With it being considered that the 4th iteration of DND no longer resembles in anyway its 1st edition namesake, let alone being a role-playing, but instead a computer game simulator, is it now fair to refer to DND as a dead game, with no biological future?
Has the mantle finally been passed (to whom I've no idea), and the legacy of RPG has passed?
From what I've seen 4.5 is a last token effort from WOTC before they can it completely.
Quote from: Lawbag;379800Has the mantle finally been passed (to whom I've no idea), and the legacy of RPG has passed?
Hard to say. In the tabletop pen-and-paper world, some possible pretenders to the throne could be: Pathfinder, Mongoose, Green Ronin, etc ...
If not, the "rpg" legacy will live on in video games like World of Warcraft, Dragon Age, etc ...
WotC canning the brand won't be the end of D&D, the game.
WotC is irrelevant to Gygax & Arneson's game, now. It will survive, no matter what.
Quote from: Benoist;379804WotC canning the brand won't be the end of D&D, the game.
WotC is irrelevant to Gygax & Arneson's game, now. It will survive, no matter what.
Even were WotC to discontinue developement of D&D (I don't think this is likely in the short term), I don't see Hasbro making that IP available at a cost that would be attractive to other publishing companies.
Are you suggesting rather, that there is enough extant material for people to enjoy decades to come? I agree with that position.
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;379827Even were WotC to discontinue developement of D&D (I don't think this is likely in the short term), I don't see Hasbro making that IP available at a cost that would be attractive to other publishing companies.
The IP doesn't matter. The games are now available as retroclones, without use of WotC's IP. The core experience of the game is essentially out of their hands now, thanks to the OGL, but for a few nouns, trademarks and strict copyright/likenesses.
Greyhawk is copyrighted? Let's call it Dunfalcon, or Blackbirdy or The Free City of Gagyx. Zagyg Yragerne? Let's call him the Mad Archmage, the Crazy Spellslinger, whatever. And so on, so forth. Names are just names, in the end. Avoiding specific likenesses is not much of a big deal either.
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;379827Are you suggesting rather, that there is enough extant material for people to enjoy decades to come? I agree with that position.
That too.
Quote from: Benoist;379833The IP doesn't matter. The games are now available as retroclones, without use of WotC's IP. The core experience of the game is essentially out of their hands now, thanks to the OGL, but for a few nouns, trademarks and strict copyright/likenesses.
Greyhawk is copyrighted? Let's call it Dunfalcon, or Blackbirdy or The Free City of Gagyx. Zagyg Yragerne? Let's call him the Mad Archmage, the Crazy Spellslinger, whatever. And so on, so forth. Names are just names, in the end. Avoiding specific likenesses is not much of a big deal either.
That too.
I don't wholly agree with your position, I think the brand needs to survive as a growing property even if most of its products are no longer aimed at me. Its still the most recognizable name in the RPG business and I like to hope that folks starting out with it will be drawn to other games as well. I'd be pleased, though, to see someone like Paizo step up and fill WotC shoes in the event of a void, however.
Quote from: Lawbag;379800With it being considered that the 4th iteration of DND no longer resembles in anyway its 1st edition namesake, let alone being a role-playing, but instead a computer game simulator, is it now fair to refer to DND as a dead game, with no biological future?
The ironic thing is that the 4e would make for a better computer rpg than previous versions allowed (vancian magic was really a hassle with computer games imo) and yet we have no 4e D&D computer game. Hasbro really dropped the ball on this. D&D used to be a really valuable ip for making computer games.
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;379840I don't wholly agree with your position, I think the brand needs to survive as a growing property even if most of its products are no longer aimed at me. Its still the most recognizable name in the RPG business and I like to hope that folks starting out with it will be drawn to other games as well. I'd be pleased, though, to see someone like Paizo step up and fill WotC shoes in the event of a void, however.
I think there are better ways to get introduced to roleplaying games, and generally prefer quality over quantity.
Now, I won't challenge the fact that WotC in effect *is* a huge a part of the RPG market, and that WotC tanking might have some nasty effect on the "industry".
That's not what I was talking about though. I was talking about the fact that the D&D game itself, not the brand or name, but the game, will survive no matter what. And it will.
*Gasp!* You mean the RPG world *Might* be better if WotC collapsed? Y'know, like one of the early questions I asked on here and got a bunch of nay-say on?
Say it ain't so!
"Tout vient à point pour qui sait attendre".
All things come to those who wait, in other words. ;)
Though again, I was talking about the game itself, not the hobby, nor the "industry".
Yes, it has an 'endgame' - for people top buy their books and for WotC to stay in business.
To them, thats the only endgame that really matters.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Lawbag;379800With it being considered that the 4th iteration of DND no longer resembles in anyway its 1st edition namesake, let alone being a role-playing, but instead a computer game simulator, is it now fair to refer to DND as a dead game, with no biological future?
Has the mantle finally been passed (to whom I've no idea), and the legacy of RPG has passed?
From what I've seen 4.5 is a last token effort from WOTC before they can it completely.
I like your troll. You hit on the major "poke-fans-with-a-stick" topics without overly dwelling on them, and in short succinct sentences. You opted to leave out reference to WOW, and the word emulation, and the phrase "roll-play", but still made some vague reference to those concepts. And you brought in the new "poke-fans-with-a-stick" topic of "4.5", so kudos for being up to date on your troll topics. Overall, high scores all around for your trolling. You are indeed a skilled master.
Alas, you posted it on the wrong forum, as your only takers will be fellow believers on the topic. You'd get a lot more out of it if you posted this on EnWorld, CircvsMaximvs, WOTC, or RPG.net. Perhaps you were using this forum as a test to see if you could tweak the message to get better impact? If so, no, I think you got it down well. Go for it. Just let us know where you post it, so we can watch the destruction from afar.
Gee whiz, dude, that's a bit much, eh?
Remember, there was a time when you could talk about the latest edition of D&D on any forum, but, now there, are only like 2, maybe, forums where talking positive about 4e (or even calling it uncompromisingly D&D) doesn't just cause a flame war.
That's a hint that something's up, honest.
I'm not convinced D&D is dead, however. Consider Highlander 2, so horrific that they simply ignored it when it was time to make Highlander 3. It's quite possible the same thing will happen for D&D.
Quote from: Doom;380006I'm not convinced D&D is dead, however. Consider Highlander 2, so horrific that they simply ignored it when it was time to make Highlander 3. It's quite possible the same thing will happen for D&D.
Heh. 4E D&D in the future becoming an "edition which is not to be mentioned in polite company"? ;)
Quote from: Mistwell;380002I like your troll. You hit on the major "poke-fans-with-a-stick" topics without overly dwelling on them, and in short succinct sentences. You opted to leave out reference to WOW, and the word emulation, and the phrase "roll-play", but still made some vague reference to those concepts. And you brought in the new "poke-fans-with-a-stick" topic of "4.5", so kudos for being up to date on your troll topics. Overall, high scores all around for your trolling. You are indeed a skilled master.
Alas, you posted it on the wrong forum, as your only takers will be fellow believers on the topic. You'd get a lot more out of it if you posted this on EnWorld, CircvsMaximvs, WOTC, or RPG.net. Perhaps you were using this forum as a test to see if you could tweak the message to get better impact? If so, no, I think you got it down well. Go for it. Just let us know where you post it, so we can watch the destruction from afar.
Get all butthurt much?
Quote from: jeff37923;380013Get all butthurt much?
As soon as you're talking 4e with a critical mind, Mark's middle name becomes "butthurt".
Not that it's very original, mind you, but there it is.
So 4e D&D was written five hundred years ago on the Planet Zeist?
I can believe that.
-Frank
Quote from: jeff37923;380013Get all butthurt much?
Quote from: Benoist;380016As soon as you're talking 4e with a critical mind, Mark's middle name becomes "butthurt".
Not that it's very original, mind you, but there it is.
You guys saw me applauding his troll as a sign I was butthurt?
Truly we live in different worlds of perception.
Quality arguments aside, don't kid yourself. 4e isn't selling as well as 3e was at it's top but 20+ books in, it's outselling almost everything else.
Amazon's bestseller info is about as good as any on rpgs (though not great): http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/16211/ref=pd_ts_b_nav
You can see that Pathfinder has hit a homerun. It's newer which gives it an edge but to have the 1st and 4th spots is impressive. I don't think I've ever seen a non-WOTC product at the top the few times I looked.
Other than Pathfinder and 4e, what is there? In the teens, you get the last Star Wars book, used 3e books, and Mouseguard in 21st as the best book that is not WOTC or a D&D version. Given the number of products, 4e probably still sells considerably more than Pathfinder; and that's not counting their online income, which I have no idea how many people it has.
Quote from: Mistwell;380038Truly we live in different worlds of perception.
You sure can say that. :)
Quote from: Benoist;380044You sure can say that. :)
Bah, I'd still happily game with either of you.
But I'd make Jeff pay for the snacks.
Quote from: Mistwell;380046Bah, I'd still happily game with either of you.
But I'd make Jeff pay for the snacks.
Yeah. Jeff's gotta pay for the snacks, I agree. :D
Quote from: Mistwell;380038You guys saw me applauding his troll as a sign I was butthurt?
Mistwell came from a place where a well crafted trolling was applauded and admired.
Quote from: Nicephorus;380048Mistwell came from a place where a well crafted trolling was applauded and admired.
It's like admiring artistic graffiti.
Quote from: Mistwell;380046Bah, I'd still happily game with either of you.
But I'd make Jeff pay for the snacks.
Quote from: Benoist;380047Yeah. Jeff's gotta pay for the snacks, I agree. :D
Fuck. I go away from the computer to fix myself lunch and look what happens...
Quote from: jeff37923;380051Fuck. I go away from the computer to fix myself lunch and look what happens...
Since you weren't there, we took a vote, and we democratically decided you were going to volunteer for it. :D
From a business perspective, WOTC appear to have no future plan for the game other than bringing out the odd hardback WorldBook, and a single adventure to support it. It would appear their aim is to bring out as many iterations of the DMG and PH as possible as well as the sequels.
It is sad to see their creative output virtually eliminated.
Quote from: Doom;380006I'm not convinced D&D is dead, however. Consider Highlander 2, so horrific that they simply ignored it when it was time to make Highlander 3. It's quite possible the same thing will happen for D&D.
I hope this isn't a valid parallel, in as more as it continued to go downhill. Well OK...Highlander 3 (The Sorceror) went back to tolerable, and Endgame was OK if you'd followed the series...but Highlander 5: The Source was perhaps actually worse than Highlander2. (It didn't even have good fight scenes since the bad guy was filmed at super-speed).
Well, the problem of 'the source' was simple reality. It was filmed what, 10 years after the series ended, using the same actors.
Actors that were playing immortal characters. It's tough as heck not to look a bit older after 10 years, and the extensive camera tricks necessary to pull it off (heckuva job with the lead, fwiw, guy looked YOUNGER sometimes) made it difficult for the movie not to be murky as heck.
It still was vastly superior to Highlander 2.
Well, lack of plot aside I thought H 2 was actually interesting/watchable whereas H5 was more dull.
Highlander 2 actually has quite a few scenes that have cool factor, its just that they don't assemble into a coherent plot (And the acting was execrable). Or rather there's 2 plots going on side by side, the alien scientist that created the Shield being hunted by his people + the highlander plot. And has horrible continuity issues like Ramirez and Connor being beamed to Earth at the same time, or Connor being called Connor rather than by his alias Nash. Or the way they off-handedly killed off the romantic lead in the first movie, or Ramirez being resurrected randomly, or ...
OK you got me, Highlander 2 was worse.
Edit: also, is it ironic we're having a Highlander discussion in a thread titled Endgame, same as highlander 4?..
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;380144Well, lack of plot aside I thought H 2 was actually interesting/watchable whereas H5 was more dull.
Highlander 2 actually has quite a few scenes that have cool factor, its just that they don't assemble into a coherent plot (And the acting was execrable). Or rather there's 2 plots going on side by side, the alien scientist that created the Shield being hunted by his people + the highlander plot. And has horrible continuity issues like Ramirez and Connor being beamed to Earth at the same time, or Connor being called Connor rather than by his alias Nash. Or the way they off-handedly killed off the romantic lead in the first movie, or Ramirez being resurrected randomly, or ...
OK you got me, Highlander 2 was worse.
Edit: also, is it ironic we're having a Highlander discussion in a thread titled Endgame, same as highlander 4?..
Heh, odd coincidence.
Anyway, I'll concede Highlander 5 was dulllll...but it was also hard to watch because they had to blur so much to make the actors look convincingly like their characters of the prior millenium.
Quote from: Lawbag;380068From a business perspective, WOTC appear to have no future plan for the game other than bringing out the odd hardback WorldBook, and a single adventure to support it. It would appear their aim is to bring out as many iterations of the DMG and PH as possible as well as the sequels.
You're leaving out DDI, miniatures, the Essentials line, non-setting specific modules, themed DM books, and "genre" boxed sets like Gamma World.
Quote from: hexgrid;380263You're leaving out DDI, miniatures, the Essentials line, non-setting specific modules, themed DM books, and "genre" boxed sets like Gamma World.
Plus the DMG 3, PHB 4, Adventurer's Vault 3, a Feywild book, etc. Which will be back on the schedule if Essentials reaches whatever numbers they're hoping for, and which probably won't be back on the schedule otherwise.
Quote from: Thanlis;380277Plus the DMG 3, PHB 4, Adventurer's Vault 3, a Feywild book, etc. Which will be back on the schedule if Essentials reaches whatever numbers they're hoping for, and which probably won't be back on the schedule otherwise.
Well DMG 3 and PHB 4 were covered by Lawbag's post, but I agree, he left way too many things aside in writing his post.
Of course 4e has an endgame. All boardgames do.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;380280Of course 4e has an endgame. All boardgames do.
BIFF! POW!! ZING!!! :teehee:
Quote from: thedungeondelver;380280Of course 4e has an endgame. All boardgames do.
More like a 'pop'.
But what's the endgame to Monopoly? It seems to have had some legs.