Quote from: estar;684065I agreed and disagree. Individual OSR publishers are mostly at the hobbyist level, a few are a small RPG company. Collectively however it is a solid third tier or even second tier market. While not dominated by a single company in the way 3.X gaming is dominated by Paizo, there is a higher degree of cohesion because the OSR is centered around the classic D&D mechanics.

Basically the result is that the collective impact of the OSR is no more or no less than any other company that is not Paizo or Wizards.

Sure. But what I'm getting at is that the potential market of people who would buy a new edition of D&D is far bigger than the number of people playing currently. And a big part of that potential market is lapsed players who like old-style D&D, but don't - and won't ever - play a retroclone. The idea that everyone who likes old-school D&D is happy playing AD&D or Labyrinth Lord is simply false. There's a huge potential market of players who like old-school D&D, do not read or post on forums, do not know or care about the OSR, and who could be interested in buying a modern, professionally-published iteration of D&D that is familiar to them as D&D but not necessarily the exact game they played 10 or 20 years ago.

Quote from: Haffrung;684071The fact that they're explicitly admitted that they lost sight of what their customers wanted is a good sign. And I don't get the impression they mean just with 4E. With all the talk about not getting fixated on mechanics and stats, I think they realize that the play culture that developed with 3.x (and that they exploited) wasn't good for the health of the game in the long run. So they'll let the hardcore min-maxing char op crowd have Pathfinder. They're after bigger fish.

I believed that when the first packet was released. I'm not as sure now.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684085I believed that when the first packet was released. I'm not as sure now.

I don't think Next will be as simple as B/X D&D. It will still have feats and more robust customization options. Just not anywhere near as elaborate and punishing as 3.x. If Basic D&D is a 3/10 in complexity, and 3.x & Pathfinder are a 9, I'm expecting Next to settle in as a 5 or 6. Well, hoping anyway.

We've been playing the playtest for a while now, and at least for me it feels much more old-school in style than either 3e or 4e.  Players are role playing a lot more, thinking their way through situations more than simply using abilities to kill things in standard ways, and overall it's triggering all the 1e sort of tone I used to enjoy years ago.  

I don't know if that will carry through to the rules once they actually come out, but that's what gives me hope for a good game more than anything Mearls says.  It plays in a manner I like.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973There's this myth that gets propped up mostly by 4e fans that somehow anyone who likes old school games is just some hidebound jerk who'll never be satisfied with anything new, because it's easier for them to swallow than to question the idea that maybe 4e doesn't feel so much like any D&D before it.

I think they like to prop up that myth by latching onto comments by people like 1989 and a few others.  Especially from Old Geezer, since he's very visible.  At least once a week it seems like he will stay with OD&D dammit!

In my experience, these people don't make up or represent the "old school" crowd any more than a theory wank 4venger represents current players.

QuoteBut the truth I think is that most are more like Sacrosanct here, people who've played just about all the editions prior and are just looking for something that provides enough of the flavor and feel they know as D&D, while really preferring something actively supported and with the actual D&D name on the box because, let's face it, everything outside that name in this market is a stone in a lake.
.

This is pretty much it.  I don't avoid 3e or 4e because I hate change and refuse to look at any book other than my AD&D books.  I play modern games too.  Hell, I design games; I'm hardly adverse to trying new things.

What people need to understand is that D&D has always had a certain experience and feel to it.  WFRP is a fantasy game too, but it has a much different feel and experience.  I play lots of games, but when I want that D&D experience, that's what I play.  The problem is that 4e feels nothing like D&D.  3e even feels like it's that close to not feeling like D&D as well.

5e feels a lot more like D&D to me, and that's why I'm enjoying playing it.  I get really frustrated by the 4e crowd who keep saying that they are catering towards old school players while totally forsaking 4e.  It's an objective fact that there are more elements inspired by 4e in Next then there are from 1e or 2e.  This can be proven by taking some 5e rules and pointing to where they first showed up in 4e and not any other edition.  5e does not use THAC0, or discretionary thief progression skills, or anything else was unique to 2e.  There are no rules in 5e that are clearly inspired by 2e.  Even the "Vancian" magic in 5e isn't like 1e or 2e, or even 3e.   It's a hybrid between the two, between at wills and arcane recovery.

So yeah, I find it very irritating that us "older edition" players are willing to accept a lot of compromise compared to AD&D, but the vocal 4e players aren't.  Just go look at the offical WoTC forums.  There is an entire group of people (not just 4e players, but char oppers too) who sincerely think that the most important part of playing D&D is getting the most DPR (damage per round) builds, and NOT playing the type of character you want from a thematic standpoint.  People that argue that the PCs must leverage their power combinations off of other players, or otherwise there's not tactical combat and everyone is just playing solo.

Talk about missing the whole point of what D&D has always stood for.  I sincerely hope that's what Mearls is referring to in his comments.  That if those types of games are you favorite, there are plenty of computer games that can do that.  Heck, there are RPGs that build around that too now.  But D&D, in its history, is not about that nor should it.

Quote from: Haffrung;684084Sure. But what I'm getting at is that the potential market of people who would buy a new edition of D&D is far bigger than the number of people playing currently. And a big part of that potential market is lapsed players who like old-style D&D, but don't - and won't ever - play a retroclone. The idea that everyone who likes old-school D&D is happy playing AD&D or Labyrinth Lord is simply false. There's a huge potential market of players who like old-school D&D, do not read or post on forums, do not know or care about the OSR, and who could be interested in buying a modern, professionally-published iteration of D&D that is familiar to them as D&D but not necessarily the exact game they played 10 or 20 years ago.

My view is more nuanced. What I have witnessed, multiple times, is that a lapsed gamer will come into the store (or buy online) the latest D&D game and expect something similar to what he originally played with.

D&D 3.X was similar enough so that older gamers were happy with it. D&D 4.0 was not. I personally seen the confusion and heard the store owner compliant about the situation.

D&D Next in its present form is close enough to classic edition D&D for this type of customer. In fact is probably better than 3.X due its simplified design.

On a different topic, after thinking about it I think there is a path for Wizards to recover market share from Paizo with D&D Next. First is positioning the company as the good guy in doing the reprints, using older modules, and putting up stats in multiple edition.  

Second is to position D&D Next as a game that has customization and tactical options but is quicker to setup and play than 3.X. However they be laid back in presenting this. Opting to show rather than tell or saying that 3.X/Pathfinder sucks.  

One example of this is using Keep on the Borderland that is essentially the same except for the stats.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973See, thing is, 3e brought a shitload of people back into the fold when it came out. Including a lot of old schoolers. It was close enough in spirit to previous rules, while bringing a lot of modern rules innovations, and so it brought back a lot of old players, plus a lot of new players of other games and even from outside the hobby because of the very successful marketing push they gave it.

It only later turned into the CharOp dominated powergame that defined 3.5 and the splat treadmill for it, and while there were some who split off for older editions from the beginning, even in the early days the focus for those wanting more old school flavor was more on finding ways to make D20 feel more old school, so you got stuff like the DCC line, C&C, and Wilderlands.

There's this myth that gets propped up mostly by 4e fans that somehow anyone who likes old school games is just some hidebound jerk who'll never be satisfied with anything new, because it's easier for them to swallow than to question the idea that maybe 4e doesn't feel so much like any D&D before it.

But the truth I think is that most are more like Sacrosanct here, people who've played just about all the editions prior and are just looking for something that provides enough of the flavor and feel they know as D&D, while really preferring something actively supported and with the actual D&D name on the box because, let's face it, everything outside that name in this market is a stone in a lake.

3e had no trouble getting those people on board at first, it was only faulty design direction and focus that drove them away.  The right 5e could get a lot of those people back, and I think that's what Wizards seems to be trying to do here.

Yes. That's the gist of it.

Quote from: Haffrung;684084Sure. But what I'm getting at is that the potential market of people who would buy a new edition of D&D is far bigger than the number of people playing currently. And a big part of that potential market is lapsed players who like old-style D&D, but don't - and won't ever - play a retroclone. The idea that everyone who likes old-school D&D is happy playing AD&D or Labyrinth Lord is simply false. There's a huge potential market of players who like old-school D&D, do not read or post on forums, do not know or care about the OSR, and who could be interested in buying a modern, professionally-published iteration of D&D that is familiar to them as D&D but not necessarily the exact game they played 10 or 20 years ago.

This I don't agree with. The simple truth is that the large market of lapsed D&D players who may or may not still play their own D&D game once in a while with friends and family, and who haven't bought product for a while, are not familiar with ENWorld, this site, RpGnet and whatnot. They are simply not online, and the existence of these retroclones simply does not register on their radar. It's not that they'd never play an OSRIC or LL compatible module, it's that they're not even aware these things exist!

These people might be thrilled being able to pick up a classic B/X package to play with their kids, or might appreciate new AD&D modules for them to play. I actually suspect some would. But they are simply not aware of what's going on with the Online forums and all that.

Quote from: Benoist;684103This I don't agree with. The simple truth is that the large market of lapsed D&D players who may or may not still play their own D&D game once in a while with friends and family, and who haven't bought product for a while, are not familiar with ENWorld, this site, RpGnet and whatnot. They are simply not online, and the existence of these retroclones simply does not register on their radar. It's not that they'd never play an OSRIC or LL compatible module, it's that they're not even aware these things exist!

This people might be thrilled being able to pick up a classic B/X package to play with their kids, or might appreciate new AD&D modules for them to play. I actually suspect some would. But they are simply not aware of what's going on with the Online forums and all that.

Yeah, we forget sometimes just how small online gamer communities are because of how active we are on them and how vocal the community is.

I do think the number of people who are aware of these products are greater than just the relative few who post online. Those who actually create accounts on messageboards, follow them regularly, and actually post are an even smaller minority than those who are gamer-internet aware.

Its like comparing the number of blogs/forums that someone might occasionally read or check out vs the number they are active on.

The active/posting loudmouths (like me ) are simply the only voices heard and shouldn't be mistaken for the only ears listening.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;684107The active/posting loudmouths (like me ) are simply the only voices heard and shouldn't be mistaken for the only ears listening.

I can say that of all the gamers I've ever met in over 17 years of gaming there have been maybe 8-9 that posted/read/cared about online 'communities'.

Out of hundreds of gamers.

I'm usually the only person in a group active on-line (my Korea group being a notable exception).

Quote from: Benoist;682978This list here reads to me like a checklist of what Mearls thinks WotC costumers want to hear.

Bingo is your name-o.

Quote from: Votan;683576I still think D&D is two games:

1) a character build game where character power is important
2) a story-telling adventure game (not in the same sense as a story game)

Games 1 and 2 are ever in conflict as flexibility makes #2 work much better whereas you really need rigidity to be able to flawlessly analyze a build.

Flawlessly analyzing a build is a task for MMOs and cRPGs, not for TT games.

Another consideration might be - 4e players may eventually grow out of the inanity of 4e style play.

I remember how thrilled I was at 3e - all new and shiny. But after playing... and things not going right... I tried it again. Hrrmm... was okay, but something is wrong here. Then I did it again... then I started writing for it in Dragon and making changes that I felt needed to be changed. It was then that my Rosy Tinted Glasses of Dumbassery were pulled from my eyes and admitted - this system is fucked up.

Amidst the sewage of third-party designs in d20 - there were some real gems that do salvage the 3.x system in my opinion, but they of course are considered apostates to the generation that grew up ON 3e - and later 4e - that cleaved to the System-as-God mentality (despite the fact that the system itself is broken. There is a good metaphor in there somewhere).

But people can wake up. And with the advent of 5e - a lot of 4e players will move over just because, some won't... and that's fine. The end-result is the "pie" of players will be that much more fractured. That will lead to more general discontent and mistrust of the brand. When that happens - players who stay in the hobby go looking for other things. And that's where the good stuff actually thrives - picking up players wanting to see something better than the mass-market shit they've been consuming.

I think it's a good thing. If anything I would like Hasbro to drop the brand altogether (they probably won't sell it unfortunately). I think there are "indy" RPG's out there that do D&D better than Hasbro. And then there's the fact that OSR games are still producing great stuff in the vein of 1e and 2e (not to take anything away from the fact that you can play 1e or 2e with no problem at all!).

D&D Next to me, is a commercial-based distraction. Nothing more.

Quote from: tenbones;684141Amidst the sewage of third-party designs in d20 - there were some real gems that do salvage the 3.x system in my opinion...

I, for one, would be very interested in a new thread that started with what you think these are.

Quote from: CRKrueger;684140Flawlessly analyzing a build is a task for MMOs and cRPGs, not for TT games.

And even then it sucks.

The important decision-making should be when you're playing the game, not before you play the game.