Quote from: McrowNo offence, but the thought of WotC purposefully tryin to piss off it's customers sound kind of out there.  

Plus, the folks who buy products from Paizo and MWP aren't WotC's customers per se, they're Paizo and MWP's customers.

Seanchai

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIf the idea now is to pull it back in, what has changed in the meantime?  

In addition to what's been said, it could also be a change in personnel at the top in either WotC or Hasbro.

Seanchai

Quote from: McrowTrue, but I don't think they having board meetings about "how to piss off RPers". It's all about making money for them, business.

Umm, yeah.  I don't think they do either.  They might, however, have a meeting where someone goes, "Hey, won't this piss off existing RPG customers?" and someone else says, "Yeah, collateral damage.  It'll be more of a return in the long run.  Can't make omelettes without breaking a few eggs," etc.

Quote from: RedFoxUmm, yeah.  I don't think they do either.  They might, however, have a meeting where someone goes, "Hey, won't this piss off existing RPG customers?" and someone else says, "Yeah, collateral damage.  It'll be more of a return in the long run.  Can't make omelettes without breaking a few eggs," etc.

Which is a perfectly valid business decision.

What you're complaining about (I think), and what I agree with is: if that's the case, if you truly have research that says this is where gaming is going and you have this killer plan to make it happen, you have the suckiest PR/Communication plan I've ever seen.

i'm just going to watch the corporate-steered train wreck that wizards/d&d is going to become.  either they'll change d&d into something i don't care for even further, or they'll kill it, then sit on the IP for a tad to increase its desirability and sell it off.  

yeah, it's all business decisions and i can understand that (a little); as a fan i don't, and it pisses me off.

Quote from: James J SkachWhich is a perfectly valid business decision.

What you're complaining about (I think), and what I agree with is: if that's the case, if you truly have research that says this is where gaming is going and you have this killer plan to make it happen, you have the suckiest PR/Communication plan I've ever seen.

Spot on, sir.

I'm wondering if this is one of those things where we see:

EVERYONE: This is an outrage!  I can't believe they would make that kind of decision!
SOCRATES: Well, do YOU buy Dragonlance stuff?
EVERYONE: ...er... well... not ME, personally.  But I bet people out there are buying Dragonlance stuff. Somewhere.
SOCRATES: Huh. Well, what WAS the last Dragonlance product you bought?
HALF of EVERYONE: The excellent Dragonlance Boxed set for Second Edition AD&D (early 90s).
The OTHER HALF: The excellent Dragonlance Adventures hardcover book for original AD&D (late 80s, 1989 or thereabouts)
A Few Others: The Dragonlance SAGA game (1995? 96?)

I'm just curious if people have been looking at Dragonlance products that have been coming out recently.  I'm a big fan from back in the day (that is, I like it more than Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk, but less than Planescape and Dark Sun), and every once in a while I peeked at the Latest Stuff for Dragonlance...

...and it's always those crappy fantasy fanfic Dragonlance novels.  No real supplements. No DL bestiaries, no campaign material of note. Just Dragonlance novels.

So for real, is anyone really missing the loss of the Dragonlance license?  :confused: If they were on their way to produce another awesome, usable "Dragonlance Boxed Set" for D&D 3e like they released some 13 years ago for AD&D 2e (with the cardboard figures, maps, worldbook with adventure hooks, etc), then holy shit yeah I'll be the first one to shed a tear.  Or how about even the release of another SAGA-style game. That would have been... well, interesting.

But all they seemed to have been doing with the DL license for the past seven years is "produce a long line of fantasy fiction set in the DL universe", not "create RPG materials of note". When I flipped through Game Trade Magazine every month, frex, I had the same reaction each month: "Ohh, a Dragonlance supp... oh, nevermind, it's just another novel set in some corner of one of the more forgettable eras."

EDIT: Just found the website:
http://www.dragonlance.com/products/
The War of the Lance Campiagn setting: Rock on. 2004. However, if I'm not mistaken it looks like it just collects and revises the original Dragonlance adventures from the 1980s. Hmmm.
Age of Mortals: Not really interested in that time period, but it's a solid book and campaign reference. 2003: 4 years ago.
Dragonlance Campaign Setting from 2003:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dlacc/869900000
Again, 4 years ago. Weird that I don't really recall much about it (though I loved the 2E boxed set from 10 years earlier). I'll have to flip through it sometime.

-Andy

Quote from: peteramthorMy guesses (and they are just that I have no inside info) on this are as follows:

1.  They are planning on pulling all the properties back to themselves to release material for them on their own thinking it may be more profitable.

2.  They are pulling all the properties back so the property as a whole looks better to sell as a lump sum.

3.  I'm sure I could come up with some neat idea about the eventually coming (who knows when) new edition of D&D and not going with the OGL and all that but I don't feel like it.

Consolodation of IP licenses before a sale of said IP.

(Not TERRIBLY likely considering hasbro's MO, but that is a reason that companies often gather up IP loose ends...)

I think they sell pretty well. Not on the same scale as stuff WotC publishes but most RPG publishers would like to have the sales the MW did with DL.

Me, I'm not a big fan of the 3.5 version, I like the AD&D 2nd ed stuff.

I'm not a fan of Dragonlance.  I'm more interested in just what WotC is doing overall with D&D lately, of which this is one part.

i like it.  played halfway through the original modules.  picked up the 3.5 war of the lancebook.  was considering some of the others, like the tower of sorcery one.  i don't have a lot of disposable income so i can't pick up every gaming thing i'd like.  

never got into the fiction.  the original "chronicles" series was a fun bit of fluff, tho.  

if i knew someone who was running a DL campaign, i'd join.  i wouldn't mind exploring the world as a DM but i'd switch to RQ or some other system and run with that, had i the time (and player interest, of course).

I've been hatin' Dragonlance since DL1. I just want to know what's going on.

Quote from: James J SkachSo he's not an eye-rollingly rabid D&D hater, just an eye-rollingly rabid (paranoid schizophrenic) corporation hater....

Honestly I don't have rabies, though I wish what I do have was catching.  Maybe if I start biting.

I don't hate them for being a corporation.  I hate them for designing a game based on corporate goals.

Versions of D&D I like and will play include First Edition AD&D by the book, the Rules Compendium (with all options on and skills reduced to base stat %, drives me nuts when the thief is automatically a better blacksmith than pick pocket), and Castles and Crusades.

Every once in a while I toy with writing my own D&D version.  It would feature five base classes with multiclassing working how it does in 3e and with rangers etc working how they do in compendium basic, but no skills or feats, weapons would have special attacks somewhat like the masters set weapon mastery, open ended stat bonuses as per 3e (see there was something I liked!), C&C's brillant monster hit dice rule, magic would look a fair bit like 3e too but  I'd probably standardize spell effects along the lines of Spell Law's spell types to make it easier to figure out how they work in game terms.  The word "monk" would never appear anywhere in the book.