Quote from: ggroy;524306What would be really amusing is if 5E D&D ends up being abruptly canceled several months before it was to be released, by Hasbro/WotC shutting down the D&D division and firing everybody.

Wonder what the new edition cheerleaders will suddenly say in such a scenario, if it were to happen.

:rolleyes:

I will weep like a syphilitic sore if this happens.

Quote from: ggroy;524306What would be really amusing is if 5E D&D ends up being abruptly canceled several months before it was to be released, by Hasbro/WotC shutting down the D&D division and firing everybody.

Wonder what the new edition cheerleaders will suddenly say in such a scenario, if it were to happen.

:rolleyes:

Play Pathfinder and FantasyCraft and other games just like now.

Give me a break. I didn't call anyone a moron, nor did I say WotC shouldn't be interested in having anyone as a customer. I will, however, say that I think it's kind of ignorant to complain that the game you want is not available when it is readily available in great variety. Further, I think it's childish to dismiss non-brand name offerings because they don't have the brand name one them. I am utterly perplexed by this attitude. And I haven't made any secret that I'd be pretty disappointed if the next thing WotC had to offer was nothing more than another helping of what we already have. I would find that outcome boring and banal. I am on the lookout for the next new thing, and I hope that what WotC offers is new and exciting.

Quote from: Benoist;524293Yeah. It's a terrible thing when people are actually interested in being your customer. These people already have their own games! WotC totally ought to ignore them! Go away, potential customers! We don't want you guys!

Except it completely contradicts everything ever learned about marketing and competition between companies on any market ever.

Besides, these people who "already have their games"? I bet you the majority of them own and play several of those games already. Not just one. They have B/X and 1e and 2e. They have Labyrinth Lord and OSRIC and S&W in their game libraries. Why is that, do you think?

No. It's not because these people are "morons". It's because they have access to different ways to do things and can select each time one game to run a precise game, or build their own custom versions using the ones they already have. From there, I don't see it as surprising, or a bad thing really, that these people would be potentially interested in D&D Next to add to their gaming libraries. Of course, if it's just too far out there, it might as well be a completely different RPG, and these people's interest might be lessened considerably, akin to whether they ought to buy random RPG 123232 published last month instead. "Do I really need GURPS? I don't think so..."

Quote from: Aos;524261Those have largely been replaced by easily available and cheap personal lubricant.

Hmmm? Oh sorry my hands were covered in this new self heating...Uhm LARP....yeah, totally...

Quote from: 1989;524255I am dissatisfied with both Pathfinder and 4e. I want a gridless D&D again. That's all it will really take to get me back.

I didn't mention the OSR-ites like yourself, but it's the same thing: You're dissatisfied with 4E... but you're not actually dissatisfied with the game you're currently playing.

Reboot editions of RPGs can only succeed when they're addressing clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction in the existing customer base. Without that clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction there is no mandate which can be fulfilled by the new edition. And without that mandate, any reboot edition is virtually guaranteed to drive away substantial portions of your existing customer base. (Because even if the changes you've made are an improvement according to one metric, they'll probably be rejected by the portion of the customer base which doesn't endorse that metric or which prefers the familiar for one reason or another.)

The current situation of D&D -- with distinct 4E and PF/3E fanbases along with a relatively small OSR fanbase -- only serves to muddy the situation and make it even worse for WotC.

This isn't like 3E where WotC can reclaim lapsed customers by addressing the clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction which drove them from the game: First, because that dissatisfaction is not mirrored in the 4E customers (since it often originates for the very things that 4E customers prize). Second, because these gamers already have well-supported games that they're mostly satisfied with.

All of this means that, in order to be successful, WotC needs to produce:

(a) A version of PF/3E which is considered significantly better than PF/3E by the vast majority of PF/3E players,

(b) A version of 4E which is considered significantly better than 4E by the vast majority of 4E players, and (arguably)

(c) A version of pre-3E D&D which is considered significantly better than whatever version of pre-3E D&D the vast majority of pre-3E players prefer

And it all needs to be the same game.

Frankly, I think that's impossible. In fact, I think it's impossible even before you add in issues like competing with the value of existing system support; overcoming the inertia invested costs (in time and money); a legacy of animosity and distrust; and a classic "us vs. them" team mentality which infests the OSR, PF, 3E, and 4E fanbases.

The cherry on top of all this, of course, is that most gamers can't actually articulate their real preferences: They lack the self-awareness and they lack the vocabulary. For example, they'll say things like "all I need is gridless combat"... but if you point them in the direction of 3.0 (in which the combat grid was entirely optional and completely segregated from the core combat rules) they'll reject it.

Was there a widespread dissatisfaction with 2E AD&D during 1997-1999?

(I was on a hiatus over the entire 2E era).

I never heard of any, it was more everybody was ready for a radical change because to casual gamers (majority of the playerbase) such as myself there are no appreciable differences between 0e,1e,or 2e that can't be erased by a houserule or two. If you grok and like one the others are easy to adjust to.

@Justin, I know exactly what I hate about 4e and most 3e supporters have my same dislikes to varying degrees.
1. Wedded to grid
2. Strict Roles focused on combat
3. Absolute combat balance between classes ignoring that some classes should be better at certain things than others ie. some classes are social, some a mix etc.
4. Supremacy of gamist thought throughout ignoring Simulationist thought
5. Everyone is a wizard but the wizard class can't even be done half right
6. Too focused on combat
7. No difference in feel between low and high level play the opponents scale with you so you just feel stuck
8. The continuous online errata which invalidates whole books (that was what made me quit and give my books away) .

I could continue but I'm posting from a phone.

Quote from: Benoist;524305Keep your eyes closed dude. You don't want to look down and find out what she's really doing to you that feels so warm and gooey.

It cannot be any worse than what WotC is doing to us now with the build-up to D&D Next.

Wrong thread crap!

Quote from: Aos;524281None of these games have Dungeons and Dragons emblazoned on the cover.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. You need the validation from the big company

I don't get that, too.

Quote from: Aos;524300I really hope AM makes a return, because I can't wait to watch the two of you become nextardly brothers in arms- and I say that without any malice at all. It is going to be fucking awesome.

Certainly, it should be a comedy festival all around.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;524346I didn't mention the OSR-ites like yourself, but it's the same thing: You're dissatisfied with 4E... but you're not actually dissatisfied with the game you're currently playing.

I think this is extremely important, and Justin nails it.

Despite 1989's whining and crying, most AD&D players were sick with 2nd edition and how TSR managed it. So sick that TSR went bankrupt. 3e was a change in what most people thought the right direction, and there's its huge success to show for it.

Many gamers hate 4e, but the people who plays 4e are usually happy, so a new change is not going to be well received.

QuoteThe cherry on top of all this, of course, is that most gamers can't actually articulate their real preferences: They lack the self-awareness and they lack the vocabulary. For example, they'll say things like "all I need is gridless combat"... but if you point them in the direction of 3.0 (in which the combat grid was entirely optional and completely segregated from the core combat rules) they'll reject it.

Bravo, sir, well done :hatsoff:

Quote from: ggroy;524347Was there a widespread dissatisfaction with 2E AD&D during 1997-1999?
(I was on a hiatus over the entire 2E era).

Dunno. I was dissatisfied and wasn't actually gaming, only buying the occasional magazine and supplement. Some of my friends were happy playing their games like always. The difference was TSR's supplements: I had more of them, and they actively drove me away from the game. If a company's products do that to people who want to be fans, it's not healthy.

I think I do know what I am talking about. The 3.x era is where the grid rules really came in. 3.5 goes so far as to include a grid in the book, and state that it is necessary to play.

That drove me away.

What I want is a gridless option. I'm hoping 5e provides that. By all accounts, it seems that 5e will provide that.

So, I am one player who dislikes 3e and 4e, but is going to like 5e, most likely.

I think it really is an unwinnable game for WotC, because the thing that nobody seems to want to acknowledge is that TSR D&D, d20, and 4e are all fundamentally different games that share the same name through an accident of corporate branding, not some unbroken lineage.  And the fans of these (distinct, separate) games all have different priorities and preferences, many of which are contradictory.  This really looks to be the edition that only pleases those who automatically play the "new edition", full stop.

Quote from: 1989;524450I think I do know what I am talking about. The 3.x era is where the grid rules really came in. 3.5 goes so far as to include a grid in the book, and state that it is necessary to play.

That drove me away.

What I want is a gridless option. I'm hoping 5e provides that. By all accounts, it seems that 5e will provide that.

So, I am one player who dislikes 3e and 4e, but is going to like 5e, most likely.

Your 2E material doesn't give you the gridless goodness you want?  If your favorite edition isn't delivering what you want then why would you think 5E will?

If D&D development and production came to a halt today I would still have all the D&D I need.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;524470Your 2E material doesn't give you the gridless goodness you want?  If your favorite edition isn't delivering what you want then why would you think 5E will?

If D&D development and production came to a halt today I would still have all the D&D I need.

Of course it does.

I would like to see my preferred play style be supported once again.