming should I have a free wednesday to make it to the FLGS.

They also converge in many ways, with at-wills and dailies available to martial characters in Pathfinder.