TheRPGSite

Maybe it´s just me who can´t believe they are serious about 4e. But maybe there´s more to it.

Some of the designer blogs are posting ridiculous shit, that suggests they are total douchebags, lacking any sense of proportion or are totally on the 4e bandwagon and cannot see why anyone would be wary about 4e.

But somehow I think several of them crossed a thin line. Like posting pictures with Laser-equipped sharks to show the awesome of 4e.

Or take mearls: He said "on-air", that after havong played 4e, he never ever wants to play 3e again. But what is he actually doing? Right, playing OD&D! At WotC, nonetheless!
And posting Ronny-fied old school DMing techniques ("bangs", formerly known as non-boring DMing), advocating THE FLUMPH (showing his growing appreciation of the old school way of things), or promoting "Fight On!".

Johnathan Tweet is talking about feminism, others are talking about anything EXCEPT 4e.

So, they could still be a bunch of people willfully and gleefully leading the game into new directions, who totally suck at PR.

Or they could be crying for help, from their Seattle Dungeon!

EDIT: Forget it. It's really not worth it.

They aren't. But do carry on, this has the potential of turning entertaining. :popcorn:

That would be hilarious... a grand scheme of the designers to intentionally sabotage a corporately mandated new edition.

Far-fetched, but hilarious. :)

Just think about this sentence

Quote from: Settembrinilacking any sense of proportion

very carefully.

That's all.

Quote from: SettembriniLike posting pictures with Laser-equipped sharks to show the awesome of 4e.

Where?

So, Settembrini, how do you feel about fouth edition D&D? Pretty exciting, hey?

Someone told me that they delivered the pods to Hasbro well before 4E was announced.

Regards,
David R

Sett, I think you are reading too much in too little... they might not talk about 4e on purpose, because they are not allowed to talk about some parts of it, because it is still not out there. Because that's how their marketing goes.

I seriously doubt, they would design something they actually don't want to play and are not currently playing. What I expect though, is that the period when they become tired and bored with the system (as they currently are with 3E) will be shorter. And I mean significantly shorter.

My current view of 4E is that it indeed has deep gulp of "Ronnishness" in it. Which might not be as bad per se, but somehow I expect great yet short boom followed by quick disillusionment and than 5E. I feel somewhat alienated by this outcome already although I am going to try it anyway.

Quote from: JimLotFPThat would be hilarious... a grand scheme of the designers to intentionally sabotage a corporately mandated new edition.

Far-fetched, but hilarious. :)

Well if history is repeated, 75% of the developers will be fired shortly after the release of the new edition.

Settembrini, have you been sneaking your father's cabinet key and drinking the Bärenjäger again?

Quote from: SettembriniBut somehow I think several of them crossed a thin line. Like posting pictures with Laser-equipped sharks to show the awesome of 4e.

Laser equipped sharks can't save 4e, but I certainly want this:

(http://www.kiddiwinks.co.za/catalog/images/8633-1.jpg)

:cool:

I'm not thrilled with the way 4E is shaping up, but I find it a bit hard to believe that Mearls & Co have accepted their thirty pieces of silver and crucified D&D to become the Fantasy Heartbreaker that Ron Edwards has always said it was.

Oh dear, can someone pleae increase Sett's dosage ASAP. :rolleyes:

Quote from: jeff37923that Ron Edwards has always said it was.

?

Quote from: AlnagSett, I think you are reading too much in too little...

You can add that to most of his threads. The rest of his threads are setting up contrived definitions or scenarios and then railing at anyone who refuses to agree with him.

Quote from: Or take mearls: He said "on-air", that after havong played 4e, he never ever wants to play 3e again. But what is he actually doing? Right, playing OD&D! At WotC, nonetheless![/QUOTEUm, those aren't inconsistent positions.  He said OD&D was very different to 4e, a different sort of fun.  So, 3e is not as good as 4e at one kind of fun, OD&D provides a different sort of fun to both.

Makes sense to me.

Regarding the laser-sharks, can I put class and creature templates over those?  For example, can I have a Half-Celestial Laser-Shark?  Because if not, I'll have to boycott 4e.

< doubling your fun with a double post >

Quote from: BalbinusUm, those aren't inconsistent positions.  He said OD&D was very different to 4e, a different sort of fun.  So, 3e is not as good as 4e at one kind of fun, OD&D provides a different sort of fun to both.

I wonder if this isn't a position lots of people will take. 4E sounds like the sort of game which could potentially be very polarising: people who like all the D&D features and tropes junked will reflexively scurry back to AD&D 1E and B/X and OD&D as a reaction to that, whereas people keen on reengineering the D&D system will seize on 4E as the next bold step, and look down on 3E as a poor, sad hybrid, trying to be innovative whilst at the same time clutching to elements which were jettisoned with 4E.

Once 4E comes out, the D20 Haven and Pathfinder crowd had better take a good look at it and try to come up with an answer to the question "Why play 3E rather than AD&D, B/X, BECMI, OD&D or 4E?" The guys on Dragonsfoot can doubtless provide a bunch of arguments as to why they prefer the approach in the various versions of D&D they cover; the 4E fans will probably have their own views on the subject. If the 3.X grognards really want their edition to survive, they need to take a good look at it and give a compelling argument that it can provide something which simply isn't supported to the same extent in 4E or in earlier editions. So far, I'm not sure that I've seen that.

Quote from: 1of3Where?

:ditto: :wtfsign: :pics:

Caesar Slaad provides an excellent start. Now let's have some links! Or is the picture our roman frog gave the picture in question?

Quote from: AlnagMy current view of 4E is that it indeed has deep gulp of "Ronnishness" in it. Which might not be as bad per se, but somehow I expect great yet short boom followed by quick disillusionment and than 5E. I feel somewhat alienated by this outcome already although I am going to try it anyway.

Yep.

In so many ways, 4e is destined to be the new 2e.

Quote from: WarthurOnce 4E comes out, the D20 Haven and Pathfinder crowd had better take a good look at it and try to come up with an answer to the question "Why play 3E rather than AD&D, B/X, BECMI, OD&D or 4E?" The guys on Dragonsfoot can doubtless provide a bunch of arguments as to why they prefer the approach in the various versions of D&D they cover; the 4E fans will probably have their own views on the subject. If the 3.X grognards really want their edition to survive, they need to take a good look at it and give a compelling argument that it can provide something which simply isn't supported to the same extent in 4E or in earlier editions. So far, I'm not sure that I've seen that.

Wow - a mention! Thanks!

And don't think it isn't on my mind. Perhaps not in the way you mean it. But here's the thing - 3e ain't perfect, IMHO. The question isn't about that. One of the beauties, however, is that the OGL means we can have a thriving discussion about how different people would make their own next version. If you have a moment, take a look at J Arcane and I discussing very different views on feats (without vitriol!).

Nonetheless - thanks for the mention; I'm truly honored even if it was an afterthought!

Quote from: Dwight:ditto: :wtfsign: :pics:

(http://www.me-thinks.com/pix/shark.jpg)


and his dread enemy!:-


(http://www.dingogames.com/dolphin/graphics/titlescreen.jpg)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron(http://www.dingogames.com/dolphin/graphics/titlescreen.jpg)

"Play Game"? "Options"? "Quit"?

4e really DOES want to be a computer game!!!!!!1

Quote from: James J SkachWow - a mention! Thanks!

And don't think it isn't on my mind. Perhaps not in the way you mean it. But here's the thing - 3e ain't perfect, IMHO. The question isn't about that. One of the beauties, however, is that the OGL means we can have a thriving discussion about how different people would make their own next version. If you have a moment, take a look at J Arcane and I discussing very different views on feats (without vitriol!).

Nonetheless - thanks for the mention; I'm truly honored even if it was an afterthought!

I mentioned you on the basis that D20 Haven seems to want to be the "Dragonsfoot" for 3.X, in the sense that it's a forum for people who enjoy 3.X-based games and don't want to convert to 4E and don't get what they want from earlier editions either (or at the very least least, have gaming itches which only 3.X can scratch), in the same way that Pathfinder seems to be trying to do what Castles & Crusades has done for 1E/2E AD&D - presented a tidied-up version of the rules with improvements.

The problem I foresee is that as more and more editions exist, the die-hard crowd gets more and more fragmented. The current edition of D&D will always have the advantage that it's the current edition, and I'd be inclined to suggest that barring truly grotesque mismanagement of the line it'll always be in the majority. Meanwhile, the die-hard crowd gets ever more finely-divided (Dragonsfoot, for instance, will never accept 3.X, and Knights-and-Knaves Alehouse even refuses to countenance discussion of B/X and BECMI D&D...).

Quote from: WarthurThe problem I foresee is that as more and more editions exist, the die-hard crowd gets more and more fragmented.

cf Traveller.

A figgin' anthropomorphic shark with a friggin' laser attached. :haw:

Quote from: AlnagSett, I think you are reading too much in too little... they might not talk about 4e on purpose, because they are not allowed to talk about some parts of it, because it is still not out there. Because that's how their marketing goes.

I seriously doubt, they would design something they actually don't want to play and are not currently playing. What I expect though, is that the period when they become tired and bored with the system (as they currently are with 3E) will be shorter. And I mean significantly shorter.

My current view of 4E is that it indeed has deep gulp of "Ronnishness" in it. Which might not be as bad per se, but somehow I expect great yet short boom followed by quick disillusionment and than 5E. I feel somewhat alienated by this outcome already although I am going to try it anyway.

I agree with this message. This is all. :)

Quote from: DwightA figgin' anthropomorphic shark with a friggin' laser attached. :haw:

Shark Attack! Nooooooo!~!1!#)$)*($)#@* Don't put my brain on this track you bastard!!! :haw:

Bill (now thinking about sharks with friggn' lasers attached)

Quote from: DwightA figgin' anthropomorphic shark with a friggin' laser attached. :haw:

What's even funnier is Sett seeing the post count on his thread and eagerly clicking himself in, expecting all kinds of po-faced debate about how this "designer conspiracy" finally reveals the dark truth at the heart of 4E. :D

Quote from: AlnagMy current view of 4E is that it indeed has deep gulp of "Ronnishness" in it. Which might not be as bad per se, but somehow I expect great yet short boom followed by quick disillusionment and than 5E. I feel somewhat alienated by this outcome already although I am going to try it anyway.

That's the problem with creating obsessive micro-games in the Forge style. If that's what 4e ends up being (an utterly "gamist" exercise in intentionally blocking out other styles of play because that's what the designers have come to believe D&D is "supposed" to be), then just like any of the crappy forge games, no one will be interested in it for more than a few sessions.  Maybe a few more than a typical Forge game, because at least the topic isn't some piece of artsy-fartsy boring-as-hell bullshit; and maybe a few more still just because its "D&D" (allegedly). But after that? People will start dropping it like flies.  

The WoW fans will still find that WoW is better for what they want.
Anyone who doesn't think of themselves as a "gamist" will leave it very quickly.
The online support will collapse because it will suck compared WoW, and none of its other features will make it worth the monthly fee.
And finally, even people who think of themselves as "gamists" will leave it, because NO ONE IS ACTUALLY JUST "gamist" or any of the other categories of GNS, because, and here's the really important part that Mearls seems to have forgotten: GNS IS MADE UP BULLSHIT.

So I don't know if that will mean 5e will come along quickly; but I am willing to put hard money into Hasbro making some massive overhauls (not necessarily good ones from the point of view of our hobby) within 1-2 years of the release (and subsequent disappointing results) of 4e.

RPGPundit

Quote from: AlnagMy current view of 4E is that it indeed has deep gulp of "Ronnishness" in it. Which might not be as bad per se, but somehow I expect great yet short boom followed by quick disillusionment and than 5E. I feel somewhat alienated by this outcome already although I am going to try it anyway.

I expect an inordinate amount of errata and clarification being required, then 4.5E. :rolleyes:

Quote from: WarthurI wonder if this isn't a position lots of people will take. 4E sounds like the sort of game which could potentially be very polarising: people who like all the D&D features and tropes junked will reflexively scurry back to AD&D 1E and B/X and OD&D as a reaction to that, whereas people keen on reengineering the D&D system will seize on 4E as the next bold step, and look down on 3E as a poor, sad hybrid, trying to be innovative whilst at the same time clutching to elements which were jettisoned with 4E.

Oh, I agree this is very likely. The company that will really clean up in the wake of the tectonic shift into crapulence that will be 4e is not the one that makes the best 3e clone. It will be whoever can produce a truly large-scale old-school Basic/1e D&D clone.
4e is going to relate to 3e in the sense that for half of those truly fanatical 3e-maniacs (maybe more than half) it will still be similar enough that will just play 4e, and for the other half (well, likely less than half) they will just keep on playing 3e with what they've got.
Whereas if you're not a 3e-fanboy as much as a D&D fanboy, 4e represents a final breach; a game that is no longer anything like that original game you identified with as D&D. So the argument (that you could still just barely make with 3e) that it was a more modern mechanical innovation that justified playing will no longer apply, and since 3e is going to be as dead a system as any of the others, they will flock to whatever game will come closest to giving them the real feeling of OLD D&D.

I only wish that Clash had a few Gs to put into promoting FtA!

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurI wonder if this isn't a position lots of people will take. 4E sounds like the sort of game which could potentially be very polarising.

Agreed. Well written indeed. I must admit, that I like 3E although I am bit tired with it lately. I wouldn't mind innovation actually (I like things from SW Saga Ed.) but somehow 4E is not the innovation I like (in general, there might a bits I like). So I am actually more looking forward to Pathfinder. I don't know how rest of the 3e people are but I feel Pathfinder to be more true to the traditon yet somewhat innovative and interesting than for 4e. And I still somehow can not belive that I am saying this. I really hoped 4e will be good, but more I see the worse it looks like.

Quote from: WarthurIf the 3.X grognards really want their edition to survive, they need to take a good look at it and give a compelling argument that it can provide something which simply isn't supported to the same extent in 4E or in earlier editions. So far, I'm not sure that I've seen that.

My answer here might be similar as Pundit's. I like (in general) what 3.X generation offers. Lot of freedom, easy yet complex system and wide variety of game. It is modern with traditional feeling. I don't like previous and probably nor following editions. I still don't mind innovation inside of 3e though. I am grognard? Don't know. Do I need 3e to survive. I doubt it. I really heaven't played D&D in long term manner for three years now. I play other D20 games though. And I see their relation to 3e. And I am really pissed that 4e will kill those and take their stuff...

Quote from: RPGPunditsince 3e is going to be as dead a system as any of the others, they will flock to whatever game will come closest to giving them the real feeling of OLD D&D.

RPGPundit

My tentative vote goes to the new Hackmaster edition.

An argument for playing 3.x instead of 4.0?  

How about this- they already have a bookcase full of books and don't see the need to buy more.

Of course some people won't care about monetary considerations, but I could see a lot of DMs being happy to stick the with books they've already invested in if they're enjoying the game.

Of course going back to older versions, this isn't much of an issue.  You can pick up copies of the B/X for a few dollars on amazon, or Labyrnith Lord for free.  AD&D books are readily available and cheap as well.

Quote from: WarthurOnce 4E comes out, the D20 Haven and Pathfinder crowd had better take a good look at it and try to come up with an answer to the question "Why play 3E rather than AD&D, B/X, BECMI, OD&D or 4E?" The guys on Dragonsfoot can doubtless provide a bunch of arguments as to why they prefer the approach in the various versions of D&D they cover; the 4E fans will probably have their own views on the subject. If the 3.X grognards really want their edition to survive, they need to take a good look at it and give a compelling argument that it can provide something which simply isn't supported to the same extent in 4E or in earlier editions. So far, I'm not sure that I've seen that.

I'm not sure why this is really necessary or helpful.

I do feel that fans of obscure games get the benefit of pimping their games... because they have an audience that may not have heard of their game and happen to want what it has to offer. Few people aren't aware of what 3e are that have any interest in it. At best, I can see a little anti-defamation against smack talk (of which there is plenty).

But the likes of dragonsfoot? That's just a mutual backpatting club that I imagine convinces anyone of anything other than convincing themselves of their own superiority.

I've already put forth what I like about it over on d20haven, but I don't expect that to convince anyone who isn't looking for the same thing.

On the fanbases of games being fragmented due to an excess of editions...

Quote from: Kyle Aaroncf Traveller.

All I can say is damn straight.

I tell a lie: there's more that I can say. Let's take a look at the development of Traveller and see if we can draw some parallels...

So, you had Classic Traveller, and you had some third party products from that developed via licensing. It sold insane numbers (would you believe over 100,000 copies of the core rules, in various formats? The statistics are all there in the Far Future Enterprises reprints...).

Then you had Megatraveller, which at its heart was essentially a compilation and rationalisation of the Classic Traveller rules (like the AD&D to CT's OD&D). I don't have sales figures for it, but it seemed to be big enough to attract some third party support, and it had a computer game made out of it back when it was reasonably rare for non-D&D RPGs to get such games. (Come to think of it, it's still somewhat rare). Looks like a successful edition-shift to me: certainly, I'm not aware of any major controversies in the Traveller fandom over the change.

Ah, but then we get to Traveller: the New Era. Radically different system, major changes to the basic assumptions of the setting. Fan outrage, no third-party support that I'm aware of. Then GDW died and there was no in-print version of Traveller for a while.

Then you have T4, which didn't really take off (lots of people found it badly-edited, and didn't like the tweaks to the CT/MT system), but at least got third-party support (BITS started up in this era, for example).

But then, oh man, it gets confusing. With no in-print version of Traveller extant, Miller gives the nod to SJG to make GURPS Traveller, which is pretty successful - GURPS fans like it, Traveller fans who didn't like the Imperium breaking up in MT like it, fair enough.

But then there's T20... and there's HERO Traveller... and there's the reprint series from FFE... and there's the LBB reprint from those guys... and we've got T5 coming down the pipe from Mr Miller... and Mongoose are going to bring out MongTrav soon (perhaps - their release schedule is looking awfully attenuated, with some supplements now four months behind the initial release date; they claim the core book is coming out this month, but I'll believe it when I see it in stores).

The problem with Traveller, then, as I see it:

1: Numerous extant editions, all of which get to use the "Traveller" trademark for maximum recognisability, directly competing against one another (especially with the core books: I could see people using a few T20 supplements in GURPS Traveller, but not the core book).

2: Two periods (one, after TNE, pretty extensive as I recall) during which there was no in-print edition of Traveller at all, with the upshot that the core fanbase has become accustomed to using old rules with no current products supporting them. Once you get into the groove of doing that, it's much easier to simply ignore the current edition and plough on regardless.

3: Two distinct visions of the "official" Traveller, T5 and MongTrav, being developed at the same time, pretty much guaranteeing a split even in the hard core who prefer CT-derived systems.

So, how much of this applies to D&D? Point 2 doesn't apply; D&D has never been unavailable in stores. Nor does 3. The closest is 1; even though the D&D trademark isn't shared, I'm sure most people who follow gaming know that "OGL" often translates to "D20/D&D". The disadvantage that D&D has is that it has even more old "official" editions than Traveller has - especially when you consider that D&D never had a widely-rejected edition like TNE.

Quote from: RPGPunditOh, I agree this is very likely. The company that will really clean up in the wake of the tectonic shift into crapulence that will be 4e is not the one that makes the best 3e clone. It will be whoever can produce a truly large-scale old-school Basic/1e D&D clone.

Screw that noise. When a lamer edition of D&D comes out, people will go looking for something that isn't D&D. Like back when White Wolf was all big and shit. I'm looking for some third party science fiction competitor.

Quote4e is going to relate to 3e in the sense that for half of those truly fanatical 3e-maniacs (maybe more than half) it will still be similar enough that will just play 4e, and for the other half (well, likely less than half) they will just keep on playing 3e with what they've got.

Know any uber-fans of 3e? I assure you, they're not particularly happy about some of these developments either. I know all of one guy who's planning on switching right away, and he's the guy that runs the super high-level games, so I figure he's got an excuse.


Anyway, I don't think 4e will fail or anything, but I think 3x has at least a couple years yet before it fades out as much as the other systems have.

As for the OP... yes. A bunch of designers got together and decided "hey, let's make a shitty game that no one will play, and force everybody to buy it." Then they spent... what? six years and a couple thousand dollars to develop it? wurst conspiracy evar.

Quote from: WarthurThe problem I foresee is that as more and more editions exist, the die-hard crowd gets more and more fragmented.

Whereas with fewer editions the ageing fanbase continues to stagnate, to the point where even considering a new version is tantamount to heresy.

cf. Palladium ;)

Quote from: beejazzAs for the OP... yes. A bunch of designers got together and decided "hey, let's make a shitty game that no one will play, and force everybody to buy it." Then they spent... what? six years and a couple thousand dollars to develop it? wurst conspiracy evar.

Yep, I agree.  Worst  Tin-Foil conspiracy ever.

I predict that 4E will be very successful and prove Sett and the Pundit wrong.

I could be wrong, but it does have the D&D name attached to it and that makes a great deal of difference.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityMy tentative vote goes to the new Hackmaster edition.

I think Kenzer is shooting themselves in the foot in an even bigger way then before: you see, their new edition, they've already stated, is NOT going to be based on D&D.  So just at the moment where they could have made the game that everyone who feels 4e isn't D&D could have flocked to, they're saying "no, we're going to create our own house system that has fuck all to do with D&D".

Idiots.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think Kenzer is shooting themselves in the foot in an even bigger way then before: you see, their new edition, they've already stated, is NOT going to be based on D&D.  So just at the moment where they could have made the game that everyone who feels 4e isn't D&D could have flocked to, they're saying "no, we're going to create our own house system that has fuck all to do with D&D".

Idiots.

RPGPundit

I have to agree.  Paizo is smart enough to create something that could attact those people who feel 4E is not for them and Kenzer should have followed that example.

But you have to remember, most game companies are run by gamers and not businessmen.

To what extent has this been Kenzer's choice, though? Thanks to The Great CD-ROM Debacle they had a very special license, and that expired. No?

And now they're speculating there might yet be sufficient interest in a non-D&D fantasy RPG with high production values, professional editing and rock solid playtests. I'm not going to call them fools for that.

Quote from: Warthur2: Two periods (one, after TNE, pretty extensive as I recall) during which there was no in-print edition of Traveller at all, with the upshot that the core fanbase has become accustomed to using old rules with no current products supporting them. Once you get into the groove of doing that, it's much easier to simply ignore the current edition and plough on regardless.

The TNE to T4 one wasn't actually that long.  The last new TNE product was released in '95, (GDW officially collapsed early the next year, but released no products that I know of for any of their lines after '95), and the first T4 product came out in '96.

T4 to GT was even shorter, with T4 stopping publication in '98 and GT starting publication the same year.

That said: yes, it's horribly fragmented.  The Mongoose and T5 split is making things even more confusing for people, given that the information on just how similar the two are is muddled to put it mildly.

Then again, I also don't expect to see an official release of T5 anytime soon.  (Unless I'm wrong and they actually hit the Mar. 31st release date for the PDF/CD that they have listed on their website.)

Quote from: Pierce InverarityTo what extent has this been Kenzer's choice, though? Thanks to The Great CD-ROM Debacle they had a very special license, and that expired. No?

Yeah, their licence expired last summer -- hence why you can't even buy the HackMaster core rules from them anymore.

Quote from: g026rYeah, their licence expired last summer -- hence why you can't even buy the HackMaster core rules from them anymore.

Yes, but nothing at all would stop them from producing a game that while not visually imitative of the 1e AD&D handbooks was basically the exact same rules; you can't copyright rules. Any major company that wanted to could put out a D&D clone.

RPGPundit

You can't copyright mechanics. You can copyright rules text. Once you get tables involved my understanding is that you'll have to mess with the mechanics a bit too. You also end up with some iconic stuff like the name "Bag of Holding" (it's been a while since I read Hackmaster, they actually use the name right? ) biting the dust.

Quote from: DwightYou can't copyright mechanics. You can copyright rules text. Once you get tables involved my understanding is that you'll have to mess with the mechanics a bit too. You also end up with some iconic stuff like the name "Bag of Holding" (it's been a while since I read Hackmaster, they actually use the name right? ) biting the dust.

Personally, "Bottomless Bag" sounds cooler.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but nothing at all would stop them from producing a game that while not visually imitative of the 1e AD&D handbooks was basically the exact same rules; you can't copyright rules. Any major company that wanted to could put out a D&D clone.

RPGPundit

And you know what that would be?

It would be slightly lame.

Hackmaster already did it. That means it's done. Finis. It's fun the first time around, dull when repeated.

This 1E fan wouldn't buy it.

You yourself designed your own game instead of pulling an OSRIC.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThanks to The Great CD-ROM Debacle they had a very special license, and that expired.

What's the Great CD-ROM Debacle?

Seanchai

Kenzer comics were included on the Dragon CD-ROM, without clearing copyright before it was published. Kenzer got the license as a trade-off.

Quote from: Mike S.Paizo is smart enough to create something that could attact those people who feel 4E is not for them and Kenzer should have followed that example.

True, but to what degree is Pathfinder going to be based on D&D? It sounds like it's getting farther and farther away from 3.5 as the playtest progresses.

Seanchai

Quote from: Pierce InverarityKenzer comics were included on the Dragon CD-ROM, without clearing copyright before it was published. Kenzer got the license as a trade-off.

Ah. Bad WotC! Bad WotC!

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiTrue, but to what degree is Pathfinder going to be based on D&D? It sounds like it's getting farther and farther away from 3.5 as the playtest progresses.
 
Seanchai

Actually, It looks more like it started a little ways away and is moving closer.  Jacobs, the editor of the pathfinder line, has stated that the alpha rules have some odd things thrown in there to see how people react.  Version 1.1 already has some things toned down.

Quote from: SeanchaiAh. Bad WotC! Bad WotC!

Seanchai

No, dumb WOTC.

Quote from: NicephorusActually, It looks more like it started a little ways away and is moving closer.  Jacobs, the editor of the pathfinder line, has stated that the alpha rules have some odd things thrown in there to see how people react.  Version 1.1 already has some things toned down.

Yep. The dumb combat maneuver thing is gone, and skill ranks are back (albeit with a bit of streamlining.)

Quote from: SeanchaiTrue, but to what degree is Pathfinder going to be based on D&D? It sounds like it's getting farther and farther away from 3.5 as the playtest progresses.

Seanchai

To be honest, I have only  heard about Pathfinder, I havent kept up with it nor have I downloaded the test copy or whatever so I am hardly an expert on the topic.

The reason I brought it up was because it sounded like that was the direction they were going with pathfinder, a fantasy game for people  who don't thing D&D 4E is right for them

Quote from: WarthurThe problem I foresee is that as more and more editions exist, the die-hard crowd gets more and more fragmented. The current edition of D&D will always have the advantage that it's the current edition, and I'd be inclined to suggest that barring truly grotesque mismanagement of the line it'll always be in the majority. Meanwhile, the die-hard crowd gets ever more finely-divided (Dragonsfoot, for instance, will never accept 3.X, and Knights-and-Knaves Alehouse even refuses to countenance discussion of B/X and BECMI D&D...).

Indeed. That's why I roll my eyes at stuff like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord. How small can you slice that pie until each piece is 40 guys who hang out on a website together?

Furthermore, how much do official D&D publishers rely on die-hards buying books? From what I've seen on the Necromancer Games board over the last 7 years, a lot of people who bought their 3.x books actually played earlier editions of D&D. And they were one of the bigger third-party publishers. Will 4E be suitable for this kind of conversion? How many die-hards can WotC afford to shed from an already shrinking market?

Quote from: HaffrungIndeed. That's why I roll my eyes at stuff like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord. How small can you slice that pie until each piece is 40 guys who hang out on a website together?

Each of those is designed to allow publishing of new stuff for the old game. They're trying to make the pie bigger, not slice it. (whether they succeed or not is another matter)... if only "OSRIC people" are buying OSRIC stuff, and general 1E players are not, something's wrong.

Quote"Why play 3E rather than AD&D, B/X, BECMI, OD&D or 4E?"

I know it's hard for all the Internet wangrods on sites like this one or RPGnet, or even ENWorld to believe, but there are people who actually like 3e.

I know, "GASP!"  It sure surprised me too.  I just assumed all those bazillions of 3e books were just an elaborate ruse, some kind of mass scale embezzlement job or something.

Quote from: J ArcaneI know, "GASP!"  It sure surprised me too.  I just assumed all those bazillions of 3e books were just an elaborate ruse, some kind of mass scale embezzlement job or something.

No, no, you've got it all wrong. It's a conspiracy.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd you know what that would be?

It would be slightly lame.

Hackmaster already did it. That means it's done. Finis. It's fun the first time around, dull when repeated.

This 1E fan wouldn't buy it.

You yourself designed your own game instead of pulling an OSRIC.

Well, in the postmodern era you aren't allowed to create anything new and original, because that would be swinery...

Quote from: NicephorusActually, It looks more like it started a little ways away and is moving closer.  Jacobs, the editor of the pathfinder line, has stated that the alpha rules have some odd things thrown in there to see how people react.  Version 1.1 already has some things toned down.

Shrug. I only skimmed the first release and haven't seen the second, but it sounds like there are now point pools for some things, bloodlines, classes are different, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPunditI think Kenzer is shooting themselves in the foot in an even bigger way then before: you see, their new edition, they've already stated, is NOT going to be based on D&D.  So just at the moment where they could have made the game that everyone who feels 4e isn't D&D could have flocked to, they're saying "no, we're going to create our own house system that has fuck all to do with D&D".

Idiots.

They can't base it on D&D.  WotC pulled the license from them.

Sett's right on track.  I know I posted this over on the other thread, but it is very relevant here.  Check out their advertising strategy from this interview with Scott "Colin Powell" Rouse:

QuoteWe have a pretty significant campaign, with print, online as well as some TV advertising.  We're actually filming a TV spot in Seattle.  You may have seen the Beholder at Gen Con last year made an appearance in Seattle.  The shoot is a very fun, tongue-in-cheek, taking this obviously very fake monster (it's absolutely huge, it's 13 feet tall), and driving it around to generically iconic locations so the Beholder is at a city bus stop, it's going to go to a coffee shop, a games store, the beach, a farm and even makes an appearance at the roller derby and makes a big payoff for the spot: "On June 6th, 4th edition will be everywhere."  This will be running on some cable networks including G4 and Sci Fi.

So basically they will be poking fun at the very concept of D&D.  They hate and loathe D&D because they don't think its geek roots have any market validity (and they may be right).  Like Matt Snyder.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou yourself designed your own game instead of pulling an OSRIC.

Yes I did, and there'd certainly be room for that too. Personally, I'm hopeful that if only there would be some way to get the word out about FtA! in a bigger way than it has been so far, FtA!'s sales could go up after the advent of 4e.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SeanchaiAh. Bad WotC! Bad WotC!

Seanchai

Well, I think it ended up being of mutual benefit to both companies, in the end.

Frankly, I think its stupid that WoTC doesn't either publish "Classic" D&D or (more likely) give the license to do so to some lesser company that could do a good job of handling it.
The current mentality regarding "why would we want to encourage other companies to continue with 3e when we're totally behind 4e" might even make some slight sense when it comes to 3e, but at this point, really, both RC/Basic D&D and 1e AD&D are so utterly different than what they're planning with 4e that its not like it would really be any kind of a direct competition.  Many of the people who would buy products for a "Classic" version of the D&D game are the kind of people who'd never buy into 4e anyways, while there are also far more people who'd buy both.
They're missing out on an opportunity there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: walkerpSo basically they will be poking fun at the very concept of D&D.  They hate and loathe D&D because they don't think its geek roots have any market validity (and they may be right).  Like Matt Snyder.

I don't know, I'd have to see the finished ad before I passed this kind of judgment.  The outline the guy gave (of the Beholder being shot in all kinds of regular places) is actually something that sounds rather clever; and it doesn't sound like they'll be doing any particular mocking of earlier editions.

Never mind that I think that TV ads (on the right networks) are a really good move in general principle. If WoTC really wants to get new customers, they have to advertise somewhere outside of the internet and obscure gaming magazines.
The only pity seems to be that they didn't think of putting it on something like Nickelodeon or the Cartoon Network as well as the Sci-fi network.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditFrankly, I think its stupid that WoTC doesn't either publish "Classic" D&D or (more likely) give the license to do so to some lesser company that could do a good job of handling it.
The current mentality regarding "why would we want to encourage other companies to continue with 3e when we're totally behind 4e" might even make some slight sense when it comes to 3e, but at this point, really, both RC/Basic D&D and 1e AD&D are so utterly different than what they're planning with 4e that its not like it would really be any kind of a direct competition.  Many of the people who would buy products for a "Classic" version of the D&D game are the kind of people who'd never buy into 4e anyways, while there are also far more people who'd buy both.
They're missing out on an opportunity there.

RPGPundit

But that would show that WotC has a deeper understanding of the D&D brand name market then they have demonstrated.

Quote from: RPGPunditFrankly, I think its stupid that WoTC doesn't either publish "Classic" D&D or (more likely) give the license to do so to some lesser company that could do a good job of handling it.

If WotC recognized that people might legitimately prefer older editions of the game, they would have to admit that D&D is evolving in a different direction rather than simply making the same game better in every way. And they will not do that for fear of losing grognards.

As you have noted, the market for the different versions of D&D has become fragmented. However, WotC wants (needs?) the whole D&D market to buy its books.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but nothing at all would stop them from producing a game that while not visually imitative of the 1e AD&D handbooks was basically the exact same rules; you can't copyright rules. Any major company that wanted to could put out a D&D clone.

Maybe they're doing that but are being careful not to say that that is what they are doing, to avoid a legal confrontation with Wizards. I for one intend to wait until we actually see any details at all of the new HM system before I pass judgement on how similar it is (or isn't) to D&D.

Quote from: DwightYou can't copyright mechanics. You can copyright rules text. Once you get tables involved my understanding is that you'll have to mess with the mechanics a bit too.

Alternately, you find a different way of presenting the same table (or just provide the formula which the table is based on).

QuoteYou also end up with some iconic stuff like the name "Bag of Holding" (it's been a while since I read Hackmaster, they actually use the name right? ) biting the dust.

Is "Bag of Holding" a trademark?

Quote from: J ArcaneI know it's hard for all the Internet wangrods on sites like this one or RPGnet, or even ENWorld to believe, but there are people who actually like 3e.

I believe it. On the other hand "I just plain prefer 3E" isn't a particularly compelling argument when, say, 10 years down the line you're trying to convince some guy who's main experience is with 5th Edition to try your 3E campaign. Fans of OD&D, 1E AD&D, 2E AD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, and BECMI can all point to aspects of their favoured game and say "that's why I prefer this game over the current edition". Once 4E hits the shelves, 3E fans will need to be able to do the same if they're going to be able to establish a coherent online fan grouping.

Quote from: WarthurI believe it. On the other hand "I just plain prefer 3E" isn't a particularly compelling argument when, say, 10 years down the line you're trying to convince some guy who's main experience is with 5th Edition to try your 3E campaign. Fans of OD&D, 1E AD&D, 2E AD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, and BECMI can all point to aspects of their favoured game and say "that's why I prefer this game over the current edition". Once 4E hits the shelves, 3E fans will need to be able to do the same if they're going to be able to establish a coherent online fan grouping.

1. Mostly clean and consistent mechanics. A few exceptions, but those can be pretty easily modded.

2. Crunch heavy supplement line. If the classes, races, and feats aren't enough, there's plenty more where they came from. If the rules themselves need tweaking, the OGL has inspired countless imitators whose ideas you can lift.

3.Low setting low metaplot. My players and I make that shit up just fine. Not having some preexisting behemoth of a setting is a good thing for us.

Of course, you need no better excuse than "I cut my teeth on this. Running/playing it is second nature for me. I just can't say that for other games."

Quote from: RPGPunditThe only pity seems to be that they didn't think of putting it on something like Nickelodeon or the Cartoon Network as well as the Sci-fi network.

At least they are playing somewhat to the demographic.  My company's advertising is limited to ESPN (despite being a technology company) because "everybody loves sports".  Granted, it's worked out very well for us.  But I'm sure we're missing out on a lot of exposure to those potential customers who don't share our CEOs ex-Marine alpha male love of football and racing.  :D

Quote from: WarthurAlternately, you find a different way of presenting the same table (or just provide the formula which the table is based on).

Exactly. You have to change the mechanics somewhat. Even if it gives numerically the same answer.  That change in how you arrive at the same number can put the zap on people. *shrug*

Quote from: DwightExactly. You have to change the mechanics somewhat. Even if it gives numerically the same answer.  That change in how you arrive at the same number can put the zap on people. *shrug*

Quibble: if it gives you the same results, the mechanics have not changed, only the presentation.

Quote from: WarthurI believe it. On the other hand "I just plain prefer 3E" isn't a particularly compelling argument when, say, 10 years down the line you're trying to convince some guy who's main experience is with 5th Edition to try your 3E campaign. Fans of OD&D, 1E AD&D, 2E AD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, and BECMI can all point to aspects of their favoured game and say "that's why I prefer this game over the current edition". Once 4E hits the shelves, 3E fans will need to be able to do the same if they're going to be able to establish a coherent online fan grouping.

You don't think that a comparable number of people will? Hell, for no other reason than "I like my house rules of 3e and don't want to redo them for 4e". Or the other old standbys of "I don't want to learn new rules" or "I've got all these books".  Sure most of those people will eventually move on to 4e...just like before. But like before you'll get holdouts using the same reasoning.

Quote from: WarthurI believe it. On the other hand "I just plain prefer 3E" isn't a particularly compelling argument when, say, 10 years down the line you're trying to convince some guy who's main experience is with 5th Edition to try your 3E campaign. Fans of OD&D, 1E AD&D, 2E AD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, and BECMI can all point to aspects of their favoured game and say "that's why I prefer this game over the current edition". Once 4E hits the shelves, 3E fans will need to be able to do the same if they're going to be able to establish a coherent online fan grouping.

I´d say:

"We can play ALL the great old modules & settings from the days of good module and setting writers (<1990) PLUS you´ll be able to deck-build your character."

Quote from: WarthurQuibble: if it gives you the same results, the mechanics have not changed, only the presentation.

Yes, that is a [nigh meaningless] quibble over your choice of definition of 'mechanics'.

Except I don't know any commonly-held definition of "mechanics" in the RPG field which would regard differently-presented versions of the same rule as different mechanics.

Quote from: WarthurExcept I don't know any commonly-held definition of "mechanics" in the RPG field which would regard differently-presented versions of the same rule as different mechanics.

Table vs formula? *shrug* Ok then, have fun.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, I think it ended up being of mutual benefit to both companies, in the end.

Frankly, I think its stupid that WoTC doesn't either publish "Classic" D&D or (more likely) give the license to do so to some lesser company that could do a good job of handling it.
The current mentality regarding "why would we want to encourage other companies to continue with 3e when we're totally behind 4e" might even make some slight sense when it comes to 3e, but at this point, really, both RC/Basic D&D and 1e AD&D are so utterly different than what they're planning with 4e that its not like it would really be any kind of a direct competition.  Many of the people who would buy products for a "Classic" version of the D&D game are the kind of people who'd never buy into 4e anyways, while there are also far more people who'd buy both.
They're missing out on an opportunity there.

RPGPundit

For Christmas, I bought one of my coworkers the DVD collection of Hee Haw.

That's right.

For the record, he mentioned wanting it in a conversation in October.

I think the kids these days refer to it as the long tail...

Quote from: RPGPunditFrankly, I think its stupid that WoTC doesn't either publish "Classic" D&D or (more likely) give the license to do so to some lesser company that could do a good job of handling it.

Huh? They have licensed out the printing.....to a firm called Lexmark. At least that's what it says on the front of my printer. How about yours? HP perhaps?

Hell you can buy the entire set of OD&D books still. Just whip over to RPGNow.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou yourself designed your own game instead of pulling an OSRIC.

It's hard not to design your own game.

I was doing an OSRIC of classic Traveller. I was about two pages in before I started changing the rules to suit what I reckoned was good.

Try as you might, it's hard not to be at least a little bit original.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's hard not to design your own game.

I was doing an OSRIC of classic Traveller. I was about two pages in before I started changing the rules to suit what I reckoned was good.

Try as you might, it's hard not to be at least a little bit original.

This is true too, and there'd really be little point in just making a direct copy-paste of the old rules (for that, people might as well just buy PDFs of the originals).

The idea would be to make stuff that would be very close to the original, but perhaps better written, and with some of the less successful rules adjusted.   Castles & Crusades is an example of a game that goes too far in distance; the ideal would be something closer to either RC D&D or AD&D, or an amalgam of the two systems.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's hard not to design your own game.

I was doing an OSRIC of classic Traveller. I was about two pages in before I started changing the rules to suit what I reckoned was good.

Try as you might, it's hard not to be at least a little bit original.

This is actually why I gave up on every attempt I ever made to adapt somthing for d20.  In order to make a complete game of it, it essentially meant spending a fuck of a lot of time repeating already written crap and I couldn't stand it.

Pundy, guess what. By sheer coincidence I checked out a certain blog just now,  and guess what it's about:

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-think-i-like-where-this-is-going.html

Overuse of the word "balance" aside, this sounds interesting. And in the thread linked Kenzer even says he'd be open to some restrictive licensing to Necro, Troll Lord and such.

More from the Kenzer thread:

QuoteThe basic game will only cover a few classes and a few races and only to a limited level. It'll probably be one book with all you need but it doesn't have the variety of monsters, magic, treasure, classes, races, combat moves, crits, skills, talents, proficiencies, Qs & Fs, and so on.

The advanced game will come in the format of GMG, PHB + HoB. Eventually, you'll see more HoBs, SSG, GrG, CG, ZG, etc. the releases liekly won't be as rapid as they were in HM4, but probably on a fairly regular drumbeat.

"Advanced" is basically the full HM game. People can use Basic as in into-level game, a way to teach n00bs, or a simple game for pick up play, roll and runs and so on.

Quote from: jeff37923I'm not thrilled with the way 4E is shaping up, but I find it a bit hard to believe that Mearls & Co have accepted their thirty pieces of silver and crucified D&D to become the Fantasy Heartbreaker that Ron Edwards has always said it was.

D&D can't be a fantasy heartbreaker, as a fantasy heartbreaker is pretty much by definition a game that is nothing more than a D&D hack.  D&D thus cannot be a fantasy heartbreaker, as D&D cannot be a D&D hack.

Palladium Fantasy is a fantasy heartbreaker.  Synnibar is a fantasy heartbreaker.

Quote from: JackalopeD&D can't be a fantasy heartbreaker, as a fantasy heartbreaker is pretty much by definition a game that is nothing more than a D&D hack.  D&D thus cannot be a fantasy heartbreaker, as D&D cannot be a D&D hack.

So what if a new "D&D" isn't really "D&D"?

Quote from: JackalopePalladium Fantasy is a fantasy heartbreaker.

I was under the impression that this game was successful. Whose heart was broken?

Quote from: JimLotFPSo what if a new "D&D" isn't really "D&D"?

If it's sold in stores as Dungeons & Dragons, then it's really Dungeons & Dragons.  It's still not a clone of D&D, it's not D&D with the serial numbers filed off and repainted.  D&D is just a trademark, it's not a particular system.  It hasn't been since like 1980 at least, when there were already three versions of games with the name Dungeons and Dragons (White Box, Basic Set, Advanced).

You seem to be taking the term fantasy heartbreaker too literally.  It doesn't mean any fantasy game that breaks your heart.  If 4E is a radical departure from 1E-3.5E, then it might break your heart, but it's not a fantasy heartbreaker in the sense that Ron Edwards coined the term.  Radical depature is the antithesis of a fantasy heartbreaker.  A fantasy heartbreaker clings to the structure laid out by 1E AD&D.  Fantasy heartbreakers are written by people who don't realize that 1E AD&D is not their competition in the modern market.

QuoteI was under the impression that this game was successful. Whose heart was broken?

It was moderately successful for a role-playing game, but RIFTS is the game that kept Palladium alive.  But commercial success has nothing to do with being a fantasy heartbreaker.

Palladium Fantasy is a fantasy heartbreaker because it's basically just some guy's houserules for AD&D with his own setting attached to it.  The basic structure of the game is exactly the same.  A handful of stats measuring various physical and mental abilities, a race and class combo that advances by levels, a D20 based attack system complete with an "armor class" stat.  it even has alignments -- while they are more rationale in many ways, they are even less integrated into the game.  It's got elves and dwarves and longswords and everything D&D has got.  It's more advanced than 1E advanced D&D in that it adds a skill system, parries and dodges, but it's basically the same old thing.  And then add on to that the fact that it's sloppily edited, has confusing rules, and painfully amateurish layouts and there is little reason to bother with Palladium Fantasy.  Pretty much any edition of D&D is better.

And Palladium Fantasy is one of the better fantasy heartbreakers!

RuneQuest is not a fantasy heartbreaker though, because while the two systems have much in common, RuneQuest had much more graceful mechanics than AD&D, a more integrated setting, an easy but exhaustive skill system, and many serious and trend setting features that forced the evolution of the industry.

Palladium Fantasy could never force TSR to publish a new edition, and had little actual effect on the industry.  The growth of games like RuneQuest, Harn and Rolemaster forced TSR to use real professional layout designers and actual writers to craft 2nd Ed.

Quote from: JackalopeIf it's sold in stores as Dungeons & Dragons, then it's really Dungeons & Dragons.

We'll just disagree here.

Quote from: Jackalopebut it's not a fantasy heartbreaker in the sense that Ron Edwards coined the term.

Neither is Palladium.

From the original Fantasy Heartbreakers essay:

"In the late 70s, this wasn't unreasonable. By the early 90s, though, things were considerably different. This essay is about some 1990s games I'm calling "fantasy heartbreakers," which are truly impressive in terms of the drive, commitment, and personal joy that's evident in both their existence and in their details - yet they are also teeth-grindingly frustrating, in that, like their counterparts from the late 70s, they represent but a single creative step from their source: old-style D&D. And unlike those other games, as such, they were doomed from the start. This essay is basically in their favor, in a kind of grief-stricken way."

From the follow-up:

"In order to judge a game a Heartbreaker, three things should be considered: publishing context, rules design, and imaginative content. All three matter, but I think the last one is most important."

And Palladium's first book came out in 1983, so they had to survive seven years before Rifts came around. Sure, Robotech and TMNT probably were more successful, but if Palladium Fantasy was a failure, would it have gotten well over a dozen supplements, as well as a revised edition, and a second edition?

D&D knock-off, yeah. "Fantasy Heartbreaker," no.

Quote from: JimLotFP?

Yeah, I fucked that one up. Serves me right for posting while half-asleep.

The hackmaster announcement is... interesting. We'll have to see.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JackalopePalladium Fantasy could never force TSR to publish a new edition, and had little actual effect on the industry.  The growth of games like RuneQuest, Harn and Rolemaster forced TSR to use real professional layout designers and actual writers to craft 2nd Ed.

:confused:

That statement is not even close to being true.  D&D's various versions had absolutely nothing to do with RuneQuest, Harn, or Rolemaster.

TSR started hiring outside writers as early as 1977, with John Holmes writing the first Basic D&D rules.  I'm not sure when they started hiring "professional layout designers" but I'd say at least by the time of Metzner (1983), if not before.  AD&D 2e didn't come out until 1989, and the improvements in the book quality/layout was largely to get people to switch editions and to appeal to new, non-RPG customers.  They gave a fuck less about competing for fans of other RPGs.

RuneQuest certainly didn't influence it.  RuneQuest I and II look like absolute shit layout-wise.  RuneQuest III had a professional layout, but that was in 1984 and by then RuneQuest was rapidly decreasing in popularity (and was completely obscure by 1989).

Harn has never influenced anything, it's a cult classic at best for sales.  Palladium Fantasy has easily outsold Harn by 10 to 1 or more.

Rolemaster's original books were pretty rough-looking and written by college grads, not professional writers.  They didn't start improving until the revised versions of the core books in 1984.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, I think it ended up being of mutual benefit to both companies, in the end.

Frankly, I think its stupid that WoTC doesn't either publish "Classic" D&D or (more likely) give the license to do so to some lesser company that could do a good job of handling it.
The current mentality regarding "why would we want to encourage other companies to continue with 3e when we're totally behind 4e" might even make some slight sense when it comes to 3e, but at this point, really, both RC/Basic D&D and 1e AD&D are so utterly different than what they're planning with 4e that its not like it would really be any kind of a direct competition.  Many of the people who would buy products for a "Classic" version of the D&D game are the kind of people who'd never buy into 4e anyways, while there are also far more people who'd buy both.
They're missing out on an opportunity there.

RPGPundit

You know what?  I whole-heartedly agree with this.

They wouldn't be stealing market-share, cause the people likely to buy new versions of oD&D/1ed/2ed/etc aren't likely to purchase 4ed.

Allow Goodman Games and Kenzer to produce serious new "dungeon crawl classics" that work with old games and "Hacked" versions of their old modules.

Allow these companies to produce new "classic feel" modules.  Theres a market for it, and it won't impact your 4ed bottom line a single whit.

I may not like pre-3ed versions of D&D, bu5t I don't begrudge those who want to play it.  And more people playing D&D is a GOOD thing.  For their bottom line and the hobby.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but nothing at all would stop them from producing a game that while not visually imitative of the 1e AD&D handbooks was basically the exact same rules; you can't copyright rules. Any major company that wanted to could put out a D&D clone.

Any major company except for Kenzer.  Putting out a clearcut D&D clone would be absolute suicide for Kenzer.  Wizards would have them dead to rights in court.  The past license leaves them more vulnerable than any other company to a lawsuit.  "Look your honor, they had a signed license with us to do a D&D knock-off.  The license expired, then they made another one anyway."  Kenzer absolutely needs to get as far away from D&D as they can in the new HackMaster edition.  If they're smart, every rule they use will have appeared in some other previous RPG or else have no corollation to D&D at all.

Quote from: beejazzScrew that noise. When a lamer edition of D&D comes out, people will go looking for something that isn't D&D. Like back when White Wolf was all big and shit. I'm looking for some third party science fiction competitor.

This is the smartest thing anyone has said on the thread.

Quote from: HackmastergeneralYou know what?  I whole-heartedly agree with this.

They wouldn't be stealing market-share, cause the people likely to buy new versions of oD&D/1ed/2ed/etc aren't likely to purchase 4ed.

Allow Goodman Games and Kenzer to produce serious new "dungeon crawl classics" that work with old games and "Hacked" versions of their old modules.

Allow these companies to produce new "classic feel" modules.  Theres a market for it, and it won't impact your 4ed bottom line a single whit.

I may not like pre-3ed versions of D&D, bu5t I don't begrudge those who want to play it.  And more people playing D&D is a GOOD thing.  For their bottom line and the hobby.

You'd have to call it something other than D&D, otherwise you would create brand confusion.  Parents buying for kids wouldn't know which to get, hell nor would kids, some folk would buy stuff for the basic line and stuff for the 4e line and then be pissed they didn't work together.

It's a non-starter.  D&D is a brand, not a game, at this point.  Creating confusion about what products go with that brand would be an error, losing some sales for the sake of keeping a small number of grognards most of whom wouldn't be happy with whichever particular version you kept on with anyway.

Quote from: BalbinusYou'd have to call it something other than D&D, otherwise you would create brand confusion.  Parents buying for kids wouldn't know which to get, hell nor would kids, some folk would buy stuff for the basic line and stuff for the 4e line and then be pissed they didn't work together.

This happened to us as kids with B/E D&D and AD&D.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's a non-starter.  D&D is a brand, not a game, at this point.  Creating confusion about what products go with that brand would be an error, losing some sales for the sake of keeping a small number of grognards most of whom wouldn't be happy with whichever particular version you kept on with anyway.

Exactly.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's a non-starter.  D&D is a brand, not a game, at this point.  

Not to completely digress, but hasn't D&D always been a brand? I mean when you consider that for every version beyond the 1st there are at least speculative, if not real business reasons for the changes made? Think about it this way:

BECMI/RC: Speculated as a means to separate Arneson from the royalties from the game.

2nd Edition: Speculated as a means to separate Gygax as primary creator of the game.

3rd Ed: Open plan to revise the rules for new markets and a hope to revive old one.

4th Ed: Open plan to revise the rules for new markets.

The moment D&D started selling books beyond EGG's basement and became a full-blown business, it became a brand. I see this as a good thing because in the end it has created a whole family of games that while the rules may be different, I think they all have their merits and they are all still joined by the primary goal of kicking evil's ass and taking it's lunch money and +1 mace.

I gotta say that claiming there is a "true D&D" beyond perhaps OD&D and 1st ed, is a sort of wishful thinking.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe current mentality regarding "why would we want to encourage other companies to continue with 3e when we're totally behind 4e" might even make some slight sense when it comes to 3e, but at this point, really, both RC/Basic D&D and 1e AD&D are so utterly different than what they're planning with 4e that its not like it would really be any kind of a direct competition.  Many of the people who would buy products for a "Classic" version of the D&D game are the kind of people who'd never buy into 4e anyways, while there are also far more people who'd buy both.
They're missing out on an opportunity there.

RPGPundit

Then again. Maybe not. Depends on who your target demographic is. Perhaps 4e is for the mainstream book distribution houses, whom have made a request for a specific style of game, based on their demographic studies. They plunk down the cash for a pre-order, and the rest is, as they say history.

Quote from: JamesVBECMI/RC: Speculated as a means to separate Arneson from the royalties from the game.

Other way around--AD&D may have been partly motivated as a way to cut Arneson out (though I could see maybe other primary motivators and then a rationalization that the resulting game oughtn't be shared with Arneson). IIRC Basic line was actually a result of legal action by Arneson who wanted back in.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOther way around--AD&D may have been partly motivated as a way to cut Arneson out (though I could see maybe other primary motivators and then a rationalization that the resulting game oughtn't be shared with Arneson). IIRC Basic line was actually a result of legal action by Arneson who wanted back in.

Thank you for the correction. I do think my point still stands.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNo, dumb WOTC.

Yeah. They also found out that Jeff Perren still had some of the rights to Chainmail after they published the miniatures line and skirmish game. Oops. (As it turns out, it was only trademark, and they settled for $500. But still.)

Quote from: jgants:confused:

That statement is not even close to being true.  D&D's various versions had absolutely nothing to do with RuneQuest, Harn, or Rolemaster.

They gave a fuck less about competing for fans of other RPGs.

It's not about competing for fans of other RPGs.  It's about what your existing customers demand.  If your competitor is offering a superior looking option with more features, then even very loyal fans will whine.

When I entered the market in 1986, the options for D&D were BECMI and 1E, and  BECMI was so much superior looking to 1E that it was hard to accept that 1E was more advanced.  The idea of graduating from Basic to Advanced had no appeal, and I was playing a lot of Chaosium games in the year before 2nd Edition came out, mostly Call of Cthulhu, ElfQuest and Pendragon.  The superior, polished look of Chaosium's games was a big part of the appeal.  They just looked more professional.

I don't know, maybe TSR did exist in some fantasy world economy where advancements made by one's competitors have no influence on one's own developments, but I don't think they did.  I think TSR was actually a bit behind the curve when 2nd Ed. came out, and if they'd really been on the ball the reprintings of the core rule books would have had more than just new covers.

Quote from: JackalopeIt's not about competing for fans of other RPGs.  It's about what your existing customers demand.  If your competitor is offering a superior looking option with more features, then even very loyal fans will whine.

When I entered the market in 1986, the options for D&D were BECMI and 1E, and  BECMI was so much superior looking to 1E that it was hard to accept that 1E was more advanced.  The idea of graduating from Basic to Advanced had no appeal, and I was playing a lot of Chaosium games in the year before 2nd Edition came out, mostly Call of Cthulhu, ElfQuest and Pendragon.  The superior, polished look of Chaosium's games was a big part of the appeal.  They just looked more professional.

I don't know, maybe TSR did exist in some fantasy world economy where advancements made by one's competitors have no influence on one's own developments, but I don't think they did.  I think TSR was actually a bit behind the curve when 2nd Ed. came out, and if they'd really been on the ball the reprintings of the core rule books would have had more than just new covers.

But fans weren't, by and large, clamoring for AD&D 2e.  

Second edition was the result of TSR management's idea to make the game more family-friendly as part of their strategy to become a mainstream family games company instead of catering to a niche market.

TSR at the time did not care about attracting other RPG fans, nor did they particularly care what their own fans thought.  Back then, the strategy wasn't that existing players would all buy the new edition.  The strategy was the new edition would attract new players.

TSR didn't base their productions on other products in the market because they thought they were above the market.  In their minds, they were competing with MB and Parker Brothers.  Chaosium and other RPG companies were considered insignificant and beneath them.

It didn't work, of course.  Many fans never even changed over to 2e, the mainstream still considered D&D "weird", and the plethora of boardgames they released sold poorly for the most part.

Quote from: jgantsTSR didn't base their productions on other products in the market because they thought they were above the market.  In their minds, they were competing with MB and Parker Brothers.  Chaosium and other RPG companies were considered insignificant and beneath them.

That may or may not have been true about the management, but amongst the writers at least, there was a lot of self-consciousness at the time about how D&D stood up as an RPG amongst its rivals and critics. We got crap in the PHB about how sucky scores were cool, and stuff in supplements to the tune of "proper mature campaigns aren't centered on combat."

Quote from: jgantsBut fans weren't, by and large, clamoring for AD&D 2e.

Maybe not the fans you know, but everyone I was gaming with at the time was really exicted.  We all hated 1st Ed., but wanted to graduate from Basic up to Advanced.  

QuoteTSR at the time did not care about attracting other RPG fans, nor did they particularly care what their own fans thought.  Back then, the strategy wasn't that existing players would all buy the new edition.  The strategy was the new edition would attract new players.

I'm sure that's why they did that survey of Dragon readers to find out what people wanted in the new edition.  I got everything I wanted, including a loose-leaf binder version of the monster manual.

QuoteTSR didn't base their productions on other products in the market because they thought they were above the market.  In their minds, they were competing with MB and Parker Brothers.  Chaosium and other RPG companies were considered insignificant and beneath them.

Cite?  Evidence?  Some indication that this is something other than you insulting the staff of TSR?

QuoteIt didn't work, of course.  Many fans never even changed over to 2e, the mainstream still considered D&D "weird", and the plethora of boardgames they released sold poorly for the most part.

Your mileage has varied considerably from mine.  I know a lot of people who graduated from Basic to 2E.  Pretty much every gamer in my cohort -- guys who started gaming after '85 -- adopted 2E.

Your cohort?

You entered the market??

 Yow! Talk about exaggerated self-importance.

Look folks, its a brand name and has been that for quite awhile.


- Ed C.

Quote from: JackalopeMaybe not the fans you know, but everyone I was gaming with at the time was really exicted.  We all hated 1st Ed., but wanted to graduate from Basic up to Advanced.

I didn't say no one was looking forward to it.  I'm saying that there was not a large public outcry for it.  It didn't generate near the enthusiasm that 3e did when people started hearing about it.  If anything, the majority of AD&D players were leery of it because of Gygax being removed from the project and the whole removal of "unwholesome" stuff aspect (giving off a "New Coke" vibe of sorts).

Besides, I wasn't arguing that no one went "ooh, shiny new books!!!"  I was arguing against the idea that meetings at TSR took place where someone said, "Fans are outraged our layouts don't look as nice as ElfQuest's.  We better put out a second edition, stat!"

Trust me, your little group of friends - with the idea that you wouldn't buy AD&D just because the books didn't look nice enough - was in a very small minority.  AD&D 1e was still selling quite well at the time 2e came out.

Quote from: JackalopeI'm sure that's why they did that survey of Dragon readers to find out what people wanted in the new edition.  I got everything I wanted, including a loose-leaf binder version of the monster manual.

What would you expect them to do?  If you have an in-house magazine, you pretty much have to solicit opinions, don't you?  If for nothing else, it will drive up sales of the magazines.

Besides, there is a difference here between the designers asking for input on rules and features, and the executives making product marketing plans.

Quote from: JackalopeCite?  Evidence?  Some indication that this is something other than you insulting the staff of TSR?

How about every article ever written about the history of TSR?  Or how about just seeing the products they focused on marketing at the time, and how they marketed them?  How about Dancey's in-depth report on the state of the company at its time of death?  

Again, just to be clear, I am talking about the executives here.  Lorraine and her cronies.  I'm not talking about Zeb Cook and his design team - they did what they were told and tried to do the best they could (just like anyone does when they have to work on some boneheaded project thought up by clueless executives).

Quote from: JackalopeYour mileage has varied considerably from mine.  I know a lot of people who graduated from Basic to 2E.  Pretty much every gamer in my cohort -- guys who started gaming after '85 -- adopted 2E.

I don't doubt at all that a great number of gamers who started with the BECMI rules went on to AD&D 2e.  That's exactly how I and my friends did it, too.  But the reason had a lot more to do with the fact that we changed to AD&D around the time 2e was already coming out and not because we thought 1e had too poor of production values.

Quote from: KoltarYour cohort?

You entered the market??

 Yow! Talk about exaggerated self-importance.

Look folks, its a brand name and has been that for quite awhile.


- Ed C.

There was nothing self-important about those words.  Take issue with a lot of other things in Jackalope's post, but he used those words correctly.  That you don't understand how they were used is no reason to insult the man.

Quote from: JamesVThank you for the correction. I do think my point still stands.

I think there's some truth in your point, but I think there's far more continuity of concept between OD&D and AD&D (I don't really know AD&D 2e, though I suspect there too) than with 3e.  I think 3e changes a lot of stuff fairly fundamentally, and 4e even more so.

I mean, I own Moldvay Basic and I own RC and I have a pdf of AD&D and the White Book pdfs, and there's an awful lot in common, far more than any of them with 3e which I also used to own.  Prior to 3e you have a core system attracting cruft and detail, but a lot of the developed ideas are present earlier in less complex form.

With 3e, a whole slew of new ideas come in, and personally I think at that point the game left its roots pretty substantially behind, but others disagree and in fairness they're D&D players and I'm not so arguably they're better suited to judge.

Quote from: KoltarYour cohort?

You entered the market??

 Yow! Talk about exaggerated self-importance.

What the fuck is your malfunction?  Are you just an idiot? How the fuck do you interpret that as exaggerated self-importance?  Do you even know what a cohort is, you blithering fuckwit?

Quote from: JackalopeWhat the fuck is your malfunction?  Are you just an idiot? How the fuck do you interpret that as exaggerated self-importance?  Do you even know what a cohort is, you blithering fuckwit?

OK, I am now in love with these forums and I embrace "fuckwit" as my new word of the month.  Add blithering and the insult is near perfection.  :D

The fact that we can just "lay it on the table" without PC bullshit is so fucking refreshing I could cry.  Seriously, I am not being sarcastic.  I read that and nearly shit myself.

Thank you, that is all.

P.S.  I think you are calling Koltar a fuckwit.  I think the guy is cool so I don't necessarily agree with your targeting but the whole statement was just funny as hell.

Hello Trechriron!,

 Welcome to these forums.

 Things are a bit different here when compared to other gamers forums.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarHello Trechriron!,

 Welcome to these forums.

 Things are a bit different here when compared to other gamers forums.


- Ed C.

Thanks!

That might be the understatement of my century.  :D

So far enjoying the reads and the topics.  Good stuff.