Notes from a Small Convention - 4th Edition Opinions

James J Skach · November 26, 2007, 12:08:18 PM

As before - the details are here (at d20 haven).

Short version: Not a lot of hope with the exception of a few of the under-twenty-five folks. People very interested in whatever possibility will let them continue in a living campaign with 3.5 rules (or similar enough) to play their characters.

Before anyone goes bat-shit - it's all anecdotal; it's a relatively self selected population; it's meant merely as observation, not some attempt to extrapolate some larger industry trend (all of which is included in a disclaimer in the source post at d20 haven). It might mean nothing to you; I simply found it interesting.

Zachary The First · November 26, 2007, 12:20:42 PM

As far as 3.75 goes, I heard something eerily close to this last month, from someone I trust pretty well. Probably just wishful thinking on someone's part, but... :confused:

James J Skach · November 26, 2007, 12:32:11 PM

Quote from: Zachary The FirstAs far as 3.75 goes, I heard something eerily close to this last month, from someone I trust pretty well. Probably just wishful thinking on someone's part, but... :confused:

I don't know zach - this comes from some folks with...well...let's just say a bit of access. I know you now have some clout Mr I'm a Review for the Ennies

- but this is from folks who would....let's just say I was surprised at this rumor from sources with this much access. And the name was shocking too.

Zachary The First · November 26, 2007, 01:09:00 PM

Quote from: James J SkachI don't know zach - this comes from some folks with...well...let's just say a bit of access. I know you now have some clout Mr I'm a Review for the Ennies - but this is from folks who would....let's just say I was surprised at this rumor from sources with this much access. And the name was shocking too.

Hmmm...well, hey, I guess you never know. It IS interesting, however, that we both would've heard a largish name tied to it... :raise:

Drew · November 26, 2007, 02:04:41 PM

So who's the "largish name" connected with the project?

James J Skach · November 26, 2007, 02:31:34 PM

Quote from: DrewSo who's the "largish name" connected with the project?

I don't know that I'm comfortable saying at this point...

Drew · November 26, 2007, 02:43:52 PM

Quote from: James J SkachI don't know that I'm comfortable saying at this point...

Tease.

Nevermind. I've done some homework of my own in the last few minutes.

After extensive comparisons of varying market trends, cross-referenced with core demographic data and the latest tri-monthly projections I can only conclude that it's Mark Rein*Hagen. :pundit:

James J Skach · November 26, 2007, 02:49:52 PM

Quote from: DrewTease.

I don't get called that very often!

I will say that it seems as though the name is the same, or at least very very close, to the one heard by another poster.

The plot thickens!

Drew · November 26, 2007, 02:57:12 PM

Quote from: James J SkachI will say that it seems as though the name is the same, or at least very very close, to the one heard by another poster.

It's Conte Mook, isn't it?

Good old Conte. I knew he'd save the day...

flyingmice · November 26, 2007, 03:48:26 PM

Quote from: DrewIt's Conte Mook, isn't it?

Good old Conte. I knew he'd save the day...

Conte Mook, inventor of the "Mook Rule"? Can't get any higher placed than that!

-clash

Zachary The First · November 26, 2007, 04:42:37 PM

Quote from: flyingmiceConte Mook, inventor of the "Mook Rule"? Can't get any higher placed than that!

-clash

I thought that was Ed Ronwards!