|
Dave Bernazzani (@rpggeek)
United States
Plainville
Massachusetts
I wish to provide legendary service to the RPG community to help grow our hobby and enrich the lives of gamers everywhere.
-
Okay... disclaimer. I've not played the closed beta. I had an invite to the Friends & Family playtest via my local FLGS but turned it down. Time, as it is for all of us, comes at a premium and saying yes to that would have meant saying no to other things (like the newbie PBF init, etc).
I have finished watching (and re-watching) the DDXP seminar videos and read the transcripts. I've read a few play reports - some of which were taken down probably as they exposed to much with the NDA in place. I've been following all things on Twitter from Wizards and the F&F play testers. I've talked personally to a few people who have gotten a chance to see the early beta (er... alpha?) 5e system.
I'm not excited. I'll admit to having more excitement for 4e even though I knew 4e was likely not going to be my bread & butter RPG of choice (back in 2008 we played a 10 week mini-campaign for 4e to try it out and universally decided to stick with 3.5 - a decision made more cemented by the release of Pathfinder in 2009).
My main problems with DnDNext is that Wizards is focusing on rules. Streamlined rules, to be sure. But rules nonetheless. I've got all the rules I could ever want. All the rules I could ever need. And more besides. There are systems and more systems and the OGL ensures that any system they created or will create can be replicated. I don't want a new ruleset - especially not a modular one where they can sell my group books to make it feel more like "4e" or "1e". The core is stripping things back - abilities more central than skills (welcome back 1e). Templates akin to 2e kits. Feats to handle the 'at-will' abilities of 4e. This isn't DnDNext, it's DnDPast.
And what content will they be providing? So far we've heard Forgotten Realms. Haven't we seen 4 major iterations of FR? I'm supposed to buy a 5th? If the answer is 'well, at least it will be in print' - that wouldn't be a problem if WotC didn't have their digital distribution so fucked up. Nothing should be out of print - ever. Paizo keeps everything in print digitally and they see no reason to stop that policy. Paizo is working on new adventure content every month - opening up new areas of Golarian and expanding the world for the players and the GM. Every new adventure path they release ties back to the Pathfinder Core - something that is not actively being worked on because it would take the talent away from new creative content.
Content.
I'll say it again.
Content.
Not rules. Not balance. Not option books. Not another endless supply of splatbooks. Not another 3 years until 6th edition comes out (the only way 5e will be the last edition of D&D is if this fails so badly that Hasbro shelves the IP to wait for better days).
High quality content is what I want. Unique content. I don't want to see the same 3 settings dragged out like a dying pony for the circus goers. I'll buy 5e content if it is unique. If they re-release Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Eberron or Girls Gone Feywild again, I'm not going to fall for buying the same material thrice (even if they make it rules-nuteral - I can modify content easily enough myself... any good GM/DM can).
If WotC doesn't stop the focus on rules and put it back on designing cool new content then I don't see 5e as being any different than 4e. Another rule set which will be buggy in the first print run and corrected so long as you have a DDI subscription or wait 2 years for DnDNext.5-Essentials to clean up. I've got a working rule set. I have for 30 years. The OGL ensures that those rulesets will always be in print. If you want to clean it up every decade or so, feel free... but spending more of your time on selling more rules and less on high quality adventure content has turned me off anything WotC does these days. I like the 4e ruleset - what I don't like is that WotC has done almost nothing with it other than patch (with reams of errata and, more recently, the re-launch with Essentials) and re-release material. When they started to cancel most of the interesting books early last year, I knew the 3 year run of 4e was waning and I stopped playing as no interesting content was going to come out as they fire developers and shift those left (plus a few they hired) to a new set of rules. 4e was the least supported of any of the D&D editions - why does anyone think 5e will be different?
Let me end this semi-rant by saying I want Dungeons & Dragons to do well. It has been the cornerstone of our hobby for, well, forever. I want to see kids playing it everywhere. I want to see it sold everywhere. I don't have high hopes.
-Dave
-
DMSamuel
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
Hi Dave, great thoughts!
I have mostly tried to stay out of the DnDNext discussions. Partly because I am tired of all the speculating but not knowing anything solid, and partly because I just can't bring myself to care right now. However, your post speaks to me and I want to respond, so here it is...
wavemotion wrote: Okay... disclaimer. I've not played the closed beta.
Me neither - just wanted to say that by way of disclaimer as well.
wavemotion wrote: I have finished watching (and re-watching) the DDXP seminar videos and read the transcripts. I've read a few play reports - some of which were taken down probably as they exposed to much with the NDA in place. I've been following all things on Twitter from Wizards and the F&F play testers. I've talked personally to a few people who have gotten a chance to see the early beta (er... alpha?) 5e system.
It strikes me as the height of irony that they announced DnDNext with much fanfare and talked about how excited they were to be doing open playtesting and then...
1) I have heard from/about several people who have gotten their stuff taken down due to the NDA
2) The players at DDXP had to sign an NDA as well
I understand the need to keep some things under wraps, but as far as I'm concerned, a really tight NDA is diametrically opposed to the idea of an open playtest.
I know, I know, they have a timeline and the open playtest doesn't start until April or whatever, but... then don't friggin announce DnDNext and tout about how you will do the open test and then make every single person touching DnDNext sign an iron-clad NDA! Especially since you have been playtesting and developing for 6-9 months already!
wavemotion wrote: My main problems with DnDNext is that Wizards if focusing on rules. Streamlined rules, to be sure. But rules nonetheless. I've got all the rules I could ever want. All the rules I could ever need. And more besides. There are systems and more systems and the OGL ensures that any system they created or will create can be replicated. I don't want a new ruleset - especially not a modular one where they can sell my group books to make it feel more like "4e" or "1e". The core is stripping things back - abilities more central than skills (welcome back 1e). Templates akin to 2e kits. Feats to handle the 'at-will' abilities of 4e. This isn't DnDNext, it's DnDPast.
This is my problem too. I already have as much/many products from all past editions - I don't need anything else.
And I'm sorry - I know there are some huge fans of Forgotten Realms and I understand the allure - Ed Greenwood is awesome and there is some great stuff in there. But I have been seeing FR products since the 1st edition grey box set! Show me something new.
I really wanted them to make the Nentir Vale a new campaign world in its own right, complete with a setting book and a map. The only detailed areas would be the Nentir Vale itself, but a new world map, mostly undescribed to allow for a DM to flesh out areas they want to expand later, and with only a few short descriptions of the geography.
Then they didn't do that. Instead, they started releasing more FR stuff. Blah.
wavemotion wrote: Content.
High quality content is what I want. Unique content. I don't want to see the same 3 settings dragged out like a dying pony for the circus goers. I'll buy 5e content if it is unique. If they re-release Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Eberron or Girls Gone Feywild again, I'm not going to fall for buying the same material thrice (even if they make it rules-nuteral - I can modify content easily enough myself... any good GM/DM can).
Yep - I'm with you 100%. They swung away from lots of content and they need to get back to more content driven production model.
wavemotion wrote: If WotC doesn't stop the focus on rules and put it back on designing cool new content then I don't see 5e as being any different than 4e.
4e had a ton of rules focus because it was an exception based rules system. They had to focus on rules or else they wouldn't be allowed to cover everything they wanted to cover. This is what happens when you only have 1 over-riding general rule (roll d20+modifier against target number) and only expand the gaming space by making exceptions to the way a modifier is determined.
wavemotion wrote: When they started to cancel most of the interesting books early last year, I knew the 3 year run of 4e was waning and I stopped playing as no interesting content was going to come out as they fire developers and shift those left (plus a few they hired) to a new set of rules.
I thought the same thing. But the problem is that, after Essentials was released and they cut down their production schedule (and as far as I understand as soon as DnDNext was in development), the 4e products started getting very good. They released the best 4e adventure (Madness at Gardmore Abbey) and the 2 best monster products (MV1 and MV2: Nentir Vale). I have heard from lots of people that the Neverwinter book is wonderful. And Heroes of the Feywild, while not my style, is very well done.
In other words, I feel like they finally started getting good at giving us more balanced content - more fluff and story, more things that fall in the content realm... and now they go and discontinue 4e to make DnDNext.
My personal thoughts about DnDNext:
I feel like this was too short of a time between editions. I know some games have a 5 year cycle, and I am not blaming D&D for this problem, but I don't like it, it's too short for my tastes.
If the issue is a money one (there is all that talk about D&D needing a certain amount of revenue to stay active as a brand) then they need to license D&D out to a smaller game producer. One that won't hire people only to lay them off 1 or 2 years later (if that long). One that can have a realistic timeline and product release schedule without needing to create a new edition every 5 years. One that will do good for D&D and the RPG industry.
I am cautiously optimistic, but I won't be spending money on a DDi subscription. And I probably won't be spending money on 5e rules. I will keep buying 4e stuff because I want a complete collection and, as I said, the latest stuff is the best in terms of supplements.
So.... DnDNext has lost me as a WotC customer. At least for now. With Dave, I am not excited.
-
The Harnish
Germany
Duisburg
NRW
Cult of The Harnish Leader
-
lorddillon wrote: It strikes me as the height of irony that they announced DnDNext with much fanfare and talked about how excited they were to be doing open playtesting and then...
1) I have heard from/about several people who have gotten their stuff taken down due to the NDA
2) The players at DDXP had to sign an NDA as well
I understand the need to keep some things under wraps, but as far as I'm concerned, a really tight NDA is diametrically opposed to the idea of an open playtest.
Oh good, I'm not the only one that finds that ridiculous. Are they afraid someone is going to steal the ruleset and beat them to press? The behavior is exactly the same as it always has been: everything is behind closed doors. It also makes me really wonder about how much actual feedback they're interested in or how much they will actually use that feedback when they get it. Instead I'm left with the impression that much of the game is already set in stone and what we're seeing is a massive marketing ploy.
-
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
-
wavemotion wrote:
My main problems with DnDNext is that Wizards if focusing on rules. Streamlined rules, to be sure. But rules nonetheless. I've got all the rules I could ever want. All the rules I could ever need. And more besides.
Yes but to some extent they have to get the new rules in. I think the ruleset obviously put some off in 4e.
A big part of D&D 5e is to recapture players who have jumped ship, and more importantly to capture a load of players new to RPGs. Whilst they don't want to piss off old players they know that a certain percentage of them will buy the new stuff.
As for game content. Sure they will need to decide what approach they are taking (and I hope for deeper treatments of settings than 4e had). However I think that it is a bit premature at the moment to announce that approach.
I haven't played D&D since about 1990.
-
Brian Leet
United States
Montpelier
Vermont
-
I've read some coverage, though not as much as it sounds like you folks have. Also have no actual information besides what is publicly out there.
I have mixed feelings right now about 5E. I can get by folks who have been made happy by Pathfinder have little use for it. But I was ready for something new at the end of 3.5E and really did like a lot they did with 4E. And, I like what I'm seeing now.
With that said, I think there are many valid criticisms:
- The NDA thing is a bad idea. Keep the game internal, or only preview parts you are comfortable with making public. Trying to keep it both ways doesn't build trust.
- I agree 10,000% that they need to focus on content more than rules. Here is where I think they have a huge problem that the staff they have is not the staff they need for success. I'm sure they are all good folks, but the actions seem too much of a "we have a hammer, so let's make our problem a nail" feel.
- Any solution that relies on the DDI as an integral part of the experience is a bad one. It should be a fun supplement for the passionate player, not a baseline of entry.
What I'm excited about:
- More "realistic" art depictions. I think this is actually a step towards better content for me
- Much closer to original basic D&D than later editions in the baseline. I think a modern set of books on this tried and true framework will be good for re-growing the player base
- It sounds like it will move much more seamlessly through various scales of play and complexity than hacking together stuff with house rules
What I want to know and will be make/break for me:
- Stance on the OGL or new edition equivalent.
-
DMSamuel
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
PghArch wrote: What I'm excited about:
Ah yes, I guess in my rant I forgot that there are a couple of good things...
PghArch wrote: - More "realistic" art depictions. I think this is actually a step towards better content for me
Agreed 1000%. I don't favor the 4e art style (or the 3.5/pathfinder style to be fair), and look forward to a return to characters with "normal" proportions.
PghArch wrote:
- Much closer to original basic D&D than later editions in the baseline. I think a modern set of books on this tried and true framework will be good for re-growing the player base
Maybe. Growing the player base would be the only reason I would buy into 5e at this point. I already have all the 0e, basic, and 1e rules that I need.
PghArch wrote: What I want to know and will be make/break for me:
- Stance on the OGL or new edition equivalent.
I highly highly doubt that WotC will ever go back to an open model. Which is a shame since so many newer games have a more open style license.
-
DMSamuel
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
MJ Harnish wrote: Oh good, I'm not the only one that finds that ridiculous. Are they afraid someone is going to steal the ruleset and beat them to press? The behavior is exactly the same as it always has been: everything is behind closed doors. It also makes me really wonder about how much actual feedback they're interested in or how much they will actually use that feedback when they get it. Instead I'm left with the impression that much of the game is already set in stone and what we're seeing is a massive marketing ploy.
Yes. It is one of the things that put me in a "don't care" mode about DnDNext. You are either serious about playtesting this stuff and getting feedback or you aren't. The nature of the NDA made me shake my head.
-
Dave Bernazzani (@rpggeek)
United States
Plainville
Massachusetts
I wish to provide legendary service to the RPG community to help grow our hobby and enrich the lives of gamers everywhere.
-
lorddillon wrote: MJ Harnish wrote: Oh good, I'm not the only one that finds that ridiculous. Are they afraid someone is going to steal the ruleset and beat them to press? The behavior is exactly the same as it always has been: everything is behind closed doors. It also makes me really wonder about how much actual feedback they're interested in or how much they will actually use that feedback when they get it. Instead I'm left with the impression that much of the game is already set in stone and what we're seeing is a massive marketing ploy. Yes. It is one of the things that put me in a "don't care" mode about DnDNext. You are either serious about playtesting this stuff and getting feedback or you aren't. The nature of the NDA made me shake my head.
I'm participating in the WotC polls - but so far that's it. Mostly because I don't need to sign anything.
-Dave
-
Anthony Friedman
United States
Long Beach
California
-
I can appreciate the NDAs. I think it has less to do with stolen content and more to do with saving face (among other reasons).
First off, I think they want DDXP goers to feel extra special. It's much the same way how DDI users might get content early. Wizards of the Coast wanted to give DDXPers the "first look."
Second, imagine if a majority of the DDXP feedback were negative? That's not something you want in headline news, especially at an early stage of development. Sure, the game may still be alpha and have kinks in it, but Wizards needs to be able to save face in case early reactions were extremely negative. It's very easy for "Friends and Family" to be biased when reviewing something in design. Thankfully, it seems that early reports are mostly positive (with a mix of negative as well), but you can't really say... "We're issuing an NDA on negative feedback, but if you had a good experience go ahead and share what you liked." Therefore, I imagine Wizards issued an NDA to control expectations, as well as examine first wave of feedback thoroughly.
That brings me to my next point in saying that I think they are taking playtesting very seriously. They're being open about the process, they have some goal posts already (DDXP, spring open playtest), and it looks like they are leaving a "launch date" out of their planning. All good things. I'm happy they are being more open about the process (NDA included) than just springing an open playtest on us. What would fan reaction be if DDXP goers got an early playtest before D&DNext was announced? They needed to spearhead this and I think they have done adequately.
As far as personal feelings regarding the next iteration of D&D, I agree that they seem awfully rule-centric right now. But again, I can appreciate that. To use a bad analogy, consider the game system (rules and all) to be a type of cheese, and consider the content (fluff, trappings, artwork) to be a type of wine. There are lots of fine wines in the world, but some are terrible with the wrong cheese. Normally, you pick a cheese first and then try to find a wine that will match it wonderfully. I imagine that Wizards is getting the right cheese (in this case rule structure, modularity, etc.) and are also working on getting the right wine (realistic artwork, varied depictions of races, etc.). Besides, content is something that is easy to add to or subtract from a given system, but it can be harder to add or subtract a given system from its content.
I am by no means attempting to defend Wizards of the Coast, nor am I implying that I believe D&D Next is amazing (personally, I'm neutral on this matter). But outside of cynicism, it is hard not to see the small silver threads that certainly give rise to hope for the next generation of a wonderful franchise. Wizards of the Coast is doing much more, both in their presentation and explanation, this time around. For which I am thankful and appreciative.
-
Steven Robert
United States
Altadena
California
-
Stix_Remix wrote: First off, I think they want DDXP goers to feel extra special. It's much the same way how DDI users might get content early. Wizards of the Coast wanted to give DDXPers the "first look."
Ironically, I'd say that the NDA made DDXPers less "special." Sure, they got to see the content early...but they couldn't brag to their friends, much less Twitter followers.
WotC's in a really tough spot. They've been hammered in regard to 4E for departing too much from the game's roots. So now they are trying to recapture that D&D essence - but of course that means the game itself can't be transformative.
It's like the ultimate fantasy heartbreaker - take an ingredient from each edition, mix them together, and see if you can come up with a better game. I can see that working for me personally, because there are things about every edition I like, and things I genuinely don't like. But will the designers manage a game that picks out the "correct" parts? Are the opinions on which parts are good and bad universal enough to make that work at all? And how many new ideas do you drop in without trying to disturb the D&D feel?
I've paid little attention to the chatter, other than reading the seminar summaries. I did sign up for the playtest, and I look forward to seeing the game - but I am doing my best to withhold judgment until I actually do.
One thing I am waiting to hear (or maybe I missed) is how D&D Insider will fit into the game. Will it continue as a service? What will be locked inside the subscription, and what will be open?
As for content...I really don't see how they can generate that now without having a rules system in place. A lot of the discussion I have seen has emphasized the role of exploration in the game, which is a good sign to me - but we will have to see how things turn out. (On the other hand, just as folks above have pointed out how they can still play with the old editions - I have plenty of old adventures/settings/etc. that I've barely used but find exciting. That argument cuts both ways!)
-
Bryce Lynch
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
-
I was DDXP and did the playtest twice. I'm sue many of you know that I'm pretty hard core about classic elements and simple rules.
The game I played should go a long way towards unifying the players of all the editions, assuming they get the modules/options done right. I'm hedging on the options because of the 4E players; they are going to need those options to get what they want. I do not find the game repugnant and will almost certainly buy the core rules ... and maybe more.
I don't think it matters if you guys are excited or not. What they need to do is come out with an edition that doesn't cause half the audience to sneer and refuse to play, let alone buy supplements. That's where I am right now with 4E; I won't touch the stuff and don't even bother to pay attention when they release something, fluff or rules. I won't play it at cons and won't play it with friends. I actively work to get my kids OFF of it. If WOTC can once again produce product that people are not repelled by then they open up their market and can once again think about moving larger amounts of product. All they have to do then is actually produce good product. This edition should put them in that position. You might be able to buy a module or setting book if it appeals to you. And you won't be so turned off that you don't even pay attention.
With regard to content, I tend to agree with you folks. There is a very serious problem though: any time spent on a module would be better spent on a product that appeals to the PLAYERS also, otherwise they are restricting their potential customer base to only 1/4th or 1/5th of what it could be. I'm not sure how they overcome this on the business side. One thing that will help is a license. With this they can push off the "expensive" module production to 3rd parties and let them produce the elements of the game, such as modules, that don't sell as well. They can then concentrate on ... well I don't know ... a product that appeals to players so they can sell to the other 3/4 or 4/5 of the customer base. Setting books with themes and so on would be my guess. That along with a guaranteed revenue stream from DDI and, potentially, a video game license and/or movie license (depends on how their BU's are organized) should let us enjoy D&D from WOTC and keep the Hasborg away.
I think the reason you're seeing so much discussion about rules is that people are smarter than you give them credit for. We all knew that the module and DMs at DDXP were not that important. The playtesters enjoyed the game and then thoughtfully filled out the comments about the core gameplay elements. At least I did, as did The Pretty Girl, and I got the impression the others at my two tables did the same.
They've promised a publish playtest in Spring of this year and I believe the release date mentioned was in 2013? That gives everyone plenty of time to take a look at the game and comment. I hope they release the Caves of Chaos as the playtest module; the combat heavily element would really exercise the rules. The first REAL module should be something with more roleplay, like Hommlet, or even better something like B1 that incorporates a strong exploration element AND has a "train the DM in building a good dungeon/encounter" element.
-
Dave Bernazzani (@rpggeek)
United States
Plainville
Massachusetts
I wish to provide legendary service to the RPG community to help grow our hobby and enrich the lives of gamers everywhere.
-
Quote: I don't think it matters if you guys are excited or not. What they need to do is come out with an edition that doesn't cause half the audience to sneer and refuse to play, let alone buy supplements.
It will also help if they don't replace (or provide a totally new entry point) into the edition in 2 years.
bryce0lynch wrote: The first REAL module should be something with more roleplay, like Hommlet, or even better something like B1 that incorporates a strong exploration element AND has a "train the DM in building a good dungeon/encounter" element.
I agree - though let's hope they don't actually release an updated T1 or B1. If they can't innovate with the launch modules, I'm skeptical they will do better on the 2nd round of adventure content.
-Dave
-
Eric Etkin
United States
New York
-
MJ Harnish wrote: Instead I'm left with the impression that much of the game is already set in stone and what we're seeing is a massive marketing ploy.
Yeah - I've voiced the same thought in another 5E thread. This is mainly a smoke and mirrors. Unless publication isn't planned for another 3 years or so, I just don't see how they can possibly collate, analyze, and implement the vast amount of feedback they'd received.
I remember the old AD&D 2E questionnaires in Dragon - THAT felt legit. Pathfinder felt legit. This... feels like appeasement. For the sake of whatever sliver of goodwill the franchise may have left, I hope I'm wrong.
As far as setting is concerned - I totally agree. WOTC dropped the ball with developing D&D beyond a nebulous blanket of trademarks and mechanics. There's nothing iconic about D&D other than the two letters.
For what it was, TSR flew VERY close to giving D&D a real identity with Dragonlance. IMO, FR (outside of Drizzit) and Dark Sun never developed enough non-gamer cred to sustain the brand to this top-tier that Hasbro now wants it to be.
If D&D Next is to be Ha$bro successful, the truth lies more in laying a groundwork of iconic visuals, places, and characters - not warmed over or derivative IPs from years past. There should be a Gandalf of D&D. A Harry potter. A Darth Vader. When you talk to a non-gamer, they should be thinking of soaring epics, man to man struggles, wondrous magic, and the ICONIC characters and places that lend credence to those tropes.
D&D should be a place, with immediately identifiable, memorable heroes and villains... Mechanically, these elements can be swapped in or out, or even changed, but to be influential again, to achieve that top-tier, multi-media status that the corporate biggies are gunning for, D&D Next needs to attack far more than rules.
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
I completely disagree about re-doing T1 or B1! This is EXACTLY what they should be doing. In fact, without that, all this talk about bringing back the best of all editions is completely pointless blather.
It's time for D&D players and designers to wake up and admit that your game has great legacy content that you are very ill served by blowing off and ignoring. Mystara. Greyhawk. Krynn. These are game worlds people care about. People will come back and play your game if you provide (wait for it!) the CONTENT they knew and loved.
It doesn't have to be a straight port. It can be a re-imagining. And yes, I'm very well aware that there are huge problematic issues of license and copyright in some of these things - guess what? That's gotta be confronted, not swept under the rug and ignored.
It all goes back to the core virture - content is king! You cannot make a winning product, a game that captures the imaginations of new and old players, if all that game consists of is a stuffy old books of statistics and mechanics. It's gotta live and breathe, be a cool jumping off point for interesting games. They've hit the right stride with this "game as part explore, part bash, part story" design concept. Take it the full distance - if that's the core of D&D, take the best examples from that history that made you think of those things AS the core, and publish those!
Want a winning formula for DnDNext? Player's Handbook. Dungeon Master's Guide. Monster Manual.
And Greyhawk campaign book. With Village of Hommlet re-imagined as your 1-3... building to Temple of Elemental Evil.
And you can forget silly things like Eberron or Dark Sun ever happened. At least for 10 years.
-
-
lorddillon wrote: This is my problem too. I already have as much/many products from all past editions - I don't need anything else.
Wait, didn't you say you were planning on buying those 1st edition reprints? :)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not being critical here. I'm just saying that a lot of us buy a lot of things we don't need. I doubt this will be a major problem for 7th 5th edition.
-
-
bryce0lynch wrote: With regard to content, I tend to agree with you folks. There is a very serious problem though: any time spent on a module would be better spent on a product that appeals to the PLAYERS also, otherwise they are restricting their potential customer base to only 1/4th or 1/5th of what it could be. I'm not sure how they overcome this on the business side.
Just make the game good enough that all those players will soon want to be DMs. That's how it used to work.
-
-
wavemotion wrote: I agree - though let's hope they don't actually release an updated T1 or B1. If they can't innovate with the launch modules, I'm skeptical they will do better on the 2nd round of adventure content.
Interesting thought. I'm not so sure, though. Is innovation truly necessary to be successful? Everybody heaps praise on Pathfinder for its adventures, but you wouldn't call them particularly innovative, would you?
Then again, maybe the memories of the days when TSR's adventures truly were innovative sets the bar higher for D&D?
I dunno, you may well be right. It would be interesting to see how people would react to a solid-yet-vanilla first effort.
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
I am so tired of this hollow argument that they cannot publish content because it will not sell enough.
What makes more money? The MP3 player? Or the MP3s?
Yup. The MP3s. The content.
If all you hear when someone says "content" is "adventure module", you've totally missed the entire concept. Content means "stuff about the flavor and style and setting and characters" - it's the art part of the game, not the mechanics part of the game. The fluff. That's content.
That can be books. Novels, you know. And music. And art books. And dice. And posters. And magazines full of articles. And board game supplements. And video game licenses of popular settings. And and and.
Content has always sold the game. Mechanics have NEVER driven sales.
A bitchin' picture of a hot dame and powerful mage battling a dragon for it's hoard sells 1000 times more books than THAC0 or combat advantage EVER could.
-
Dave Bernazzani (@rpggeek)
United States
Plainville
Massachusetts
I wish to provide legendary service to the RPG community to help grow our hobby and enrich the lives of gamers everywhere.
-
E Decker wrote: wavemotion wrote: I agree - though let's hope they don't actually release an updated T1 or B1. If they can't innovate with the launch modules, I'm skeptical they will do better on the 2nd round of adventure content. Interesting thought. I'm not so sure, though. Is innovation truly necessary to be successful? Everybody heaps praise on Pathfinder for its adventures, but you wouldn't call them particularly innovative, would you?
Yes, quite innovative. They are not Forgotten Realms. They are not Greyhawk. They are not Blackmoor. They are not Dragonlance. The intellectual property owned by WotC has forced Paizo to have their own world - and what a rich world it is. D&D re-hashes the same setting material year after year for their latest rule-set. I guess that's great for new players who don't want to get out of print material. It's not great for me - I really believe I won't be tricked into buying a 5th iteration of Forgotten Realms which I simply compare to the previous 4. But then again, I'm a sucker. So maybe.
-Dave
-
Dave Bernazzani (@rpggeek)
United States
Plainville
Massachusetts
I wish to provide legendary service to the RPG community to help grow our hobby and enrich the lives of gamers everywhere.
-
cosine wrote: I completely disagree about re-doing T1 or B1! This is EXACTLY what they should be doing. In fact, without that, all this talk about bringing back the best of all editions is completely pointless blather.
If all they do is bring back old rules and old material, I guess 5e holds less interest for me than I originally thought. DnDPast indeed!
I hope whatever they do it sells tons. If they can get older players to re-buy re-hashed material, then they deserve the money. Lord knows I've re-bought some of their IP three or four times. I like to think I'm finally getting smart to the marketing... but I'm always an ass-cheek away from my wallet.
Dave
-
DMSamuel
United States
Ithaca
New York
-
E Decker wrote: lorddillon wrote: This is my problem too. I already have as much/many products from all past editions - I don't need anything else. Wait, didn't you say you were planning on buying those 1st edition reprints? 
Yes I did, but for completely different reasons than to play it. I am a collector of sorts and I want to have a set of the reprints. I won't use them to play, I will use my old beat up copies to play. That is an entirely different issue than what I am talking about.
E Decker wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not being critical here. I'm just saying that a lot of us buy a lot of things we don't need. I doubt this will be a major problem for 7th 5th edition.
True, but I am only speaking for myself. I am a customer that loves D&D. I have found things I like and dislike about every edition. I have a ton of materials and don't really want to see more rehash, more of the same, or more mismanaged errata-full rules.
The way that WotC has handled themselves has contributed to my D&D fatigue and I make no bones about that. I don't know anything about DnDNext right now, really, so you'll notice that I haven't used absolutes when I have talked about it. I didn't say I will never buy into and I will never buy another edition, etc etc.
Instead I have told you how I feel about the game and the announcement and how I am leary of trusting WotC's honesty about things like an open playtest and wanting lots of feedback and incorporating that into the game. I will probably not buy into 5e right away, but then again I may change my mind. I don't know enough yet to make a judgement. But I do know how I feel. And as I said, I only speak for myself.
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
I don't understand why you would definitely avoid, specifically, a re-imagined classic adventure.
When I say they need another Keep On The Borderlands, really think about what B2 means to people. It is among the defining elements of what it is to be D&D! This whole effort is DnDPast - you say that like it's a dirty word. Like what we had in the old days is somehow inherently bad and wrong.
Isn't that why you moved to Pathfinder? Because they discontinued the version that you liked and you went out to find something like it? Isn't that what the mistake of 4th edition was? Rejecting the past, thinking that it could all be retooled from scratch and it would all be "better"?
Implicit right in their statements about DnDNext, I see over and over "You guys were right. Breaking with the past was a bad idea. It's made a huge schism. We should have found a way to keep people together. Here, let's try to make things right. We'll make a new edition. It'll be all the best bits of the past. It'll be inclusive. Playable how you want it." That is, by definition, a return to roots and to the past, to win back what you had.
Why is the past so bad? Aren't you, as a devoted fan of Pathfinder, clinging to the past already? 3.75?
-
Eric Jome
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
-
You know what? If I went into my local game store right now and saw a 4th edition copy of Keep On The Borderlands, there's a really good chance I'd buy it in that moment, even though I have no intention of EVER using it, just so that I could read it and compare it to the copy that came in my old box set. Just so I could bring it with me to the weekly gaming event tonight and throw it on the table and say with a smug grin "Check this thing out."
Even if it totally sucked. Mechanically. Still would probably buy it. To mock it.
And that was crap module. You give me a chance to buy a 5th edition compatible Ravenloft, Slavers, or Tomb of Horrors and I'll probably buy the s**t out of the whole system.
Twice.
Put a large green demonic face with a wide open mouth full of blackness on the cover and I'll have it as my desktop background.
At work.
-
Dave Bernazzani (@rpggeek)
United States
Plainville
Massachusetts
I wish to provide legendary service to the RPG community to help grow our hobby and enrich the lives of gamers everywhere.
-
cosine wrote: When I say they need another Keep On The Borderlands, really think about what B2 means to people. It is among the defining elements of what it is to be D&D! This whole effort is DnDPast - you say that like it's a dirty word. Like what we had in the old days is somehow inherently bad and wrong.
Not at all. I love the older D&D editions. But like many of us playing the older rules and material, 5e holds little interest. If it means they re-release B2 - it has little impact on us as most of us own 3 or 4 copies already. If they totally re-imagine it and call it B2 (i.e. more than just updates for the 2013 rules and again for the 2016 rules) I'm actually fine with that - I might even buy it. But if WotC thinks they will bring us back into the fold, the blowback from the OSR gaming community is already being felt. If they are looking to attract new people to an older-style of play - then I'm all for that. Just that I won't need to participate as I'm already playing those versions.
Quote: That is, by definition, a return to roots and to the past, to win back what you had.
You used the past tense of have here. I have all the old rules - why do I want them sold to me again?
Quote: Why is the past so bad? Aren't you, as a devoted fan of Pathfinder, clinging to the past already? 3.75?
I'll have you know I'm running the newest (barring the private 5e playtest) version of "D&D" available!
-Dave
-
-
cosine wrote: Put a large green demonic face with a wide open mouth full of blackness on the cover and I'll have it as my desktop background.
At work.
Oh, so you work for the IRS? 
-
|
|
|
