|
7 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 1:25PM
#181
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2004
|
I happen to very much LIKE 4th ed over 3rd and 3.5. But then 4th brought a lot of changes over the older edition, love it or hate it the game changed in a different direction not taken before in a lot of ways. Never played AD&D or 2nd so I can’t comment but my point still stands. What’s the point of going backwards in a new edition rather then forwards? And that’s really the core of my gripe with D&D next. They should just call it D&D Past and be done with it.
Also no bloody dragonborn so far. Sadface 
The point is that D&D lost a massive amount of market share. D&D was the dominant RPG for decades, to the point where the majority of people who played RPGs had played only D&D. With 4th edition, they lost massive amounts of market share in the span of a few years.
WOTC wants the market share back, that market share is playing a game much more similiar to earlier editions. Which clearly indicates they want a product that is similiar to earlier editions.
Building on 4th edition isn't going to get them the market share back, people have already made their decision regarding it.
You're welcome to be angry about that, but that's the opinion capitalism has demonstrated the market holds. Being deragoratory about that opinion isn't going to change it.
Additionally, we can extend your arguement to other forms of media. The Star Wars prequels are markedly different from the Original Star Wars. Your arguement, extended to Star Wars, means that Disney shouldn't try to make the upcoming trilogy like the Original Star Wars, they should try to make it like the Prequels, because making it like the Originals is going backwards. But here again is a situation where the market has made it evident they preferred the original style over the updated style, and it is evident that trying to push the updated style is very likely going to harm the product and it's future value.
It's the same thing with D&D. If they want to succeed, they're going to need to build on pre-4th edition, or the market that passed on 4th edition will pass on 5th edition and ultimately D&D will not reach it's goals.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 1:30PM
#182
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />The point is that D&D lost a massive amount of market share. D&D was the dominant RPG for decades, to the point where the majority of people who played RPGs had played only D&D. With 4th edition, they lost massive amounts of market share in the span of a few years.
WOTC wants the market share back, that market share is playing a game much more similiar to earlier editions. Which clearly indicates they want a product that is similiar to earlier editions.
Building on 4th edition isn't going to get them the market share back, people have already made their decision regarding it.
4E lost market share, but it also took market share. A big part of the D&D market share is now 4E, and its going to stay that way. 4E needs a place in 5E just the same as pre-4E. People preferring how 4E does things isn't going to go away just because some wish it would.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 1:37PM
#183
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
It's the same thing with D&D. If they want to succeed, they're going to need to build on pre-4th edition, or the market that passed on 4th edition will pass on 5th edition and ultimately D&D will not reach it's goals.
That is an incomplete and thus inaccurate analysis. 4E (and honestly the OGL keeping 3.5 alive) fractured the market. There is no way that Hasbro can reach it's target if it DOES throw the 4E part of the fanbase (and the only ones currently Wotc's customers) under the bus. Frankly I don't think there is any single game that can.
-Polaris
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 4:48PM
#184
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
It's the same thing with D&D. If they want to succeed, they're going to need to build on pre-4th edition, or the market that passed on 4th edition will pass on 5th edition and ultimately D&D will not reach it's goals.
That is an incomplete and thus inaccurate analysis. 4E (and honestly the OGL keeping 3.5 alive) fractured the market. There is no way that Hasbro can reach it's target if it DOES throw the 4E part of the fanbase (and the only ones currently Wotc's customers) under the bus. Frankly I don't think there is any single game that can.
At this point, all the developers can do is try to make the best game they can, learning from the mistakes of each edition.
Worrying about crap like appeasing fans of certain editions is only going to end in failure. The problem is that if people want to play 4E, 3E or AD&D, there's nothing stopping them. To get them to convert, you must offer something better.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 5:23PM
#185
|
|
|
It's the same thing with D&D. If they want to succeed, they're going to need to build on pre-4th edition, or the market that passed on 4th edition will pass on 5th edition and ultimately D&D will not reach it's goals.
That is an incomplete and thus inaccurate analysis. 4E (and honestly the OGL keeping 3.5 alive) fractured the market. There is no way that Hasbro can reach it's target if it DOES throw the 4E part of the fanbase (and the only ones currently Wotc's customers) under the bus. Frankly I don't think there is any single game that can.
At this point, all the developers can do is try to make the best game they can, learning from the mistakes of each edition.
Worrying about crap like appeasing fans of certain editions is only going to end in failure. The problem is that if people want to play 4E, 3E or AD&D, there's nothing stopping them. To get them to convert, you must offer something better.
Not that I'm disagreeing, but isn't that where the problem lies, it isn't better or even different in a meaningful way. Why can't I get anyone and I mean anyone to play-test this game, especially since where I live there is a lot of 4e and pathfinder players.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 6:19PM
#186
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2004
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />The point is that D&D lost a massive amount of market share. D&D was the dominant RPG for decades, to the point where the majority of people who played RPGs had played only D&D. With 4th edition, they lost massive amounts of market share in the span of a few years.
WOTC wants the market share back, that market share is playing a game much more similiar to earlier editions. Which clearly indicates they want a product that is similiar to earlier editions.
Building on 4th edition isn't going to get them the market share back, people have already made their decision regarding it.
4E lost market share, but it also took market share. A big part of the D&D market share is now 4E, and its going to stay that way. 4E needs a place in 5E just the same as pre-4E. People preferring how 4E does things isn't going to go away just because some wish it would.
That is an incomplete and thus inaccurate analysis. 4E (and honestly the OGL keeping 3.5 alive) fractured the market. There is no way that Hasbro can reach it's target if it DOES throw the 4E part of the fanbase (and the only ones currently Wotc's customers) under the bus. Frankly I don't think there is any single game that can.
-Polaris
Let n = the total market prior to 4e's release. Post release, n became...
X - The total number of people who migrated to 4e
Y - The total number of people who migrated to Pathfinder
Z - The total number of people who lapsed due to 4e and/or remained with previous editions
How big is X?
I suspect that the value of X is overestimated. As evidence, I give you the complete lack of 4th edition based CRPG's. If the value of X was large, the property wouldn't have been dropped from video gaming. Until 4th edition's release, Dungeons and Dragons was in the top 5 most valueable video gaming properties, with a guaranteed return on investment. The other Industries didn't avoid the property because the value of X is large.
Not that I'm disagreeing, but isn't that where the problem lies, it isn't better or even different in a meaningful way. Why can't I get anyone and I mean anyone to play-test this game, especially since where I live there is a lot of 4e and pathfinder players.
An RPG is an investment, the DM's and Players become invested. A playtest means that you're not really telling a narrative or progressing a character, you're just, well, testing. It's not surprising that people aren't interested in a beta product.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 8:19PM
#187
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
I suspect that the value of X is overestimated. As evidence, I give you the complete lack of 4th edition based CRPG's. If the value of X was large, the property wouldn't have been dropped from video gaming. Until 4th edition's release, Dungeons and Dragons was in the top 5 most valueable video gaming properties, with a guaranteed return on investment. The other Industries didn't avoid the property because the value of X is large.
Actually, the reason there were no CRPG's is because Atari had been sitting on the license letting it go stagnant for a long time. That is why WotC sued them and won the rights back.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 8:27PM
#188
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
Is now a bad time to bring up the class-based AC bonus by level from Unearthed Arcana in 3e? Or the standard class-based defense bonus in Star Wars D20RPG, which is basically the same thing?
Honestly, something like that would work wonders for my acceptance of Next. Even if they kept it bounded, by giving people a static class-based AC bonus instead of AC from armor, it's exactly the kind of minor concessions toward reasonability that would convince me that they intended to make a better game.
Does armor then become significant as a source of Damage Reduction? Or what do we do with armor to make it meaningful at that point?
I'm intrigued by the idea, but it makes me do math, which is an auto-grievance. 
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 8:31PM
#189
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Actually, the reason there were no CRPG's is because Atari had been sitting on the license letting it go stagnant for a long time. That is why WotC sued them and won the rights back.
Oh? I didn't hear about this.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 8:32PM
#190
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2008
|
what the heck is "DM may I" The heavy reliance on DM Fiat. Playing "DM may I" is no way to release a game.
Fluff and mechanics intertwined in the classes. It seems like classes that DDN feels have a poor identity get new fluff stuck onto them and that new fluff used to justify a radical redirection of the class.
Modules, modules, modules. Advanced modules that don't automatically assume gridded combat, 2E Skills and Powers point buys, and casting modules allowing different casting styles of the same class to coexist in harmony at the same table are all needed before I buy DDN.
Balancing around the "day" is old and busted. We need new hotness.
Alignment needs to made completely optional to the point of not even being mentioned in any class section.
Feats need to be more like feats. As it stands they are completely lackluster. They also need ability, level, and class prerequisites removed completely.
Monster recharges just need to go away. They are a crutch tacked on to monsters that can't be made unique or challenging enough in their own right, and such lazy design can't be good for the game as a whole.
|
|
|
