TheRPGSite

Ok, so, at this point there's enough time since the 4e announcement that some of you may care to make public your own guesses.  When 4e comes out, will D20:

1. Drop like a rock into oblivion; no one will keep making product for it?

or

2. Continue to thrive and be supported by both a big fan base and a lot of publishers?

RPGPundit

IMO, neither. Technically, yes, "D20" will disappear because they are getting rid of the trademark license. What follows here is all just speculation I'm pulling from my butt. I think that there may be a small amount of support for "3.x," but in time, especially a year or more after the release of 4e, this support will dwindle to be almost nothing. I think most people will switch to 4e, and those who don't will either stick with 3e and little support, or will switch to a D20 variant that is still supported.

But, in the end I suppose 3rd party publishers will go with what makes the money. So if a decent market still exists for 3.x, they will publish for it. We'll have to wait and see how 4e is received and how it all shakes out.

I think a lot of products currently being designed for 3E will be released on schedule, so it will look like 3E is still getting a lot of support for at least a year or so.  But from what I've been hearing/reading, a lot of d20 publishers already have it in their mind to convert their major supplements to 4E so they can be the first out of the gate.  We're currently publishing d20 Modern products, but plan to make the switch when Wizards does, unless 4E just tanks.  Not that I like to change, but business is business.  

Pete

3. Be supported by a couple of niche publishers for a year or two, and then drop into oblivion.

Guess I should not have tried to start up d20haven (http://www.d20haven.com) then, eh?

I am, apparently, the contrarian on this one. I think there will be a thriving, though small, market for d20 and/or some variation of it - in particular, with the core rules of D&D. Some smart person will take the core, clean it up (lose prestige classes, simplify/split some of the more...challenging...portions, etc), and use it as the basis for a set of products (adventures, relatively good source books, etc.) - kind of like GURPS approach to d20.

It why I started that site - to give 3.x a Dragonsfoot of it's very own.

Quote from: James J SkachGuess I should not have tried to start up d20haven (http://www.d20haven.com) then, eh?

I am, apparently, the contrarian on this one. I think there will be a thriving, though small, market for d20 and/or some variation of it - in particular, with the core rules of D&D. Some smart person will take the core, clean it up (lose prestige classes, simplify/split some of the more...challenging...portions, etc), and use it as the basis for a set of products (adventures, relatively good source books, etc.) - kind of like GURPS approach to d20.

It why I started that site - to give 3.x a Dragonsfoot of it's very own.

I mostly agree with James on this one.  3.X has too much written for it, about it, and too many folks who have bought in to disappear completely.  I think 3.X will lose a lot of folks, but the (decent-sized) nucleus that remains will still see some products out for it, and it'll definitely  have more support/following than your typical "old edition"/niche market game.  We'll see, though.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI mostly agree with James on this one.  3.X has too much written for it, about it, and too many folks who have bought in to disappear completely.  I think 3.X will lose a lot of folks, but the (decent-sized) nucleus that remains will still see some products out for it, and it'll definitely  have more support/following than your typical "old edition"/niche market game.  We'll see, though.

Do you really think more people play 3.x than played 1/2E? My impression is that the overall RPG market is much smaller than it was six or seven years ago. I have a hard time seeing how the 3.x. die-hards are going to be any bigger a market, in real numbers, than the 1/2E die-hards.

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, so, at this point there's enough time since the 4e announcement that some of you may care to make public your own guesses.  When 4e comes out, will D20:

1. Drop like a rock into oblivion; no one will keep making product for it?

or

2. Continue to thrive and be supported by both a big fan base and a lot of publishers?

I can only say with some degree of certainty what I plan on doing: Continue to play games I like. Some of those games will be d20 games. Some will not. Whether or not 4e is out, the license is dead, etc., doesn't change, for me, how much fun I'll have with a game.

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungDo you really think more people play 3.x than played 1/2E? My impression is that the overall RPG market is much smaller than it was six or seven years ago. I have a hard time seeing how the 3.x. die-hards are going to be any bigger a market, in real numbers, than the 1/2E die-hards.

No, but I think the community will be more gathered, connected, sharing, and informed thanks to the internets.  Much less "lost tribe" syndrome this time around.

Quote from: RPGPundit2. Continue to thrive and be supported by both a big fan base and a lot of publishers?

This one, except for the publishers part, if I'm understanding the licensing correctly. If it's not legal to publish d20 products, there may be some companies that try to skate the line (like Mayfair Games did with AD&D), but for the most part printed materials will dry up. That's not a problem though. There's been countless adventures, supplements, and settings printed already. More than enough to keep every gaming group busy for the rest of their lives.

Every prior edition of D&D still has a loyal following, and 3.x is at least as popular as they were, if not more. I see no reason why it would die out any more than they have.

d20 system publishing under the OGL will drop like a stone, but experience a small renaissance after a few years of publishers focusing on 4e. PDF will never go away.

Quote from: HaffrungDo you really think more people play 3.x than played 1/2E? My impression is that the overall RPG market is much smaller than it was six or seven years ago. I have a hard time seeing how the 3.x. die-hards are going to be any bigger a market, in real numbers, than the 1/2E die-hards.

Actually the RPG market is much BIGGER than people realize - the p[otential market.

 A customer and a co-worker quoted the stat that supposedly 1 out 3 Americans either are playing or have tried World of Warcraft.  Thats just a D&D type environment on the web run as a multiple-user environment and dungeon.

 Imagine if we could get all those people to at least TRY a pen & paper , around-the-table RPG.

 The customer that stopped into today? She was looking at the World of Warcraft made by FFG. Gorgeous brunette in her mid 20s talking for a good 45 minutes about elves, guilds, warlocks, tossing spells, raiding dungeons.  Said to my co-worker afterwards : "This is just kind of thing that the people online don't believe happens. "  He suggested setting up a video camera.  That young woman should talk her boyfriend into playing REAL roleplaying games. She and him are already familiar and comfortable with the terminology.


- Ed C.

I think it's pretty much screwed.

WotC has really sold the idea of a new edition (3.0 -> 3.5 -> 4.0) as being the product of some kind of game design natural selection and evolution, and from my entirely unscientific observations I would say they've done their job pretty thoroughly. I think a lot of fans believe or truly want to believe that the game is improving. Many of the rest will change over either simply to keep up with the Joneses, or because they're afraid of being left behind or becoming irrelevant or something.

I think that a few of the more notable OGL lines will still be open for business. M&M and C&C both appear to have a core group of loyal fans, and I would say they're different enough mechanically or ideologically as the case may be that their relationship to d20 won't much factor into their continued success or failure. Conan stands a good chance of standing on its own, too.

As for straight up d20 D&D compatible books? No way. They'll be like Bay City Rollers LPs in 1983.

2. Big fan base, lots o' support.
 
Players won't be able to resist the upgrades to their favorite races and classes. First the players will adopt 4th edition en masse and then the GMs and publishers will chase after the 4th edition players.
 
Additionally, I predict that the publisher that corners the market on seemingly impossible adventures will have a smash hit on their hands. Why? Because all the players with their unique-snowflake PC's are going to need a common benchmark to pulverize. (Presently the Tomb of Horrors, the Terraresque, and the Worlds Largest Dungeon fulfill similar niches. Although beating them is more of a testament to a PLAYER's tenacity and ingenuity whereas the smash hit will be a microcosm of 4th edition and will reward strategic, tactical and social party synergy.)

What Zach says.

I don't care.

Quote from: ImperatorI don't care.

Is that I don't care because:

1) I hates me some D&D! Blech!

2) I'm totally switching to 4th Ed. and screw the enemies of progress.

3) I'm totally sticking with 3rd Ed. but I have $1000 USD in books I haven't used yet and will never, ever need another.

4) I haven't bought a new D&D book since 1979 and I'm still trying to sell my players on dropping weapon speeds.

Paizo have been asking their customers whether they should switch to 4e or stick with 3.5 for their Pathfinder series. Other than that, i've heard nothing, so i reckon 4e will be picked up by every publisher who currently sells more than 30 copies of their books. In fact, i was on the verge of submitting 2 adventure outlines to one of the publishers on Koltar's list when the announcement came out. Bang! 3.5 gone, wait for 4e, then submit them. Many dollars on hold. :(

Quote from: RPGPunditWhen 4e comes out, will D20:

1. Drop like a rock into oblivion; no one will keep making product for it?

or

2. Continue to thrive and be supported by both a big fan base and a lot of publishers?

It will continue to thrive, with a customer base about the same size as 3e. They'll lose some fans, gain some new fans. It will be supported by a lot of publishers, but slightly less than 3e. Which is great news and still more than enough. And while I'm at it pulling predictions out of gut feelings, here are three more:

1-The 4e era will be more lucrative for WotC than the 3.X era despite being shorter.

2-Games that are not D&D-inspired will also be a healthier part of the industry than it was during the 3.x era. So we will have a strong leader and healthier diversity.

3-D&D 4e will last for 4 to 7 years. Not one more, not one less. After that we will skip to D&D 5. No 4.5 or any of that shit. If I have to guesstimate a more precise date, D&D 5 will be released in July 2013. Which makes a 5 year run.

Quote from: KoltarA customer and a co-worker quoted the stat that supposedly 1 out 3 Americans either are playing or have tried World of Warcraft.  

I seriously fucking doubt that. I work in software development. The average age of my co-workers is about 27, they're mostly all geeky males, and maybe - maybe - half of them have played WoW. None of the 10 or so guys I've played D&D with in the last few years have ever played a MMORPG.

So I'd be shocked if even one-third of American males aged 14-30 had played WoW, let alone a third of a total population that is half female about about half over the age of 40.

Quote from: HaffrungI seriously fucking doubt that. I work in software development. The average age of my co-workers is about 27, they're mostly all geeky males, and maybe - maybe - half of them have played WoW. None of the 10 or so guys I've played D&D with in the last few years have ever played a MMORPG.

So I'd be shocked if even one-third of American males aged 14-30 had played WoW, let alone a third of a total population that is half female about about half over the age of 40.

MOST of the WoW players that I have met in the past year are either couples or young women.  Maybe its a midwest thing.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIt will continue to thrive, with a customer base about the same size as 3e. They'll lose some fans, gain some new fans. It will be supported by a lot of publishers, but slightly less than 3e. Which is great news and still more than enough. And while I'm at it pulling predictions out of gut feelings, here are three more:

1-The 4e era will be more lucrative for WotC than the 3.X era despite being shorter.

I hope you're right.

Quote2-Games that are not D&D-inspired will also be a healthier part of the industry than it was during the 3.x era. So we will have a strong leader and healthier diversity.

Again, I actually hope you're right, and I think you might be, since D&D 4e will be shooting itself in the foot by discouraing third-party publishing.
The danger in this of course is that, given that it looks like WotC has lost a lot of its way, a third-party could rise up to become the leading defining force behind the RPG movement the way WW did in the 90s, and there's no guarantee it will be benevolent.

Quote3-D&D 4e will last for 4 to 7 years. Not one more, not one less. After that we will skip to D&D 5. No 4.5 or any of that shit. If I have to guesstimate a more precise date, D&D 5 will be released in July 2013. Which makes a 5 year run.

I'm guessing less than that, actually. They will release the PHB in 2008; after that, it will be full of mistakes that will make the purchase of the PHBII all but obligatory in 2009.
In 2010 they release the PHBIII. Now with this one either they've added in a bunch of also-required stuff, in which case they will probably suffer a serious backlash at that point and lose a lot of fans, or they will make the PHBIII purely optional and watch the product's sales drop as players who already paid big bucks for PHBI and II decide to give it a pass.

End result, either way? They announce a new edition for either 2011 or 2012 at the very latest.

RPGPundit

Quote from: shindorimIs that I don't care because:
 
1) I hates me some D&D! Blech!
 
2) I'm totally switching to 4th Ed. and screw the enemies of progress.
 
3) I'm totally sticking with 3rd Ed. but I have $1000 USD in books I haven't used yet and will never, ever need another.
 
4) I haven't bought a new D&D book since 1979 and I'm still trying to sell my players on dropping weapon speeds.

Hey. The answer is: none of that :)
 
I've been playing D&D from 1985 to 2003, when I changed my residence to Madrid. I've played every incarnation of the game, and enjoyed them all. Maybe I played just 3.0 and not 3.5 but I'm not sure.
 
The real thing is: I don't own any ed. of D&D but the RC (in PDF). I've always ran D&D and AD&D with borrowed books, don't ask me why. These days I'm not interested in running D&D, simply because there's stuff I want to run before it, more than enough to have me busy for the rest of my life. But I don't hate the game, by no means.
 
If anybody around here started a D&D game, I would surely play. As it happens, my players are lazy bastards, so I do 99% of the running games here. And I am not running D&D.
 
So I don't hate it, I can't be bothered with worrying about 4.0, given that I did not worry about 3.0, I'm not sticking with 3.0, and I don't buy D&D books :D Also, I happen to think that all this discussion and wailing is fucking pointless, absurd, and can't change a shit. There is people that kept on playing previous eds of D&D when 3.0 came out, and the change to 3.5 didn't change their gaming an iota. But people in Internet like to become drama queens at the smallest chance.
 
Hope it answers your question.

I’ve stopped talking about 4E because almost every discussion ends in a fight…but what the hell.

IMHO 4E will do fine, it might do better than 3.5…it could go either way.

For me (and most people in my peer group I talk to) it is a moot point.  What we care about is that the entire focus of D&D has switched its target group to a new generation discarding those older fans who have stuck with the game though the years.

D&D has generally grown, expanded, and changed to cater to the fans of the game…with 4E, those fans have been cast aside in favor of targeting the new generation of younger people and potential fans.

Bringing in new gamers is a great idea, but I certainly think WotC could have come up with another way to do it than sticking it to the generations that has made D&D a success over the years since it’s conception.

I know my group has sworn off the 4th ed (most aren’t even going to bother picking it up for a look anymore).  It’s not some grognard fanaticism; one simply needs to read the stuff at Enworld to know it isn’t for us.  The final deal breaker for mw was this particular passage:

Quote•   Rodney Thompson -- "After having played (and worked on, a bit) D&D 4E, I really feel like a lot of things get blown out of proportion. When I play my 4E rogue, I feel like I'm playing what I call "3rd Edition ++" to steal a computer programming colloquialism. My rogue still sneaks around, leaps from the shadows, stabs a bad guy, and retreats just like in 3rd Edition. But my 4E rogue does all that, then leaps over the heads of a line of enemies, waits for an opening when an opponent attacks him and then counterattacks immediately, and twists the knife to create a huge gash in the enemy. I'm still finding traps, unlocking doors, ambushing bad guys, leaping from rooftops, and all of those things, but as I do so I'm far less distracted by the rules than I am under 3E."

snip

While the other players whittled the enemies down, I was leading them around in a chase across the battlefield, running up walls and flipping over bad guys to keep them from laying down the inevitable smack.

You know, that might sound like a lot of fun, and it could certainly be a good game…but it’s not what D&D has been.  With 4E traditional D&D finally dies it’s last breath.  Those of us who want to retain that D&D feel without changing over to this new super-cinematic computer game-esque (possibly computer required, despite what reps of WotC say) RPG will either have to stick with older editions or seak out a new system (what my group is doing).

I can't evenmake a prediction about how well 4E or D20 will do in the future...one thing I do know is that D&D willl be dead the moment 4E hits the stands.  Perhaps not the name, but the game is certainly NOT the same.:(

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, so, at this point there's enough time since the 4e announcement that some of you may care to make public your own guesses.  When 4e comes out, will D20:

1. Drop like a rock into oblivion; no one will keep making product for it?

or

2. Continue to thrive and be supported by both a big fan base and a lot of publishers?

RPGPundit

Hmmm...guess I missed the point of the thread with my "rant"...sorry.  I think the answer with be (sort of) #2.  Much like 3.X we will probably see a lot of publishers (a few big ones, but mostly small and new ones) try to jump on the boat, with most failing (just like with 3.X).  A few will make it to become a force in the industry (look at what D20 did for Mongoose) but most will just fade away (again, just like with 3.X).

I don't think 4E will have the same large scale effect as 3.X simply because of my argument in the last post.  4E isn't targeted at the older generation, so as a result, neither will much of the supplemental work and derived games.

I don't forsee a lot of company support for D20. (Talking in essence here; it's already been discussed that there will be no D20 license after 4e... it'll be OGL only and get the word out on your own.)

I do think people will continue to play it, buy old PDFs*, and assemble in groups online. I'll be one of them. :)

* - There's some fear that old products will not be able to be sold with the D20 logo on them. I hope not, but if so, them's the breaks. Some publishers will re-issue the products sans logo... an easy change in most cases, but for many, it's still probably not worth the effort.

Quote from: grubmanFor me (and most people in my peer group I talk to) it is a moot point.  What we care about is that the entire focus of D&D has switched its target group to a new generation discarding those older fans who have stuck with the game though the years.

D&D has generally grown, expanded, and changed to cater to the fans of the game…with 4E, those fans have been cast aside in favor of targeting the new generation of younger people and potential fans.

A great many people said the exact same things when 3E came out. The game was aimed at a younger, munchkin market that grew up with videogames; too much focus on tactical combat; the whole tone was too adolescent and cheesy; too much of the legacy of the game was being thrown out; it was all just meant to sell miniatures and endless supplements. And 3E was a much more dramatic change from the previous editions - both mechanically and in tone - than it seems 4E will be.

That's why I find all the pissing and moaning about 4E so hilarious. You have a new generation of gamers who are deeply wounded that they are no longer the core demographic, that they are now old fogies and the big bad corporation doesn't care about old fogies. Well, it has happened before, and it will happen again; it's called 'getting older'. Soon enough you will become alienated from popular books, movies, tv shows, and videogames. Get used to it.

Quote from: HaffrungYou have a new generation of gamers who are deeply wounded that they are no longer the core demographic, that they are now old fogies and the big bad corporation doesn't care about old fogies. Well, it has happened before, and it will happen again; it's called 'getting older'. Soon enough you will become alienated from popular books, movies, tv shows, and videogames. Get used to it.

I'd like to go on record for myself: I get it.  I'm not deeply wounded, it was simply a realization and acceptance. I'm not the target anymore.  I could cry and gnash my teeth, or I can accept it and find out how to keep the stuff I like going without the support of the company determining the target.

I chose the latter.  Which is why, even though it's slow right now, I made d20 Haven. I think in time it will pick up as people like me search out a place to form a community around what we like.

But I reserve the right to, on occasion, bitch when people claim it's not changing that much or isn't influenced by things different from the past (and, in some cases, more foreign to the likes of an aging bastard like me).

Quote from: HaffrungThat's why I find all the pissing and moaning about 4E so hilarious. You have a new generation of gamers who are deeply wounded that they are no longer the core demographic, that they are now old fogies and the big bad corporation doesn't care about old fogies. Well, it has happened before, and it will happen again; it's called 'getting older'. Soon enough you will become alienated from popular books, movies, tv shows, and videogames. Get used to it.

Oh, thank you for endowing us with your wisdom. Y'know because every person out there who has no plans to move on has been bitching about it. No chance at all that on the internet, of all places, the shrill voices represent everyone.

Similarly none of us still has a perfectly serviceable PS2 and N64 hooked up to their set. None of us have happily stopped watching ST:Voyager and still catch ST:TOS reruns. None of us stopped buying new Warhammer armies 10 years ago when they saw the treadmill coming.

Thanks for that! :rolleyes:

Quote from: James J SkachBut I reserve the right to, on occasion, bitch when people claim it's not changing that much or isn't influenced by things different from the past (and, in some cases, more foreign to the likes of an aging bastard like me).

It's a matter of opinion, I guess. I've been playing D&D for over a quarter of a century and it still looks like D&D to me and I don't think it's changing that much (from 3e). I reserve the right to change opinion when it comes out and I play a few games, of course.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIt's a matter of opinion, I guess. I've been playing D&D for over a quarter of a century and it still looks like D&D to me and I don't think it's changing that much (from 3e). I reserve the right to change opinion when it comes out and I play a few games, of course.

Agreed - it's absolutely opinion at that point!  Which is why I reserve the right to bitch about it. :D

Quote from: HaffrungThat's why I find all the pissing and moaning about 4E so hilarious.

My post was pissing and moaning?  You must have a low tolerance for such, I was pretty mellow.

But if you take a moment to read what I said and really think about it, it has a lot more to do with me "getting my feelings hurt".  WotC is taking a gamble by assuming the "new generation" is going to get on board.  They are hoping to capture an audience that just might not be all that interested in their game...while at the same time disregarding the fan base who they know have been interested.

You might think the "pissing and moaning about 4E is hilarious" I think a lot of it is very sound.  WotC is taking a gamble.  It might pay off; it might not, only time will tell.

P.S.  For the record, the 3.0 thing was totally different.  The industry was in a depression and needed 3.0 to revitalize it.  Right now we aren't in a slump; we have more great games than ever for people to turn to if they choose to turn away from 4E.

grubman, weren´t you the guy totally high on Star Wars Saga Edition?

I still dislike Saga, but you are also sceptical of 4e?

Now, WotC should start to worry.

Quote from: Settembrinigrubman, weren´t you the guy totally high on Star Wars Saga Edition?

I still dislike Saga, but you are also sceptical of 4e?

Now, WotC should start to worry.

I am sooooooooo tired of people saying this!

Yes, Star Wars saga is great, and an awesome system for Star Wars...but the very first thing I said is that I hope they didn't plan to incorporate any of these new mechanics into D&D because, while very appropriate for the feel of Star Wars, they would totally kill the feel of D&D.

I mean geez!  Every system isn't a perfect fit for every genre, just because I love Star Wars Saga doesn't mean I can't be realistic and see that it isn't a good fit for D&D (well, what D&D has always has been, obviously it'll be just fine for new D&D with thieves running up walls and doing back flips over opponents in combat...the Gray Mouser is rolling over in his grave...and he did plenty of flips).

Quote from: grubmanP.S.  For the record, the 3.0 thing was totally different.  The industry was in a depression and needed 3.0 to revitalize it.  Right now we aren't in a slump; we have more great games than ever for people to turn to if they choose to turn away from 4E.

I don't understand how you can say the industry today is healthier (commercially) than it was when 3E was in development. The impression I get from those in the know is that the tabletop RPG industry is smaller today than it was seven years ago - in dollars and in number of players.

The fact that the internet has helped gamers connect and share small-publisher niche games with one another is nice, but it's irrelevent to the business decisions of the license-holders of D&D. They're designing a new edition of D&D for exactly the same reason they designed 3E - to bring in some new customers, revitalize the brand, and sell a bunch of books.

The people complaining about 4E are just the latest batch of grognards to get frustrated that they're being left behind as game philosophies and styles evolve. WotC has no more reason to cater to those sensibilities than they did to cater to the sensibilities of the folks who were happy playing 1/2E and now hang out on Dragonsfoot.

Quote from: HaffrungThe people complaining about 4E are just the latest batch of grognards to get frustrated that they're being left behind as game philosophies and styles evolve.

Ok, you know...like the first line of my first post said, I stopped talking about 4E...

If you can't be mutually respectful I'm not going to bother going back and forth.  Grognards are people who don't like change, I love change.  There is a lot more going on there than you seem to see or care to understand, even if I try to explain it.

If it's OK with you I'll get out of this conversation/argument (although feel free to respond to my last comment if you like).  Like I said before every time I talk about 4E it just leads to arguments and a whole lot of frustration.  To be honest it's a moot point for me personally as my group is going to move on to something else...unfortunately I've always had the concern to look beyond my tabletop to the hobby as a whole...I guess caring is just silly.

Quote from: grubmanMy post was pissing and moaning?  You must have a low tolerance for such, I was pretty mellow.

"I can't evenmake a prediction about how well 4E or D20 will do in the future...one thing I do know is that D&D willl be dead the moment 4E hits the stands. Perhaps not the name, but the game is certainly NOT the same."

Seanchai

I think number 1. I thought I have read that there will be a similar OGL for 4E. I am sure the people who publish D20 stuff will switch to OGL 4E.

Quote from: HaffrungA great many people said the exact same things when 3E came out. The game was aimed at a younger, munchkin market that grew up with videogames; too much focus on tactical combat; the whole tone was too adolescent and cheesy; too much of the legacy of the game was being thrown out; it was all just meant to sell miniatures and endless supplements.

And they were right.

Quote from: grubmanLike I said before every time I talk about 4E it just leads to arguments and a whole lot of frustration.  To be honest it's a moot point for me personally as my group is going to move on to something else...unfortunately I've always had the concern to look beyond my tabletop to the hobby as a whole...I guess caring is just silly.

I think the problem is that you tend to look at "the hobby as a whole" from your very personal and volatile viewpoint.

Stating things like "it's not gonna be D&D anymore" is not a true concern for the hobby. Neither is suggesting that they are disregarding their existing fanbase. It's projecting your own concerns unto the hobby at large.

Quote from: HaffrungI don't understand how you can say the industry today is healthier (commercially) than it was when 3E was in development. The impression I get from those in the know is that the tabletop RPG industry is smaller today than it was seven years ago - in dollars and in number of players.

The rpg industry IS healthier than it was ten years ago. Period.

Quote from: HaffrungThe fact that the internet has helped gamers connect and share small-publisher niche games with one another is nice, but it's irrelevent to the business decisions of the license-holders of D&D. They're designing a new edition of D&D for exactly the same reason they designed 3E - to bring in some new customers, revitalize the brand, and sell a bunch of books.

Irrelevant? Man, what? Are you for real? The Internet is VERY relevant to the business decisions of the license-holders of D&D. They used ENWorld and the Wizard boards to give them ideas for the new edition. Eberron would never have happened if it wasn't pimped so heavily on the Internet. And quite frankly, if Hasbro didn't give a shit about us plebes on the Internet, then their precious "Digital Initiative" would never exist. Any bullshit about the "irrelevance" of the Internet is just utter nonsense.

The Internet could have been discounted ten years ago, but not any more. Our culture has drastically changed in only a decade, and we have the Internet to thank for that.

Quote from: HaffrungThe people complaining about 4E are just the latest batch of grognards to get frustrated that they're being left behind as game philosophies and styles evolve. WotC has no more reason to cater to those sensibilities than they did to cater to the sensibilities of the folks who were happy playing 1/2E and now hang out on Dragonsfoot.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, right.
Internet is shit and irrelevant to WotC.

That´s why they force their Develpoers to blog, blog, blog.
That´s why they moved D + D from print to online magazine.
That´s why they anounced they will have some Gleemax some day.

Now, if the Internet is irrelevant, then WotC is pretty stupid moving everything there.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe rpg industry IS healthier than it was ten years ago. Period.

Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. From the comments I've seen by industry insiders, the RPG industry was in decline ten years ago, the publication of 3E saw a spike in sales, and now the decline has steepened. The average age of players is getting older. The market is getting smaller. That's why WotC has to go after the younger gamers to bring in new customers (just as they did with 3E).

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIrrelevant? Man, what? Are you for real? The Internet is VERY relevant to the business decisions of the license-holders of D&D.

Read what I wrote. The internet is not irrelevent; the chatter of a handful of super-enthusiasts on RPGNet about the trendy game of the month is fucking irrelevent. Grubman asserted that gamers have a lot more choice today than when 3E came out. And I'm saying not in any commercial sense. WotC doesn't give a fuck about internet darlings like Savage Worlds, Reign, and other games that sell a few thousands copies. D&D is in an entirely different league, a league of hundreds of thousands.

Sure, WotC wants to get the hardcore gamers and trend setters onside. Sure they want to use the internet to market their game. But people who spend half their day on RPG gaming sites often lose all sense of perspective about the relative scales of the small-publisher market and WotC. None of the games the RPGnet crowd enthuse over is any more a threat to D&D than WFRP, GURPS, or Earthdawn were when 3E was in development. Probably less, given the decline of second-tier publishers in recent years.

Quote:rolleyes:

Care to make a rational rebuttal? How are the people complaining about 4E, and who presumably won't play it, any different from the folks who didn't buy into 3E?

Quote from: HaffrungCare to make a rational rebuttal? How are the people complaining about 4E, and who presumably won't play it, any different from the folks who didn't buy into 3E?

The folks who didn't buy into 3e were mostly story-based Swine who were responsible for the collapse of the roleplaying hobby?

RPGPundit

Just been in the local game stores -one has the Eberron, and FR sourcebooks are (for the 1st time) in the sale - £6-8 off, the other has Dragonlance stuff at half-price. The assistant said it's gonna be one long push before the new stuff arrives, the attitude being all hail the new flesh, the king is dead, long live the king.

Even here, it's started.

Quote from: HaffrungCare to make a rational rebuttal?

I'll wait for a rational complaint.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe folks who didn't buy into 3e were mostly story-based Swine who were responsible for the collapse of the roleplaying hobby?

RPGPundit

Huh? I know lots of old-school players who didn't buy into 3E. Casual gamers who don't like detailed tactical combat, players who don't like power-gaming, older gamers who were turned off by the whole dungeon-punk-superhero style of 3E, and people who just don't like change and like to play the same game they grew up with.

There's a whole fucking board of old-schooler D&D players who didn't make the jump to 3E - and for largely the same reason the 3E die-hards are getting their backs up about 4E - the game is changing to appeal to a different demographic. They didn't like the new style of play, thought nothing was wrong with the old game, and they didn't want to change.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe folks who didn't buy into 3e were mostly story-based Swine who were responsible for the collapse of the roleplaying hobby?

Hold up, Pundit: you've stated on your blog that your favourite version of D&D is the Rules Cyclopedia, that you played a bit of 3.0 but never made the leap to 3.5, and that a clear majority of your D20 game involved games other than D&D. I'll accept that you bought into D20, but I wouldn't call that buying into 3E - at most, I'd say you bought into it for a bit, decided that you preferred RC D&D, and reverted to that, a bit like one of your hypothetical D&D-playing Swine might try 3.0 for a bit, decide it wasn't for them, and go back to 2E.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI'll wait for a rational complaint.

I didn't make a complaint, just an observation: that some 3E players are balking at switching to 4E for the same reasons that 1/2E players balked at switching to 3E. And that the designers at WotC are no more (or less) dickheads for chalking up some 3E die-hards as losses as they were for chalking up some 1/2E die-hards as losses.

This is getting almost comical. Why do 3E loyalists feel their game should be more sancrosanct than 1/2E was?

Quote from: grubmanI've stopped talking about 4E because almost every discussion ends in a fight...but what the hell.

I'll cut ya!

Quote from: HaffrungThis is getting almost comical. Why do 3E loyalists feel their game should be more sancrosanct than 1/2E was?

:haw:

...only that old-school play STILL is possible with 3e. It´s just in the modules, baby.

The spells and items are all there.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe folks who didn't buy into 3e were mostly story-based Swine who were responsible for the collapse of the roleplaying hobby?

RPGPundit

Yeah, sorry to dog-pile you pundit, but that seems like an odd assertion. I mean, I don't think story oriented gamers were big on 3e, but they certainly weren't the only gamers, or the only D&D gamers not to buy in.

Quote from: HaffrungExcuse me if I don't take your word for it. From the comments I've seen by industry insiders, the RPG industry was in decline ten years ago, the publication of 3E saw a spike in sales, and now the decline has steepened. The average age of players is getting older. The market is getting smaller. That's why WotC has to go after the younger gamers to bring in new customers (just as they did with 3E).

Have you ever read Dancey's account of WotC buying out TSR?

There was a deliberate strategy to make 3e appeal to 1e fans who felt that 2e had been too watered-down.  That's why they added back the barbarian, monk, etc.

3e was very carefully designed to appeal to both new players and old players.  That is why it was such a big success.

What Grubman is saying, and I agree with, is that 4e is being designed mostly to appeal to new players - at the expense of alienating current ones.  And given that the hobby overall is graying, that is a huge risk.

WotC is assuming that if they add on the trappings of WoW and throw some stuff on the Internet that the hobby will suddenly be more appealing for the youth market.  But personally, I think they are wrong.  I think that the vast majority of kids today just aren't interested in PnP RPGs anymore.  There are too many other entertainment options available to them now.

So, if 4e does not succeed in appealing to more kids than 3e did, where does that leave things?  Even if a relatively small group of 3e customers decide not to go with 4e, then that's still a pretty big hit to sales.  That's why no one in their right mind tries to alienate their existing customers.

Quote from: jgantsHave you ever read Dancey's account of WotC buying out TSR?

There was a deliberate strategy to make 3e appeal to 1e fans who felt that 2e had been too watered-down.  That's why they added back the barbarian, monk, etc.

3e was very carefully designed to appeal to both new players and old players.  That is why it was such a big success.

What Grubman is saying, and I agree with, is that 4e is being designed mostly to appeal to new players - at the expense of alienating current ones.  And given that the hobby overall is graying, that is a huge risk.

WotC is assuming that if they add on the trappings of WoW and throw some stuff on the Internet that the hobby will suddenly be more appealing for the youth market.  But personally, I think they are wrong.  I think that the vast majority of kids today just aren't interested in PnP RPGs anymore.  There are too many other entertainment options available to them now.

So, if 4e does not succeed in appealing to more kids than 3e did, where does that leave things?  Even if a relatively small group of 3e customers decide not to go with 4e, then that's still a pretty big hit to sales.  That's why no one in their right mind tries to alienate their existing customers.

All sounds points.

But from a business points of view, I can't see Hasbro resigning themselves to WotC riding a greying and shrinking demographic into the sunset. If they can't revitalize D&D, they'll probably just shut it down as a pen-and-paper product.

So the problem lies in deciding which of the elements long standing players are okay with changing, and which they'll balk at. Trouble is, 3E is already a compromise of sorts (though an unequal one) between grognards and the superheroic tactical-miniatures market. You have the grognards who are cool with DM authority, and like a lot of the colour and elements of old-school D&D they remember from their own youth. And then you have the players for who D&D is all about battle boards, feat chains, and hard-coded rules that everyone has to follow. I don't think it's feasible anymore to straddle those two models. I also think it's clear which one is the dominant model in the marketplace.

There's no way WotC can come up with a game that:

A) Is different enough to justify a whole new edition, and the costs associated with buying new books,

B) Will not alienate the players who are already happy with 3.x,

C) Attract enough new customers to keep the game vital.

So the question is how many players who are happy with 3.x are they willing to alienate? I really don't know. Despite Dancey's comments about 3E bringing a lot of 1E players back into the fold, my sense is the number of players who didn't make the switch is significant. Just pulling a number out of my ass, maybe a quarter. Was that a big loss for WotC in terms of dollars? Probably not. Those guys were probably more self-reliant than average, and didn't buy a lot of books in the first place. Then there's natural attrition - players drop out as they get older. All else being equal, when it comes to hobby gaming a younger customer is always preferable to an older one.

My point is, the move to 4E isn't such a different situation from the move to 3E as a lot of the 3E diehards are making it out to be. WotC has shown in the past that you can revamp D&D, lose some long-standing players, and still come out ahead. Will it work this time? I don't know. If the well really is dry for bringing in new blood, and the game is much more reliant on a hardcore of existing players than it was seven years ago, then D&D is in its dotage already, and WotC is unlikely to remain the publisher of the game for much longer anyway.

Quote from: Settembrini...only that old-school play STILL is possible with 3e. It´s just in the modules, baby.

The spells and items are all there.

Hmmm, well maybe the "feel" of 3e will still be possible in 4e? In the modules, at least.

If you don't like the idea of trying to get some kind of "3e feel" out of 4e, then you are now in the shoes of those of use who don't like the idea of a "1e" or "classic" feel from 3.x.

Quote from: jgantsSo, if 4e does not succeed in appealing to more kids than 3e did, where does that leave things?  Even if a relatively small group of 3e customers decide not to go with 4e, then that's still a pretty big hit to sales.  That's why no one in their right mind tries to alienate their existing customers.

I'm not an expert by any means, and I fully admit that any opinion I offer is not only probably biased, but also ignorant of many details.

But I'd predict that if 4e doesn't do a good job of grabbing internet players, we might see one more modification that swings D&D to be even more internet based. If this fails, then I bet (as the name of this thread) that D&D as a PnP game is dumped and it is made into a full fledged online game like WoW.

Who knows, maybe they'll develop this fully online WoW-like game soon (maybe even now).

But in any case, I would say that if the PnP/internet D&D 4e effort doesn't generate "serial" profits, we might see it die within 2 years of its release. In the end, it seems to me like this is the goal of 4e...to start edging customers toward a recurring monthly paying group of customers, not just people who might buy a book and the cost ends there.

Quote from: Goblinoid GamesHmmm, well maybe the "feel" of 3e will still be possible in 4e? In the modules, at least.

If you don't like the idea of trying to get some kind of "3e feel" out of 4e, then you are now in the shoes of those of use who don't like the idea of a "1e" or "classic" feel from 3.x.

If I can DM a 1e module off the cuff with 4e, I´ll be playing it.
All I know thus far sugests that won´t be possible.

Quote from: jgantsWhat Grubman is saying, and I agree with, is that 4e is being designed mostly to appeal to new players - at the expense of alienating current ones.

Can you give me some examples?

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungCare to make a rational rebuttal? How are the people complaining about 4E, and who presumably won't play it, any different from the folks who didn't buy into 3E?

Okay, sunshine...since you so sweetly asked, I'll rise to the bait. The people complaining about 4e are different from the folks who didn't buy into 3e because of the issues of meta-setting, planar cosmology, and game mechanics. :pundit:

When they designed 3e, it was in many ways, a different game. The Dragonsfoot grognards have some legitimate complaints about compatibility issues and speed of play. But you can still play the same fantasy game if SOME core rules are still there, and if meta-setting remains mostly intact. 3e changed many rules, but the meta-setting and planar cosmology were largely intact, so we can say that 3e is still D&D.

If 4e drastically changes BOTH the meta-setting AND the game mechanics, it makes it into an entirely different game. You can possibly change one of these things, but if you change both, you've got nothing left.

Now do you see the difference? I could point out every little thing that makes 4e so different from all other versions of D&D, but do you really want me to write five to ten pages of how all the little changes to meta-setting, planar cosmology, and game mechanics make it into something else?

Quote from: Goblinoid GamesHmmm, well maybe the "feel" of 3e will still be possible in 4e? In the modules, at least.

That remains to be seen. But if gameplay becomes as clinical as the designers are making it sound, I have my doubts.

No death effects? Beholders that gradually turn you to stone? That represents a deference to a sort of player entitlement that wasn't there in the sink-or-swim old school days.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIf 4e drastically changes BOTH the meta-setting AND the game mechanics, it makes it into an entirely different game. You can possibly change one of these things, but if you change both, you've got nothing left.

So in the late 70s and early 80s, the people who house ruled their AD&D games and ignored what their was of the meta-setting (i.e., Greyhawk), weren't actually playing D&D? Basic D&D isn't D&D?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiCan you give me some examples?

Seanchai

Everyone has kewl powerz!1!! for one thing.  The descriptions of the monsters I've seen for another.    The WoW-ization of the classes and monsters.  The whole "evil is da cool" thing with Tieflings and Warlocks as core classes.  The whole D&D Insider/subscription aspect.  A constant lack of respect from the PR department for previous versions of the game.  Completely changing how rules / meta-setting work from the previous versions of the game...Need I go on?

I know some of you think some of us are insane for seeing the connections between WoW and what is being presented as 4e, but for some of us, it is blindingly obvious.

Quote from: WarthurHold up, Pundit: you've stated on your blog that your favourite version of D&D is the Rules Cyclopedia, that you played a bit of 3.0 but never made the leap to 3.5, and that a clear majority of your D20 game involved games other than D&D. I'll accept that you bought into D20, but I wouldn't call that buying into 3E - at most, I'd say you bought into it for a bit, decided that you preferred RC D&D, and reverted to that, a bit like one of your hypothetical D&D-playing Swine might try 3.0 for a bit, decide it wasn't for them, and go back to 2E.

I bought into 3e as a good and necessary concept, not necessarily as My Favourite RPG.  I assumed that's what the original poster was talking about when he referred to "buying in" or not, that he was asking what the diff was between the people who are abjectly refusing to support the move to 4e now and those who abjectly refused to move to 3e then.

RPGPundit

I'll say something else:

The whole move to 4e the way its being played out in both the system and the PR is based on two fundamental ideas:

1. Its important and necessary that our new game appeal as much as possible to people (especially younger people) who don't currently play D&D.

2. The existing D&D fans will buy whatever we put out anyways.

I think #1 is indeed a good and essential point, though you can debate about whether the particular things WoTC is doing as far as its system and marketing are what will bring the new young players in or not; but the fundamental idea is sound.
I think that #2 might be a terrible mistake at worst, and even at best its a really stupid attitude to take that will guarantee losing some people just because of that attitude.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SeanchaiSo in the late 70s and early 80s, the people who house ruled their AD&D games and ignored what their was of the meta-setting (i.e., Greyhawk), weren't actually playing D&D? Basic D&D isn't D&D?

Seanchai

In basic D&D, MOST of the game mechanics and MOST of the meta-setting is intact. The meta-setting for both games aren't identical, but they're similar, and the rules are also similar. I can't answer this properly because I'd have to dig out my books, and they're buried under a pile of junk in my room, but the basics are the same. AC is functionally the same (whether it's negative or positive), fighters don't regenerate, Vancian magic is intact, there are nine spell levels, part-demons and part-angels are not core races, clerics don't heal their allies when they strike an opponent, fighters don't inflict damage when they miss with an attack, and there's other stuff as well.

I think Basic D&D has elementals, undead, and the like, though I don't know if it goes into detail on where they're from. Also, I think the books acknowledge that you can have a pantheon of gods that can have an effect on the world. But you know what? The important thing is this:

You can easily convert Basic D&D and AD&D back and forth with little trouble. That's what matters most. :)

I'd also like to mention that this conversation is not about house-ruled campaigns. Any game system can be house-ruled. If you wanna house-rule your game, and call it D&D, who am I to stop you? :confused:

The various editions shared a certain reality, and a common language between gamers. I think that's about to change. 4e is not going to have the commonalities that Basic D&D and the other editions shared. If that's true, then that makes me sad. :(

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIn basic D&D, MOST of the game mechanics and MOST of the meta-setting is intact. The meta-setting for both games aren't identical, but they're similar, and the rules are also similar.

Really? Where is Karameikos in Greyhawk? Where's it mentioned in AD&D?

Quote from: Sacrificial LambAC is functionally the same (whether it's negative or positive), fighters don't regenerate, Vancian magic is intact, there are nine spell levels, part-demons and part-angels are not core races, clerics don't heal their allies when they strike an opponent, fighters don't inflict damage when they miss with an attack, and there's other stuff as well.

Dwarves, Elves and Halflings work differently. Weapons work differently. There are new combat considerations. New rules. And so on.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambYou can easily convert Basic D&D and AD&D back and forth with little trouble. That's what matters most.

What does my 3rd level Elf from D&D become in AD&D? And how about my 5th level Gnome Illusionist from AD&D?

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI'd also like to mention that this conversation is not about house-ruled campaigns. Any game system can be house-ruled. If you wanna house-rule your game, and call it D&D, who am I to stop you?

Your argument is that by changing the rules, it's not D&D anymore. House ruling is, as you know, changing the rules.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgantsEveryone has kewl powerz!1!! for one thing.  The descriptions of the monsters I've seen for another.    The WoW-ization of the classes and monsters.  The whole "evil is da cool" thing with Tieflings and Warlocks as core classes.  The whole D&D Insider/subscription aspect. A constant lack of respect from the PR department for previous versions of the game.  Completely changing how rules / meta-setting work from the previous versions of the game...Need I go on?

Yes.

You said, "What Grubman is saying, and I agree with, is that 4e is being designed mostly to appeal to new players - at the expense of alienating current ones." What I'm looking for is not a list of changings that are being made, but evidence of a design - conscious intent - to alienate old players. What you've done is given me a list of things that may appear in 4e that you don't like.

Quote from: jgantsI know some of you think some of us are insane for seeing the connections between WoW and what is being presented as 4e, but for some of us, it is blindingly obvious.

Personally, I don't care about WoW. I don't give a flying fuck in what ways 4e and WoW are alike or different. I don't play WoW. I don't care if 4e plays like WoW. I have no idea why I or anyone else would care.

So, no, I don't think you're insane for seeing connections between the two.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiReally? Where is Karameikos in Greyhawk? Where's it mentioned in AD&D?

I don't remember Karameikos very well. But you're talking about a specific campaign setting. The game is larger than any single campaign setting.

Quote from: SeanchiDwarves, Elves and Halflings work differently. Weapons work differently. There are new combat considerations. New rules. And so on.

The game mechanics are close enough. Ask any old 1e grognard how easy it is to use their old Basic D&D adventure modules for their AD&D campaigns. They'll tell you it's easy. :cool:

Quote from: SeanchaiWhat does my 3rd level Elf from D&D become in AD&D? And how about my 5th level Gnome Illusionist from AD&D?

Translate them as is. If you use a Basic D&D Elf in AD&D, just say it's a variant elven race. If you use the Gnome Illusionist in Basic D&D, just say he's an anomaly. Translating them is child's play.

Quote from: SeanchaiYour argument is that by changing the rules, it's not D&D anymore. House ruling is, as you know, changing the rules.

Seanchai

No. My argument is that if you DRASTICALLY change both the META-SETTING and the GAME MECHANICS, then it isn't D&D any more. MAYBE you can drastically change one of these things, but not both, or else the game becomes something else. D&D has always had the following as core rules:

1.) Fighters have no supernatural powers.

2.) D&D uses a Vancian magic system.

3.) There are nine spell levels.

4.) D&D is saturated with magic (though 1e grognards might not want to acknowledge this). :haw:

5.) It also, of course has things like elves, dwarves, and halflings as races, and classes , and levels. There's a hit point and armor class system to deal with combat.

To be honest, I don't remember how the planar cosmology for Basic D&D works. But otherwise, the game mechanics and meta-setting assumptions for Basic D&D are very similar to AD&D.

AC, hit points, weapon damage, Vancian spell system, monsters, and more are mostly interchangeable between the two games, so the game mechanics are different, but close enough.

The meta-setting of the two games is close enough. Because we have basically the same technology level, similar forms of magic, and many of the same monster types running around, we'll have a similar implied setting. So we're good there too. Basic D&D still passes the sniff test. Will 4e? Time will tell...:raise:

P.S. I'm not saying that a game of Basic D&D is the same experience as AD&D. There are differences. But we can still identify Basic D&D as D&D because of the qualities they share. :)

-4e is gonna be different. But not as different as everyone thinks or as the developers claim.

-Even then, 4e won't be for everyone, especially people who really liked the previous edition.

-The internet will exist as a conduit or fans of the older stuff to get together and complain about "that thing that killed the real D&D".
They should really find a new hobby.

-Asshole 4e fans will show up to mock them, needlessly, but then again they're assholes.
They should also find a new hobby.

-The internet will also serve as a place to keep their old and new school love alive with fellow fans who have gotten over the whole thing, and got down to making new ideas and spreading the love around.

-Water is wet.

-The sky is blue.

-PCs will continue to kill green meanies and loot their bleeding corpses for glimmering gold and shiny weapons. They will have an awesome time doing it.

Dare I say the last four points matter more to me than the other ones.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambBut you're talking about a specific campaign setting. The game is larger than any single campaign setting.

I'm talking about the setting that came bundled in the rulebook.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe game mechanics are close enough. Ask any old 1e grognard how easy it is to use their old Basic D&D adventure modules for their AD&D campaigns. They'll tell you it's easy.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambTranslate them as is. If you use a Basic D&D Elf in AD&D, just say it's a variant elven race. If you use the Gnome Illusionist in Basic D&D, just say he's an anomaly. Translating them is child's play.

I played 1e extensively and I think you're making a convenient argument.

For example, in Basic D&D, there are no races, only classes. Thus you can't take an Elf from D&D or put a Gnome with a class into D&D without modifying them extensively. Not what I'd call "easy" or "child's play."

Quote from: Sacrificial LambMy argument is that if you DRASTICALLY change both the META-SETTING and the GAME MECHANICS, then it isn't D&D any more.

Okay. What's "drastically"? I haven't seen anything about 4e that makes me think they're making "drastic" changes.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambBut otherwise, the game mechanics and meta-setting assumptions for Basic D&D are very similar to AD&D.

Except, again, they're not.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambBut we can still identify Basic D&D as D&D because of the qualities they share. :)

When you conveniently get to select said qualities, sure.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI don't remember Karameikos very well. But you're talking about a specific campaign setting. The game is larger than any single campaign setting.

If the game is larger than any single setting, then when do you place so much stock in this "meta setting" argument of yours when that meta setting stems, almost exclusively, from Gygaxianisms and Greyhawk?

The meta setting of BD&D is nothing like that of AD&D.  Read the Immortal set to get a picture of just how different the BD&D cosmology is from AD&D's.  Here's an excerpt from the "Demon" entry on page 30 of the DM's guide to immortals:

" 'Demon' is a common term once applied to nearly all monsters -- including everything from gargoyles to dragons.  In the D&D game, a demon is an immortal who serves the Sphere of Entropy.  It dwells in its own place, one of the Outer Planes of Existence. ..."

That's just the merest tip of the iceberg of cosmological differences between BD&D and AD&D.  And they are both D&D.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe game mechanics are close enough. Ask any old 1e grognard how easy it is to use their old Basic D&D adventure modules for their AD&D campaigns. They'll tell you it's easy.

Yes, it's very easy to hand wave anything.  But though they are largely similar, there are still differences. For example: BD&D's Weapon Mastery system vs. AD&D's weapon proficiencies system.  Sure, a conversion can be made, but there is effort involved as they are not mechanically 1:1 equivalent.


EDIT: on preview, what Seanchai said.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhen you conveniently get to select said qualities, sure.

Although I don't always agree with the way Seachai goes about it, I think that's actually the crucial point right here.

People always have their individual ideas of what qualities make D&D recognizable as D&D and thus, everybody's idea of what's "too drastic" will be different.

For instance, someone mentions spell levels above. I don't personally give a shit if wizards have 9 levels of spells. In fact, a straight relationship between character level and spell level makes much more sense to me and to the newbies I've played with. So not only do I not see this as drastic, it's actually a welcome change *for me*.

And that's why I don't really buy the argument that the dev. team isn't "listening to the player base". I think they are but it's impossible to reconcile so many different viewpoints.

Quote from: Consonant DudeAnd that's why I don't really buy the argument that the dev. team isn't "listening to the player base". I think they are but it's impossible to reconcile so many different viewpoints.

It's also important to understand that personal preferences are just that.

For example, one of the complaints made above is that "everyone will have kewl powerz!1!!" A game with kewl powerz!1!! is just what the public wants, however. Sure, a fraction of a fraction - those on message boards such as these - might not, but the majority of folks are just lined up to play the next Drizz't with the serial numbers filed off.

Seanchai

Quote from: Consonant DudeAnd that's why I don't really buy the argument that the dev. team isn't "listening to the player base". I think they are but it's impossible to reconcile so many different viewpoints.

That's a matter of degrees, I think. In an audience as large and diverse as D&D's, that not everyone is going to be happy no matter what they do is a given. You can please some of the people some of the time...

That doesn't dismiss the possibility that the design team is doing a poor job at addressing as many different playstyles as possible. Considering how many designer choices I have seen to date that seem to be trashing long held convention based on what amounts to designer whim, my personal opinion is that is what is happening.

Quote from: SeanchaiOkay. What's "drastically"? I haven't seen anything about 4e that makes me think they're making "drastic" changes.
Seanchai

I won't address all the other stuff, but I'll address this, based on what I've heard.

1.) They're making part-demons and part-angels as core races.

2.) You don't roll saving throws any more.

3.) They're completely changing the cosmology from both Basic D&D and from 1e, 2e, and 3.x.

4.) Most of a spellcaster's powers are non-Vancian.

5.) They're ditching the nine-level spell system.

6.) Fighters inflict damage even when they miss.

7.) Characters regenerate their hit points now.

8.) The dryad isn't a hot forest chick any more. Now, she's a big plant monster. :rolleyes:

9.) The game has a larger focus on the demonic with tieflings, warlocks, and more fiendish opponents.

10.) Action Points are core.

11.) All non-magical classes have non-magical "spells".

12.) The "image" of 4e has drastically changed from before, even from 3e. I go onto the Wizards site, and the 4e message board icon is some horned demon chick. :rolleyes:

There's more, but those few changes give us a hint that Hasbro is releasing a very different game. I'm cool with SOME of these changes, but the COMBINATION of ALL these changes IGNORES the LEGACY of D&D, and that I don't like. Hasbro has three rpgs already. Why don't they just create a fourth game that does exactly what they want? :confused:

Rest in peace, D&D. We hardly knew ye....:(

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI won't address all the other stuff, but I'll address this, based on what I've heard.

How about addressing my question? What do you consider to be a definition of "drastically"? You've give a list of examples, but majority of those I don't feel are "drastic" changes. So how do you tell - how should we tell - if a change is "drastic" or not?

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb12.) The "image" of 4e has drastically changed from before, even from 3e. I go onto the Wizards site, and the 4e message board icon is some horned demon chick. :rolleyes:

Uh-huh...

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI'm cool with SOME of these changes, but the COMBINATION of ALL these changes IGNORES the LEGACY of D&D, and that I don't like.

You realize that the legacy of D&D is people getting a hold of the system as written, house ruling the hell out of it, mixing up the setting six ways to Sunday, then getting together with their friends for a night of casual gaming, Mountain Dew and Cheetos, right?

Quote from: Sacrificial LambRest in peace, D&D. We hardly knew ye....:(

Well, D&D may be dead, but apparently hyperbole and melodrama are alive and well...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiHow about addressing my question? What do you consider to be a definition of "drastically"? You've give a list of examples, but majority of those I don't feel are "drastic" changes. So how do you tell - how should we tell - if a change is "drastic" or not?



Uh-huh...



You realize that the legacy of D&D is people getting a hold of the system as written, house ruling the hell out of it, mixing up the setting six ways to Sunday, then getting together with their friends for a night of casual gaming, Mountain Dew and Cheetos, right?



Well, D&D may be dead, but apparently hyperbole and melodrama are alive and well...

Seanchai

I give up. You win. Satisfied?

since wotc seems to be keen on ditching legacy stuff, how about putting all the rules in one fucking book, then?  hell, if they're completely redoing the spell system, that's a nice chunk of real estate, right there.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI give up. You win. Satisfied?

I won posts ago. What I was after was just what I asked: how do you tell - how should we tell - if a change is "drastic" or not?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI won posts ago. What I was after was just what I asked: how do you tell - how should we tell - if a change is "drastic" or not?

Seanchai

I'm not feeling passionate about the argument any more, Seanchai. Mostly, I'm just tired right now. I gave my opinion that what I've seen of 4e makes it not look like D&D to me. On these issues, I don't hold the monopoly on truth, and amazingly neither do you. ;)

In any case, I'll pick up the 4e Player's Handbook, out of curiousity, but frankly, I'm beginning to feel apathy about the whole 4e situation. I'll try to bite my tongue, and avoid commenting in most 4e threads until I actually have the book in my hands. And that's that.

Quote from: beebersince wotc seems to be keen on ditching legacy stuff, how about putting all the rules in one fucking book, then?  hell, if they're completely redoing the spell system, that's a nice chunk of real estate, right there.

That's already the case in 3e.

(http://www.theescapist.com/ypal/cover-PHB.jpg)

Unless you mean cramming tons of monsters, exception rules and the whole nine yards. I don't think that's a good idea for WotC and I don't think it's a good idea for a majority of the customer base.

Granted, I'm hoping the next DMG will be better than the 3e version but since Monte Cook is not involved, I'm optimistic about that.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIn any case, I'll pick up the 4e Player's Handbook, out of curiousity, but frankly, I'm beginning to feel apathy about the whole 4e situation. I'll try to bite my tongue, and avoid commenting in most 4e threads until I actually have the book in my hands. And that's that.

I'm more optimistic than you and the PHB isn't even a garanteed buy for me. I need to see more to be convinced. Also, I'll certainly wait for several reviews. And not the early ones, which are usually written by morons and are emotional rather than rational.

I'm also suspicious that a second printing might be needed, since the process appears more rushed than 3e to me. And as we know, 3e benefitted from reprints and even ended up with an extremely lame and insulting ".5" update.

One thing you could do is give it a try if/when the OGL is put online. This is bound to happen and I might test the system like that. Were I as skeptical as you are, I'd certainly try it that way before buying. The nice presentation will be missing but it should be enough for you to determine if the changes to the game are acceptable or not for you.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'm more optimistic than you and the PHB isn't even a garanteed buy for me. I need to see more to be convinced. Also, I'll certainly wait for several reviews. And not the early ones, which are usually written by morons and are emotional rather than rational.

I'm also suspicious that a second printing might be needed, since the process appears more rushed than 3e to me. And as we know, 3e benefitted from reprints and even ended up with an extremely lame and insulting ".5" update.

One thing you could do is give it a try if/when the OGL is put online. This is bound to happen and I might test the system like that. Were I as skeptical as you are, I'd certainly try it that way before buying. The nice presentation will be missing but it should be enough for you to determine if the changes to the game are acceptable or not for you.

Arrgh. I'm commenting again. :D ;)

I'll buy the books. I can say, Consonant Dude, that I'll give the game a test drive, at least. It won't hurt to give the new edition a try, though you're probably right about Hasbro quickly needing a second printing. But that's okay, as the 1st printing should momentarily satisfy my monkey curiousity. :D

For now, I'm done arguing about 4e (I hope). I might get cranky or excited, and get drawn into another Internet discussion, but right now, I just wanna chill. Sorry, Seanchai. ;) :D

Quote from: Consonant DudeThat's already the case in 3e.

(http://www.theescapist.com/ypal/cover-PHB.jpg)

bzzt!  wrong.  missing from the above is the experience point system.  without that, the PH is incomplete.  

just reduce the spell section since they're going to put out another compendium anyway.  add in the magic item rules, since players can create them, and a smaller selection of them.  a section on "how to run the game" at the end and a sampling of monsters and you'll be all set.  absolutely doable, but they won't, since they won't make as much money on a one-book core.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI gave my opinion that what I've seen of 4e makes it not look like D&D to me.

Why the hell would I care what makes 4e not look like D&D to you?

Seriously. You don't play in my group. I don't play in yours. I'm not an adherent of yours and I don't believe either of us has the standing in the gaming world that our opines are of particular import. So why in the hell would I or anyone else care about your subjective views?

I was told that WotC was trying to design a game that alienated old players. Read that carefully. I wasn't told that 4e wasn't appealing to old players - there have been assertions made that WotC is consciously trying to drive existing D&D players away from 4e. As that sounds patently ridiculous and I haven't been following 4e closely, I asked for examples.

What I got was people telling me, "OMG! I don't like the direction they're taking the game! The legacy of D&D is dead! Waah..."

If that's the proof that exists that WotC is consciously trying to drive away existing players and if, as you posit, this is some sort of competition, then yes, I have indeed already won.

Here are some truths.

Yes, 4e will drive away some long-time D&D players. But the vast majority of folks will either: a) buy it or b) bitch and then buy it. How do we know this? Basic D&D to AD&D. AD&D to second edition. Second edition to 3e. 3e to 3.5. Historically, people complained up a storm, bought the game, played it, then went on to buy the next iteration.

Online communities don't in anyway represent the opinions of the gaming commmunity as a whole. This community doesn't represent the opinions of the gaming commmunity as a whole. Your opinions don't represent those of the gaming commmunity as a whole. My opinions don't represent those of the gaming commmunity as a whole.

In fact, they're rather different.

People, especially those who participate in these online communities, absolutely play indie, non-traditional games. People do all sorts of interesting, non-traditional things with their games. They might focus quite a bit more on role-playing than the game aspects of RPGs, for example.

But the majority of folks who play RPGs buy D&D because it delivers for them the kind of casual, social, easy to access experience they're looking for. It's likely they'll buy and play 4e because it, too, appears to be set to deliver the kind of casual, social, easy to access experience they're looking for.

You don't like 4e. Fine. That's your right. You can even relentlessly bitch about it before it's released if you like. (Although you don't have to - even after it's out, there will be plenty to bitch about. You can bitch about how much WotC is focusing on getting new players, how they never seem to do anything to attract new players, how they changed D&D into something unrecognizable, or how they didn't change 4e enough to make it worth purchasing, for example.)

But I have no idea why you think I'd care. We don't play together and your opinion isn't going to influence the paradigm. What might do so, however, is if WotC were consciously designing the game to alienate the majority of long-time D&D players. If you've got something relevant there that doesn't fall along the lines of "Tieflings! Waaah..." or "They changed the look of their online forums," I'm all ears.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWhy the hell would I care what makes 4e not look like D&D to you?

Seriously. You don't play in my group. I don't play in yours.

They why are you reading and opining on the internet, dude? Seriously.

As for the rest of us, some of us like reading other people's opinions, getting different angles on play experience, etc.

But from where I am standing, you post a lot and emotively for someone who "doesn't care".

Quote from: beebersince wotc seems to be keen on ditching legacy stuff, how about putting all the rules in one fucking book, then?  hell, if they're completely redoing the spell system, that's a nice chunk of real estate, right there.

God, that'd be a nightmare.

If my players want to buy books, I don't want them to have to buy a 900-page monster for $80-100.

I'd far rather they drop $30 on a PHB and play, using my copies when needed.

I also don't want to have to flip through information on classes, feats, skills, magic items, and play advice when I want to know how many hit dice a Displacer Beast has.

The 3-book format has worked great since AD&D1, and it's one major thing I don't want to change.  It's a logical division, given D&D's current play-style.

-O

Quote from: obrynGod, that'd be a nightmare.

If my players want to buy books, I don't want them to have to buy a 900-page monster for $80-100.

I'd far rather they drop $30 on a PHB and play, using my copies when needed.

I also don't want to have to flip through information on classes, feats, skills, magic items, and play advice when I want to know how many hit dice a Displacer Beast has.

The 3-book format has worked great since AD&D1, and it's one major thing I don't want to change.  It's a logical division, given D&D's current play-style.

-O

wotc's going to release lots of supplements anyway, yes?  why not release a streamlined, one volume ruleset?  wouldn't that draw in new players?  and "a 900-page monster for $80-100."?  please :rolleyes:  streamline it and it could be one volume for $39.95, especially with the volume they'd be producing.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI won't address all the other stuff, but I'll address this, based on what I've heard.

1.) They're making part-demons and part-angels as core races.

2.) You don't roll saving throws any more.

3.) They're completely changing the cosmology from both Basic D&D and from 1e, 2e, and 3.x.

4.) Most of a spellcaster's powers are non-Vancian.

5.) They're ditching the nine-level spell system.

6.) Fighters inflict damage even when they miss.

7.) Characters regenerate their hit points now.

8.) The dryad isn't a hot forest chick any more. Now, she's a big plant monster. :rolleyes:

9.) The game has a larger focus on the demonic with tieflings, warlocks, and more fiendish opponents.

10.) Action Points are core.

11.) All non-magical classes have non-magical "spells".

12.) The "image" of 4e has drastically changed from before, even from 3e. I go onto the Wizards site, and the 4e message board icon is some horned demon chick. :rolleyes:

There's more, but those few changes give us a hint that Hasbro is releasing a very different game. I'm cool with SOME of these changes, but the COMBINATION of ALL these changes IGNORES the LEGACY of D&D, and that I don't like. Hasbro has three rpgs already. Why don't they just create a fourth game that does exactly what they want? :confused:

Rest in peace, D&D. We hardly knew ye....:(

I haven't been keeping up at all, but if all is as present here (and I have no reason to doubt it) then I won't be buying 4e. I'll just go play WoW.

Who care about your opinion, WK? You're just a whiny bitch...

And don't you forget it.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBut from where I am standing, you post a lot and emotively for someone who "doesn't care".

Go back to the part where I said, "I asked for examples of WotC's behavior regarding their plan to alienate long-time players and got 'No more gnomes? It's not D&D!' instead." You don't have to search, much less ask, for that sort of commentary.

When I say, "What did you think of last night's episode of Chuck?" then I'm expecting "OMG! I totally didn't buy the premise of this one. I don't think I'm going to watch the show anymore..."

In other words, I didn't come to hear folks bitch about 4e. If you want to do that, go right ahead - no need to address me. If WotC has said something about intentionally designing 4e to alientate long-time players, let's hear it.

That aside, you're basically saying I'm a hypocrite. Let's run with that ball.

We've heard a lot about 4e destroying D&D and it's legacy. There have been a number of posts with some pretty strong sentiments expressed in them. People have, without being coaxed, shared that they're not going to purchase 4e, etc..

So who is willing to put their money where their mouth is: to go on record saying they're absolutely not purchasing 4e? Or do you want your cake and eat it, too: to whine and bitch before they buy and play 4e?

Seanchai

Quote from: beeberwotc's going to release lots of supplements anyway, yes?  why not release a streamlined, one volume ruleset?  wouldn't that draw in new players?  and "a 900-page monster for $80-100."?  please :rolleyes:  streamline it and it could be one volume for $39.95, especially with the volume they'd be producing.

So you don't just want a single core book - you want a single core book with less stuff in it.  I've seen streamlined books like this (for example, Arcana Evolved) and love them.  However, to make room for that, you need to cut out a large number of spells, monsters, magic items, feats, play examples, advice, and so on.

So, to get the amount of detail you had before, you're still buying a monster supplement, a magic item supplement, a spell supplement, etc.  Sure, a GM could buy just the one book and nothing else, but the entry costs for each individual player are also higher, assuming they want a copy of the rules.

I don't see this as an improvement.

-O

Quote from: SeanchaiSo who is willing to put their money where their mouth is: to go on record saying they're absolutely not purchasing 4e? Or do you want your cake and eat it, too: to whine and bitch before they buy and play 4e?

Seanchai

on record, i will not be buying it.  my players have no interest, and there are other games i'd rather spend my money on.  there ya go.

Quote from: obrynSo you don't just want a single core book - you want a single core book with less stuff in it.  I've seen streamlined books like this (for example, Arcana Evolved) and love them.  However, to make room for that, you need to cut out a large number of spells, monsters, magic items, feats, play examples, advice, and so on.

So, to get the amount of detail you had before, you're still buying a monster supplement, a magic item supplement, a spell supplement, etc.  Sure, a GM could buy just the one book and nothing else, but the entry costs for each individual player are also higher, assuming they want a copy of the rules.

I don't see this as an improvement.

-O

we have been hearing how they're planning on making more streamlined anyway, so why not?  if you're ditching the existing spell system, why keep all the old spells?  less space right there.  

anyone i knew who played or had an interest in 3.x ended up buying at least the PH & DMG, the latter primarily for the magic items.  that's $60, as opposed to a theoretical $40.  the multiple core book requirement is a throwback which they won't change just to rake in more bucks.  period.

Quote from: beeberwe have been hearing how they're planning on making more streamlined anyway, so why not?  if you're ditching the existing spell system, why keep all the old spells?  less space right there.  

anyone i knew who played or had an interest in 3.x ended up buying at least the PH & DMG, the latter primarily for the magic items.  that's $60, as opposed to a theoretical $40.  the multiple core book requirement is a throwback which they won't change just to rake in more bucks.  period.

I don't think WotC's making extra money off having 3 corebooks.  I see it as a way to control costs for players.  Players aren't stuck shelling out cash for stuff they don't specifically need - magic items they don't own, XP they don't calculate, and monsters.

Why should they pay extra for that added stuff they don't need, just to theoretically save a minimalist GM a few bucks?

-O

Quote from: SeanchaiSo who is willing to put their money where their mouth is: to go on record saying they're absolutely not purchasing 4e? Or do you want your cake and eat it, too: to whine and bitch before they buy and play 4e?

Seanchai

Umm, I won't be, but that's no news. I'm not whining and bitching, I gave away my only 3.x book - the PHB - and I wasn't interested in 4.0 in the first place. FtA! and Iron Gauntlets fill my occasional fantasy need sweetly, so I'm probably not who you were yelling at... :D

-clash

I never even bought 3e, despite playing in a campaign for a couple of years.  I could tell right away I didn't particularly like the system, so there was no reason to own it.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhy the hell would I care what makes 4e not look like D&D to you?

Seriously. You don't play in my group. I don't play in yours. I'm not an adherent of yours and I don't believe either of us has the standing in the gaming world that our opines are of particular import. So why in the hell would I or anyone else care about your subjective views?

You care, Sunshine. :cool: Sorry, but you're not very good at feigning apathy. ;) If my words were so hopelessly irrelevant, you'd never have even responded to me, either directly or indirectly.

Quote from: SeanchaiI was told that WotC was trying to design a game that alienated old players. Read that carefully. I wasn't told that 4e wasn't appealing to old players - there have been assertions made that WotC is consciously trying to drive existing D&D players away from 4e. As that sounds patently ridiculous and I haven't been following 4e closely, I asked for examples.

I don't think they're actively trying to get rid of old-school players. Hasbro just wants more customers, and the designers want to create something "cool", which is fine. That's not my beef.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhat I got was people telling me, "OMG! I don't like the direction they're taking the game! The legacy of D&D is dead! Waah..."

Is this a direct quote? ;)  

Quote from: SeanchaiIf that's the proof that exists that WotC is consciously trying to drive away existing players and if, as you posit, this is some sort of competition, then yes, I have indeed already won.

I concede that they're not trying to drive away existing players, therefore, you win the "Internet Dick-Waving Contest". Congratulations! :haw:

Quote from: SeanchaiHere are some truths.

No, please....anything but that.

Quote from: SeanchaiYes, 4e will drive away some long-time D&D players. But the vast majority of folks will either: a) buy it or b) bitch and then buy it. How do we know this? Basic D&D to AD&D. AD&D to second edition. Second edition to 3e. 3e to 3.5. Historically, people complained up a storm, bought the game, played it, then went on to buy the next iteration.

Online communities don't in anyway represent the opinions of the gaming commmunity as a whole. This community doesn't represent the opinions of the gaming commmunity as a whole. Your opinions don't represent those of the gaming commmunity as a whole. My opinions don't represent those of the gaming commmunity as a whole.

If online communities were as irrelevant as you imply they are, not only would you avoid contradicting yourself by engaging in this Internet fappery, but Hasbro wouldn't be launching their "Digital Initiative". The Internet has changed everything now. Internet forums can have a profound effect on the gaming community. Remember a while back when White Wolf stupidly planned to charge people for playing in White Wolf games? Remember the backlash on the Internet? Those suckers backed the fuck down pretty damn fast. The influence of the Internet was the cause of that.

Quote from: SeanchaiIn fact, they're rather different.

Different, but related.

Quote from: SeanchaiPeople, especially those who participate in these online communities, absolutely play indie, non-traditional games. People do all sorts of interesting, non-traditional things with their games. They might focus quite a bit more on role-playing than the game aspects of RPGs, for example.

Do you mean Forge games? If you don't, then most rpg companies would be classified as "indie". And most of the online people primarily play the traditional games too, from what I've seen, if what most people post is any indication...

Quote from: SeanchaiBut the majority of folks who play RPGs buy D&D because it delivers for them the kind of casual, social, easy to access experience they're looking for. It's likely they'll buy and play 4e because it, too, appears to be set to deliver the kind of casual, social, easy to access experience they're looking for.

Okay.

Quote from: SeanchaiYou don't like 4e. Fine. That's your right. You can even relentlessly bitch about it before it's released if you like. (Although you don't have to - even after it's out, there will be plenty to bitch about. You can bitch about how much WotC is focusing on getting new players, how they never seem to do anything to attract new players, how they changed D&D into something unrecognizable, or how they didn't change 4e enough to make it worth purchasing, for example.)

You can bitch too, sugar plum. In fact, I think you just did. :D

Quote from: SeanchaiBut I have no idea why you think I'd care. We don't play together and your opinion isn't going to influence the paradigm. What might do so, however, is if WotC were consciously designing the game to alienate the majority of long-time D&D players. If you've got something relevant there that doesn't fall along the lines of "Tieflings! Waaah..." or "They changed the look of their online forums," I'm all ears.

Seanchai

To not care is to not say anything at all. Logic dictates then, my darling Seanchai, that you care. I feel the love. :haw:

Have no fear, my four-eyed friend....4e will sell many books, and perform respectably in the market. However, I have this nagging suspicion there will be a strong market for the 3e stuff as well. If that happens, then I'll be happy. :)

SL - you need to get your as over to d20 Haven, sign up to be a member, and start posting shit.  Like, now. :D

Quote from: James J SkachSL - you need to get your as over to d20 Haven, sign up to be a member, and start posting shit.  Like, now. :D

lol, James....I probably should. The unaltered version of d20 isn't my favorite system, but it's still good, and I guess I'm in love with the idea of it being supported, if you know what I mean. Maybe I SHOULD post there...:cool:

Quote from: beeberbzzt!  wrong.  missing from the above is the experience point system.  without that, the PH is incomplete.

Just open a DMG at the LGS and copy the experience scheme, or something. It's really minor. Or ask a friend who doesn't mind spending some bucks on the DMG.

Quote from: beeberjust reduce the spell section since they're going to put out another compendium anyway.  add in the magic item rules, since players can create them, and a smaller selection of them.  a section on "how to run the game" at the end and a sampling of monsters and you'll be all set.  absolutely doable, but they won't, since they won't make as much money on a one-book core.

Or maybe many in the customer base actually appreciate having multiple core books? I sure am one of them.

See, what you are suggesting isn't really appealing to me. This would require D&D to scrap countless iconic elements like the weird spells and items that make the game so interesting. WotC can't, as it is, can barely fit the monsters required for me in a single book (there were a few that I missed).

Of course, another way to achieve this would be to make the game less detailed. So you get lots of spells and monsters but you streamline the system. At one point, though, it won't satisfy me either.

I also fail to see why players should have to pay for stuff they will not use in play, not to mention carry it to games. I'm not saying I'm speaking universal truth here. But I was personally pissed off that SAS included their incredibly dumb, juvenile, sissy setting in their corebook.

It's a "damn if you do, damn if you don't" thing. I'm sure some people prefer self-contained games but at this level of detail, I (and many others) don't. With that being said, I certainly hope the 4e DMG will be better than the atrocity Monte Cook concocted last time around.

Consonant Dude.  I think you may have hit on something on one of the reasons D&D has become less appealing to me in each iteration.  The goofy compilation of fantasy tropes from the creator's imaginations have become canon.  What was originally just things the creators thought would be interesting have become paramounts to the D&D legacy.  I'd rather have the tools to create my own canon.  One of the reasons I like Basic D&D is because it is easier to create my own canon of fantasy.  People were creating with the simplest form of D&D, the later editions are borrowing and adding to that creation without really giving the tools to create something of their own.  I've been trying to get back to that for some time.

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, so, at this point there's enough time since the 4e announcement that some of you may care to make public your own guesses.  When 4e comes out, will D20:

1. Drop like a rock into oblivion; no one will keep making product for it?

or

2. Continue to thrive and be supported by both a big fan base and a lot of publishers?

It occurs to me that I haven't actually yet answered the core question in this thread.

I am currently unclear as to whether there will still be a D&D or D20 trademark licence once 4E comes out. I know Wizards have confirmed there will be an OGL; I am going to assume that there will be a new trademark licence, but it will be more tightly controlled than the old one. (I get the impression that Wizards weren't always satisfied with the quality of some products bearing the D20/D&D trademark in the 3.X days - I know for a fact that they were seriously annoyed by the whole Book of Erotic Fantasy deal).

My guess is that there will still be a market for third-party adventures and supplements bearing the D20/D&D trademark, and there'll still be people more than happy to fill that market. As far as the wider OGL market, I reckon we'll see it become even more diverse. We've already had a lot of products come out for people nostalgic for older editions, or unhappy with elements of 3.X - Castles & Crusades, True20, OSRIC, that whole crowd. Those will stick around, but we'll also start to see products pitched at people dissatisfied with elements of 4E, or nostalgic for 3.X as well.

Quote from: WarthurMy guess is that there will still be a market for third-party adventures and supplements bearing the D20/D&D trademark, and there'll still be people more than happy to fill that market. As far as the wider OGL market, I reckon we'll see it become even more diverse. We've already had a lot of products come out for people nostalgic for older editions, or unhappy with elements of 3.X - Castles & Crusades, True20, OSRIC, that whole crowd. Those will stick around, but we'll also start to see products pitched at people dissatisfied with elements of 4E, or nostalgic for 3.X as well.

I think the flourishing era of D20/OGL has come and gone.

As far as people being nostalgic for 3.X... I can't see that happen anytime soon. This has nothing to do with the game, which I like. I'm not an expert on nostalgia-marketing but it seems to me that for it to happen you need:

1-Some time to go by. This is usually a generational thing. It's not nostalgia if you're wearing last year's fashion pants or listening to the music hit from 3 years ago. You're just "not trendy".

2-A seizable difference between what's offered now and what was offered then. Things like D&D and AD&D clones were relevant because they are significantly different from 3e and there was no alternative.

3-A lack of nostalgia items readily happen. In the case of 3.x, there are enough adventures, alternate rules, settings and supplements to last a life time. And they're all going to go dirt cheap real soon (check Green Ronin for a sample of what's to come). Plus, unlike previous editions, many of those products were available in electronic form and are thus immortalized. No roleplaying game has ever had as much support as 3.x and my guess is, no roleplaying ever will again.

If there's such a thing as a real nostalgia trend for 3.x, it will likely happen when D&D is in its 5th edition or up and more divorced in philosophy. Perhaps not utilizing the d20 system or making much more agressive use of electronic support to run it.

Quote from: WarthurI am currently unclear as to whether there will still be a D&D or D20 trademark licence once 4E comes out. I know Wizards have confirmed there will be an OGL; I am going to assume that there will be a new trademark licence, but it will be more tightly controlled than the old one.

It's been stated there will not be a trademark license, but there will be compatibility verbiage in the next iteration of the OGL. (Which sort of contaminates the OGL if you ask me, but hey, it's Wizards' license.)

OK, "nostalgia" isn't the right word for it, but I'm pretty sure there'll be a subset of the people who are playing 3.5 right now who, when 4E comes around, will either:

- Strenuously object to some of the alterations, and intend to keep playing in a 3.5 mould. Products will almost certainly become available for these guys.
- Consider the changes in 4E to not go far enough, and will want to make something even further divorced from 3.5. Again, products will almost certainly become available for these folks.

So, currently in the OGL market we have:

- Entirely 3.5-compliant products.
- Throwbacks to pre-3.X models of the system, like Castles and Crusades.
- Systems which take 3.5 even further away from the earlier iterations of the system, like True 20.

I don't see any reason why the likes Castles and Crusades or True20 will be extensively retooled as a result of 4E, so I can easily see a situation where the OGL market contains the following:

- Entirely 4E-compliant products.
- 3.5-compliant products for the folks who didn't want to make the switch.
- Throwbacks to pre-3.X models of the system, like Castles and Crusades.
- Systems which took 3.5 even further away from the earlier iterations of the system, like True 20.
- Systems which take a similar approach to 4E, shifting it even further away from pre-4E iterations of the system.

That's a shift from 3 niches to 5. Pretty significant, I'd say; I'm willing to bet that the OGL market will be as large as it currently is after 4E comes out but it will be even more fragmented than it currently is, so it'll be more difficult for individual companies to make big stacks of money out of it - the pie will be the same size, but it'll be cut into more slices.

Quote from: WarthurOK, "nostalgia" isn't the right word for it, but I'm pretty sure there'll be a subset of the people who are playing 3.5 right now who, when 4E comes around, will either:

- Strenuously object to some of the alterations, and intend to keep playing in a 3.5 mould. Products will almost certainly become available for these guys.
- Consider the changes in 4E to not go far enough, and will want to make something even further divorced from 3.5. Again, products will almost certainly become available for these folks.

So, currently in the OGL market we have:

- Entirely 3.5-compliant products.
- Throwbacks to pre-3.X models of the system, like Castles and Crusades.
- Systems which take 3.5 even further away from the earlier iterations of the system, like True 20.

I don't see any reason why the likes Castles and Crusades or True20 will be extensively retooled as a result of 4E, so I can easily see a situation where the OGL market contains the following:

- Entirely 4E-compliant products.
- 3.5-compliant products for the folks who didn't want to make the switch.
- Throwbacks to pre-3.X models of the system, like Castles and Crusades.
- Systems which took 3.5 even further away from the earlier iterations of the system, like True 20.
- Systems which take a similar approach to 4E, shifting it even further away from pre-4E iterations of the system.

That's a shift from 3 niches to 5. Pretty significant, I'd say; I'm willing to bet that the OGL market will be as large as it currently is after 4E comes out but it will be even more fragmented than it currently is, so it'll be more difficult for individual companies to make big stacks of money out of it - the pie will be the same size, but it'll be cut into more slices.

Nicely done, Warthur.  I'll have to let it digest before I can agree, but it's a nice analysis.

Quote from: WarthurOK, "nostalgia" isn't the right word for it, but I'm pretty sure there'll be a subset of the people who are playing 3.5 right now who, when 4E comes around, will either:

- Strenuously object to some of the alterations, and intend to keep playing in a 3.5 mould. Products will almost certainly become available for these guys.
- Consider the changes in 4E to not go far enough, and will want to make something even further divorced from 3.5. Again, products will almost certainly become available for these folks.

So, currently in the OGL market we have:

- Entirely 3.5-compliant products.
- Throwbacks to pre-3.X models of the system, like Castles and Crusades.
- Systems which take 3.5 even further away from the earlier iterations of the system, like True 20.

I don't see any reason why the likes Castles and Crusades or True20 will be extensively retooled as a result of 4E, so I can easily see a situation where the OGL market contains the following:

- Entirely 4E-compliant products.
- 3.5-compliant products for the folks who didn't want to make the switch.
- Throwbacks to pre-3.X models of the system, like Castles and Crusades.
- Systems which took 3.5 even further away from the earlier iterations of the system, like True 20.
- Systems which take a similar approach to 4E, shifting it even further away from pre-4E iterations of the system.

That's a shift from 3 niches to 5. Pretty significant, I'd say; I'm willing to bet that the OGL market will be as large as it currently is after 4E comes out but it will be even more fragmented than it currently is, so it'll be more difficult for individual companies to make big stacks of money out of it - the pie will be the same size, but it'll be cut into more slices.

Pretty cool stuff, Warthur!

Lots of interesting ideas. The one I still question is 3.5 compliant products. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what kind of product could be offered that haven't been offered already. 3.x is covered through and through from pretty much every angle possible. All these products will be readily available, probably at discounts, for a long time (especially in electronic format). In this context, I can't see how it can be done.

New 3.5 products aren't just going to compete with a new edition of D&D. The real bummer is that people who want to keep on playing 3.5 (I have a few friends like that) already have their needs covered.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIf my words were so hopelessly irrelevant, you'd never have even responded to me, either directly or indirectly.

How would you know I'm not looking to join your hater parade and want something substantive unless I say that?

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIf online communities were as irrelevant as you imply they are, not only would you avoid contradicting yourself by engaging in this Internet fappery, but Hasbro wouldn't be launching their "Digital Initiative".

Try something other than a straw man for better results. I said that online communities weren't indicative of the tastes, opinions, and behaviors of the majority of gamers. I didn't say anything about whether or not WotC wants their money, whether they can influence game companies, etc..

Quote from: Sacrificial LambDo you mean Forge games? If you don't, then most rpg companies would be classified as "indie".

I will bludgeon you if you try to make this about what is or is not an indie game.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambYou can bitch too, sugar plum. In fact, I think you just did.

Ah, this is intentional. Gotcha.

Seanchai

Quote from: WarthurI'm willing to bet that the OGL market will be as large as it currently is after 4E comes out but it will be even more fragmented than it currently is, so it'll be more difficult for individual companies to make big stacks of money out of it - the pie will be the same size, but it'll be cut into more slices.

I'm willing to bet it'll reduce in size. Definitely not go away, but loose members. The majority of those who remain will play 4e and OGL games.

Seanchai

Quote from: Consonant DudePretty cool stuff, Warthur!

Lots of interesting ideas. The one I still question is 3.5 compliant products. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what kind of product could be offered that haven't been offered already. 3.x is covered through and through from pretty much every angle possible. All these products will be readily available, probably at discounts, for a long time (especially in electronic format). In this context, I can't see how it can be done.

I suspect people will keep publishing a few new 3.5 products (adventure modules, if nothing else), although I agree with you that it won't necessarily be a clever or profitable idea - someone, somewhere, will gamble on there being enough of a 3.5 holdout community remaining after 4E is published for their products to find a niche. They may or may not be correct in that.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb7.) Characters regenerate their hit points now.

Wait... I haven't been following it in a while, so I have to ask:

Is this true? Confirmed and accounted for?

Really?

REALLY?

Details? Link, please?

I call dibs on being the first to call bullshit on second wind as the vanguard for the Hyper-Magic age we are facing.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWait... I haven't been following it in a while, so I have to ask:

Is this true? Confirmed and accounted for?

Really?

REALLY?

Details? Link, please?

Damn it, I'm trying to remember the link. I think I saw this on ENWorld. Characters have this non-magical ability called "Second Wind", and it allows Bob, the Fighter to heal or regenerate his Hit Points. I don't recall precisely how it works, sorry. :deflated:

Quote from: SettembriniI call dibs on being the first to call bullshit on second wind as the vanguard for the Hyper-Magic age we are facing.

i think you did already, in another thread.  but okay, and i agree.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambDamn it, I'm trying to remember the link. I think I saw this on ENWorld. Characters have this non-magical ability called "Second Wind", and it allows Bob, the Fighter to heal or regenerate his Hit Points. I don't recall precisely how it works, sorry. :deflated:

I read something about the Fighter being able to do this, and it definitely was at ENWorld in a thread about one of the developer blogs.  I can't recall which though, or even if it was in the developer blog or just in the random-joe comments concerning the blog entry.

Definitely not a "D&D" concept (iirc, it appears in Earthdawn though), but one that I can get behind as, I feel, it improves the play experience by reducing the burden on the Cleric.  I don't think it's too far fetched either, considering that one of the oldest saws about D&D is Hit Points not simply reflecting physical damage.  Thus a Fighter's "second wind" could be likened to getting his bearings back or an adrenaline rush or whatever.  No magical trappings are necessary in order to recover Hit Points if Hit Points still don't mean physical damage, exclusively.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb1.) They're making part-demons and part-angels as core races.

2.) You don't roll saving throws any more.

6.) Fighters inflict damage even when they miss.

7.) Characters regenerate their hit points now.

10.) Action Points are core.

11.) All non-magical classes have non-magical "spells".

these are dealbreakers for me, especially 6.  WTF?

< devil's advocate >

If Hit Points aren't, exclusively, physical damage then it works, conceptually, much like Savage Worlds' "Shaken" status.  Thus a Fighter's ability to do "damage" is really their ability to reduce their enemy's ability to fight back, which could be accomplished in many ways.  Going back to Savage Worlds terminology, one could use a "Trick" to cause obtain a Shaken result on an opponent.



That's what is sounds like to me.  Not agreeing with it, but that's my guess as to the designer's thought process.

Quote from: architect.zeroThus a Fighter's "second wind" could be likened to getting his bearings back or an adrenaline rush or whatever.  No magical trappings are necessary in order to recover Hit Points if Hit Points still don't mean physical damage, exclusively.

Yeah, I really can't understand the bitching & moaning surrounding this concept.

We already know hit points are abstract and don't really represent physical damage.

Why should it require magic powerz to get them back?

-O

Quote from: obrynWe already know hit points are abstract and don't really represent physical damage.

Ummmm....when did this happen?  I mean, I know they are abstract; but I've always understood them to be an abstract of physical damage. So the two parts of this sentence don't seem to go together, for me.

Quote from: James J SkachUmmmm....when did this happen?  I mean, I know they are abstract; but I've always understood them to be an abstract of physical damage. So the two parts of this sentence don't seem to go together, for me.

The topic remains something like the "Divine Substance" debate from early Christian theology (same substance, different substance, or similar substance?), or, at best, like the parable of the three blind monks touching different parts of an elephant.  

!i!

Quote from: James J SkachUmmmm....when did this happen?  I mean, I know they are abstract; but I've always understood them to be an abstract of physical damage. So the two parts of this sentence don't seem to go together, for me.

Since always, as far as I know.  Sadly, I don't have the books with me I'd need for a quote.  They incorporate stamina, luck, and actual physical damage.

Unless you think a guy can take a hit from a giant's axe without slowing down, that is.

-O

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe topic remains something like the "Divine Substance" debate from early Christian theology (same substance, different substance, or similar substance?), or, at best, like the parable of the three blind monks touching different parts of an elephant.  

!i!

Yup.  Definitely one of the eternal questions of D&D: "What are Hit Points?"

Eternally debated to no end.  (I'm in the ultra-abstract "they're combat advantage/disadvantage until negatives" camp.)

edit (on preview): Obryn, I don't really recall if there ever was a definitive answer.  I'd love to see one, that's for sure.

I'll do a Hit Point review, like the Progression of Gnomes, tonight.

My wife will be thrilled....

Oh, Second Wind I do remember, and so long as that's a) a feat-like thing, b) restricted to Fighters, I'm OK with it. But if it's across the board, well, I wouldn't even bother buying the books after all.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh, Second Wind I do remember, and so long as that's a) a feat-like thing, b) restricted to Fighters, I'm OK with it. But if it's across the board, well, I wouldn't even bother buying the books after all.

In Star Wars Saga Edition, everyone can do it.

That's all, I'm back outta here :)

Quote from: obrynSince always, as far as I know.  Sadly, I don't have the books with me I'd need for a quote.  They incorporate stamina, luck, and actual physical damage.

Unless you think a guy can take a hit from a giant's axe without slowing down, that is.

From the pen of Gygax himself (I'm sure James's summary thread will have much more detail on this):

Quote from: 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 6th Printing, Page 34, "Character Hit Points"Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors.

The section goes on to explain how it's ludicrous to imagine that a 10th level fighter with 55 hit points can take 11 blows which would cause instant death to a 5 HP man-at-arms, and points out that the majority of the hit points of high level characters must be assumed to represent skill, luck, and magical factors.

I would argue that a "second wind" from an adrenalin rush would represent regaining some of the second category of hit points identified by the Blessed Gygax, those representing factors aside from actual physical damage; a trained warrior, after all, can presumably push past the "pain barrier" so widely-reported by athletes (and experienced by myself) to reach new heights of exertion.

Not much more, Warthur - except that actual text of the "ludicrous" explanation.

It's here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8285).

Quote from: grubmanIn Star Wars Saga Edition, everyone can do it.

That's all, I'm back outta here :)

You devil! Are you trying to get people worked up? :D

If you're going to have a second-wind that lets you regenerate some of your hit points, you're really changing the entire thing.  Why not let the characters stop, rest for 10 minute, catch their breath and get back some more hit points?

What about the other direction?  Wouldn't being cold, hungry, and tired seriously affect a character's hit points?

And wouldn't having few remaining hit points affect your ability not just in combat, but doing other things as well?

I'm not opposed to these ideas -- some are things I'm doing for my own game -- but it's not really D&D.

Quote from: StuartAnd wouldn't having few remaining hit points affect your ability not just in combat, but doing other things as well?

If it's anything like Star Wars Saga, there are rules for that.  Something like threshold value or similar if I remember correctly.

Quote from: StuartWhat about the other direction?  Wouldn't being cold, hungry, and tired seriously affect a character's hit points?

That would be the much maligned Fatigue Points from RQIII.  A very clever idea, really, but quite fiddly.

!i!

Stuart understands.