| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gambit |
Posted - 13 Jan 2011 : 17:53:33
Hey all, just wanted to share this with you guys, its a thread over on ENworld that dissects the lack of 4E products coming out in 2011. Apparently WotC has cut back on book production and will only be releasing 3 physical books this year. I am sure this will elicit mixed reactions here at the Keep, from members like Matt and Diffan who are pro 4E, to Wooly who is....not a fan is how I will word that. There is much talk about what all this brings for the future of D&D and RPG's in general, boy people sure do love to speculate huh. Anyway, without further ado:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/299545-ampersand-2011-releases-officially-gutted.html
Cheers,
Gambit |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| see |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 03:19:03
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Lets say that Wizards didn't put out 4E. Lets say they re-vamped 3.5 and did exactly what Paizo did. Even going so far as to create a new in-house setting just like Golarion. How many people would buy it?
Pretty much everybody, if grumbling, just like with the 3-to-3.5 switch.
Now, in the face of WotC issuing a Pathfinder-alike (or Saga SWRPG-alike) as the successor to 3.5, how many people do you think would have bought a 4e-alike launched by Paizo as an alternative? Given the relative success of fantasy heartbreakers in the last 20 years, my bet would be "not enough to put it even in the #3 sales slot."
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I feel Wizards left d20/OGL/v3.5 behind because it was becoming less of a money maker.
I expect that was their calculation, too, back in 2008. However, the current sales figures prove that 4e, backed by the biggest brand name in the RPG industry, is in reality no better a moneymaker than 3.x put out by a virtual nobody. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Jan 2011 : 00:39:11
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And what made me switch from Dragonlance to the Forgotten Realms was the fact that at the time, I felt that Dragonlance was too stagnant and unchanging. The Realms were not.
Only for a time.
I know Wooly and I have been over this during many prior discussions, but I can't let something like this pass. The notion of DRAGONLANCE as stagnant and unchanging is, at most, a common misconception. Yes, it did run into a period of repetitive story-telling with the same characters over and over again. But that's true of most fictional worlds that have 20+ years of published history behind them. Heck, I've seen and heard this as part of the argument for why the Spellplague was introduced into the Realms. Because the prior Realms was "same-old, same-old."
The fact remains, now, that DL is an entirely vibrant world that has embraced a new dynamic of character development and plot-line evolution. Maybe not to the same extent of the 4e Realms, but it was a successful change that garnered both new and old readers alike.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 18:18:40
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Honestly, the reason why Paizo is doing so well is because people hate change and change is exactly what happend. It wasn't the same from previous edition changes where there wasn't really anything else to fall back on. With Paizo maintaining their own form of d20/OGL, people now have that option of stayin (well pretty close) with the previous system rather than being pushed down the 4E path.
I don't think it has anything at all to do with hating change. A lot of Pathfinder players rode the system changes from 2 to 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder. That's a lot of changes for people that don't like change.
I myself readily embraced 3.x and now Pathfinder. Why? Because I thought it was a good system, orders of magnitude better than 2E, which I grew up in. I don't embrace 4E because I don't feel the same way about it. Not trying to start an edition war; it's just a simple fact: 4E is not a system that appeals to me. It has nothing to do with change.
Heck, playing new games is change... BattleTech used to be the only minis-based wargame I played. Now I'm loving Warmachine (Cygnar!).
And what made me switch from Dragonlance to the Forgotten Realms was the fact that at the time, I felt that Dragonlance was too stagnant and unchanging. The Realms were not.
People can dislike a particular ruleset for reasons other than disliking change.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
If Wizards was smart, they'd open up 4E to 3rd party publishers and actually allow the system to grow rather than being saturated with their own material. This may be bad in the long run but it will reach futher gamers and produce more creativity for a solid system.
They tried to, with the GSL. And a lot of companies balked at signing a license that said things like "yeah, we can pull your license at any time without warning, and it's up to you to check that" or "yeah, if you produce 4E material, you can't produce material for any prior editions".
The OGL did exactly what you said, and it did it in perpetuity -- that's why Paizo can do what they're doing, and do it for the next 100+ years. WotC's lawyers apparently did not want to do that again. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 17:33:31
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate
The aspect of all of this that's(to me, at least) MIND-BLOWING is that Hasbro is essentially now in a neck-and-neck competition with its OWN IP: The Folks at Paizo (many blessings upon them, for I love their work) did not come up with their system from scratch- it's a revamp of Hasbro's own d20 rules. This says to me that Hasbro gaveup on the well while it still had a great deal of water to pump. In business, it's *never* a good sign when you abandon a strong product for a questionable one.
Please note that I'm not saying that 4E doesn't have its merits or its aficionados; it clearly has both. What I'm saying is that this is like Microsoft (long the industry leader in its field) abandoning Windows to go to a totally different interface called 'Doors', and seeing Texas Instruments release 'Windows '11' to huge sales amid thousands of blog posts insisting that any consumer who buys 'Doors' is just falling for a money-grab on Microsoft's part. IMO, it was an ill-considered move, and one which any number of execs at WotC and Hasbro would LOVE to take back, despite its successes. It's as though Coca-Cola went with New Coke while Pepsi started mass-producing Coke Classic to rave reviews. I hope that the new competitiveness is good for the industry, but I worry that Wizbro will just ditch the FR IP, never to be seen again.
Lets say that Wizards didn't put out 4E. Lets say they re-vamped 3.5 and did exactly what Paizo did. Even going so far as to create a new in-house setting just like Golarion. How many people would buy it? Why shift further down the OGL line for a more "simpler" set of rules? I think we would've heard the same old song and dance of it being a money grab (like v3.5 was apparently). I think less people would've bought it or only bought the core role book and converted everything else they own WITHOUT the other supplements. I mean, why bother with v3.75 when the conversion is so simple and much cheaper then shelling out another couple hundred for a few extra "special" feats, PrCs, and Skill usages?
I feel Wizards left d20/OGL/v3.5 behind because it was becoming less of a money maker. Even if they were to put out more supplements detailing a whole, brand new world it woudl've only gained them a few years and further saturation of the market. I mean, if you look at some of the later products such as the Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, and Spell Compendium many DMs will say they don't allow those products in their games. Is this because the products aren't good? No, they're easily incorpoated into any existing v3.5 D&D game. Is the content over-powered? No, at least not when you compare them to the standard, OGL/PHB classes such as the cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard. This is a prime example that futher supplements would've been met with the same criticism and that criticism would've exploded frurther with ANY edition revison or change Wizards published.
Honestly, the reason why Paizo is doing so well is because people hate change and change is exactly what happend. It wasn't the same from previous edition changes where there wasn't really anything else to fall back on. With Paizo maintaining their own form of d20/OGL, people now have that option of stayin (well pretty close) with the previous system rather than being pushed down the 4E path.
If Wizards was smart, they'd open up 4E to 3rd party publishers and actually allow the system to grow rather than being saturated with their own material. This may be bad in the long run but it will reach futher gamers and produce more creativity for a solid system. |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 15:44:27
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
For those interested, you can read Ryan's column here
Besides the starting post, the most interesting post is this one (IMHO, of course), talking about the current strategy of WotC. Ryan Dancey has a point, I think. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 15:26:30
I think that it is easier to run, in that a DM has much less prep to do, both in background-research and encounters.
I had more here - MUCH more - concerning the kernel of truth in the above statement, but I deleted it all because it didn't contribute to this particular thread in any discernible way.
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate
The aspect of all of this that's(to me, at least) MIND-BLOWING is that Hasbro is essentially now in a neck-and-neck competition with its OWN IP:
No.
WotC created 3e - Hasbro would NEVER have created an 'open source' system. If we remember WotC fondly for anything, it would be that they gave D&D back to 'the people'. Richard Garfield didn't sell Hasbro anything he hadn't already given away (in regards to D&D, not MtG or the licenses they controlled).
I used to play a lot of 'counters' wargames back in the day, from both Avalon Hill and SPI. Hasbro bought Avalon Hill, and TSR bought SPI (and was in-turn bought by WotC), so now Hasbro owns both my favorite old-school wargame companies.
And they are doing almost nothing with them. 
This is the fate I fear for FR and D&D. They buy entire companies for just one or two IPs, and then shelf the rest - and D&D isn't the reason they bought WotC; collectible card games was. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 14:02:24
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by DiffanPlus DMing 4E is a breeze compared to v3.5/PF.
This is the only statement that I continually have a problem with.
While I can't compare DMing 4E to Paizo (I only skimmed through the books at the store), I can compare it to 3.5 and personally have found it far easier. All the story stuff ammounts to the same work, but the technical stuff of figuring out appropriate challenge, xp, adjusting monsters for the encounter etc... have made my life much easier. If you have an easy time with the other sets, more power to you since they are very fun systems to play. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 13:49:52
Re: Hasbro buying Paizo.
Yes, they have deep pockets and, yes, everyone has their price. However, I don't see it happening. The reason Hasbro bought WotC in the first place was not D&D. They bought them for the Pokemon license and that alone. I've always gotten the feeling that Hasbro couldn't care less about RPGs. |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 09:37:16
The aspect of all of this that's(to me, at least) MIND-BLOWING is that Hasbro is essentially now in a neck-and-neck competition with its OWN IP: The Folks at Paizo (many blessings upon them, for I love their work) did not come up with their system from scratch- it's a revamp of Hasbro's own d20 rules. This says to me that Hasbro gaveup on the well while it still had a great deal of water to pump. In business, it's *never* a good sign when you abandon a strong product for a questionable one.
Please note that I'm not saying that 4E doesn't have its merits or its aficionados; it clearly has both. What I'm saying is that this is like Microsoft (long the industry leader in its field) abandoning Windows to go to a totally different interface called 'Doors', and seeing Texas Instruments release 'Windows '11' to huge sales amid thousands of blog posts insisting that any consumer who buys 'Doors' is just falling for a money-grab on Microsoft's part. IMO, it was an ill-considered move, and one which any number of execs at WotC and Hasbro would LOVE to take back, despite its successes. It's as though Coca-Cola went with New Coke while Pepsi started mass-producing Coke Classic to rave reviews. I hope that the new competitiveness is good for the industry, but I worry that Wizbro will just ditch the FR IP, never to be seen again. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 03:54:27
Concerning the virtual table: I think that will make or break D&D, and decide its future. I've said it before in another thread, and I'll say it again - they NEED to provide at least some low-level usability with other systems, and it has to be simple, with NO glitches and run smoothly. If they can do that and become the dominant 'must-have' RPG accessory, they will be able to turn this around. Control the interface most people use, and you can control their wallets (I cite Facebook once again as the ultimate example).
And it has to be FREE - I don't care how hard it would be to push that past the shareholders, but they have to do it that way, otherwise the only people who will try it will be the customers they already have... which will accomplish nothing.
Bait the hook, THEN real them in. 
Plus it will put some much-needed good-will in their corner, which never hurts.
I would also suggest they somehow come out with one-time-use 'codes' within printed rulebooks that would open-up features within the gaming table (thus connecting, and insuring the success of, BOTH sources of income). Several games currently use this model - it would work very much like 'game cards', but would unlock the rules within the game-table associated with the sourcebook purchased (and would create that 'collectible' atmosphere that D&D has always had, but bring it to a new level.).
Just imagine them offering pre-release sales the way VG's do, like getting a special limited edition weapon or piece of armor - EVERYONE will rush out to buy the damn sourcbook to get the 'goodies' (which cuts WAY down on the desirability of pirated books). If there is one way to get gamers to spend their money, its offering them something uber-kewl that no one else has. That one-upmanship is built into our psyches.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
If WotC was really smart, they join forces with Blizzard again to create a 4E version of WoW, with all new up to date rules for that setting including new races, classes, powers, rituals, and monsters to battle.
I don't know if Blizzard would be interested in a collaboration anymore. I bought some of the Diablo D&D products, and really liked them, and it would be cool if they could do it again. I just don't see it, though (they have their own highly successful IP's at this point now).
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
You know, I'm not sure if I'd like this plan or not. On one hand, WotC would have good reason to produce v3.75 material again while on the other, it might diminish 4E sales which is like competition with itself.
They can't, if they've signed the GSL!  
That was almost spit-take worthy - nice one.
And I really don't see that ever happening. Not that Paizo wouldn't sell (like I said, EVERYONE has their price), but I really don't see Hasbro wanting to dabble further into the RPG market, until they see some sort of highly lucrative return. I'm not sure if D&D has really done enough for them thus-far. It was simply an odd (and scary) thought that popped into my head.
RPG's are a niche-market, and I don't really think mega-corporations can provide the amount of hand-holding they require. Once again, not a knock; just pointing out that the mass-market approach doesn't work with a niche genre - something is lost in the translation. 4e was clearly designed to appeal to largest amount of possible consumers, and that may (IMO) prove to be its downfall. They can't just aim everywhere and hope for a hit.
David didn't take-down Goliath with a nuclear warhead - he just used one well-aimed stone. In the former case you may win the day, but can you survive the fallout? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 02:51:33
It's only been 2 years? Seems like so much longer... |
| see |
Posted - 24 Jan 2011 : 00:37:24
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I see the opposite actually. To me it shows that they're willing to adapt to the ebb and flow of the market and target audience.
A business doesn't change product strategies unless the existing product strategy is underperforming. If the existing strategy is underperforming, in business terms, that means something is going wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But just because the sales are on par with WotC's sales of 4E doesn't foretell it's downfall. It just shows that one system is just as good (in different ways) in comparison to another and that the fan base still finds a lot of uses for d20/OGL.
It's absolutely unprecedented for any other TRPG to have sales in D&D's ballpark, no matter how good they were as games. IIRC, even when TSR was basically shut down, it remained the market leader. When a line goes from undisputed master of a market for 35 years with no signs of fading, to a dead heat with a competitor, it indicates that, as a business, the managers of the line did something wrong.
To be clear, I'm not talking down 4e as a game, and I'm not even suggesting it means 4e is doomed. But there's no way it was part of the expected business plan in 2008 that D&D 4th Edition would wind up where it is today in either product strategy or relative sales. Things went seriously wrong. |
| Therise |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 20:21:39
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
But at this point, I don't think anyone will believe that WotC can effectively incorporate and deliver on a computerized element (like a gaming table to connect people in different cities for the same gaming session). So it will likely be something else or a reversion back to customizability.
Well, they promised to do so a few years ago, and lately it's popped back up. With the right approach (which in my opinion includes being rules-neutral, with rulesets as purchasable plug-ins, and the service being hosted and maintained by a third-party company with a good rep for service and uptime), a virtual gaming table could link all those players who have laid down their dice due to time constraints (mostly scheduling conflicts) and/or the dissolution of their gaming groups. A virtual table could bring past, present, and future gamers into the game, unlike a ruleset which is only going to reach those that have the time and money right now.
MMOs are ascendant right now because everyone has a computer, and you can play at your own schedule. You can't always do that with a gaming group, and rulebooks, unlike computers, have only one purpose. Let everyone play when they want, and you'll have more people at the table. It may only be a virtual table, but that's better than none at all.
Believe me, I think a D&D branded online gaming table would be a huge benefit to their company, boosting profits in a big way and allowing people all across the world to connect. But I think WotC's "street cred" on their ability to make such a thing happen is pretty low right now.
But yes, if they could do it edition free (best scenario) or even 4E, I think they'd have the "next big thing" in gaming.
And I agree that MMOs are great, to a point; the endless grind and repetetiveness becomes stale. I have loved several MMOs that are still available now, and I still play. But imagining a gaming table with a toolset to create your own adventures, that would bring me back in pretty fast. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 20:18:45
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
You know, I'm not sure if I'd like this plan or not. On one hand, WotC would have good reason to produce v3.75 material again while on the other, it might diminish 4E sales which is like competition with itself.
They can't, if they've signed the GSL! |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 19:19:03
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I just had a scary thought - Hasbro buys Paizo. 
And please don't say "never happen" - EVERYTHING has it's price, and Hasbro has DEEP pockets.
You know, I'm not sure if I'd like this plan or not. On one hand, WotC would have good reason to produce v3.75 material again while on the other, it might diminish 4E sales which is like competition with itself. I'm fairly sure this wouldn't happen because it's not in WotC best interest at this point. I mean, unless they plan on shelfing the whole 4E/Essentials line then this is of a bigger possibility.
The funny thing is, all the people they've let go over the past two years would then be WotC employees again or at least writing for them once more, lol. And the circle is now complete.
If WotC was really smart, they join forces with Blizzard again to create a 4E version of WoW, with all new up to date rules for that setting including new races, classes, powers, rituals, and monsters to battle.
I can see it now....
"Adventure through the plauge lands of Tirisfal, battling the Forsaken and cutting a swath to the Blood Elf homelands. Play as an Orc trying to regain your honor in the wilderness that is Kalimdor. Battle the evil forces of the Scourge and fight along side your friends in new, detailed dungeons featuring your favorite locations from the game."
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 18:41:33
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think they should compete with that market. Just look at the cross-overs! I've even gotten a few co-workers to try out D&D for the first time and the only reason they were even interested was because they were fans of Knights of the Old Republic, Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 1&2. So if a PnP-RPG can give them the same feeling of character depth, killing monsters, engaging in a fun story, and a fun night with friends with say 4E then more power to it. I think 4E is the best system for bringing in new players. It's easy to understand and it works well with other modes of Role-Playing like video games.
THIS I can agree with, to a point.
It is a great entry-level system, but I have been called to task before for calling it that.
That's the reason I planned to start two new D&D groups - both with young people - using the 4e rules. That hasn't gotten off the ground yet, unfortunately, but that is still my plan. I am currently far from home hoping to start the one group before I leave.
I suppose there is room for both Pathfinder and D&D - there have always been RPG systems with different levels of 'depth', from Tunnels & Trolls to Chivalry & Sorcery. Ergo, 4e would be a very good system to introduce people to P&P RPGs. In fact, it will be just like it was when we had both OD&D and AD&D, except AD&D is now Pathfinder and controlled by another company.
I just had a scary thought - Hasbro buys Paizo.
And please don't say "never happen" - EVERYTHING has it's price, and Hasbro has DEEP pockets.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd love to sit in on some of those staff meetings!
So would I. I'm sure it would be fascinating. Maybe they can do a reality show.  |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 18:40:09
well if they do beat up the DnD, then I hope Paizo is smart enought not to sell out ot Hasbro.....
but enough of that, I'd buy a Cormyr book for 4e too, but like the way above me stated " only if it had a detailed history...." |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 16:40:30
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
But at this point, I don't think anyone will believe that WotC can effectively incorporate and deliver on a computerized element (like a gaming table to connect people in different cities for the same gaming session). So it will likely be something else or a reversion back to customizability.
Well, they promised to do so a few years ago, and lately it's popped back up. With the right approach (which in my opinion includes being rules-neutral, with rulesets as purchasable plug-ins, and the service being hosted and maintained by a third-party company with a good rep for service and uptime), a virtual gaming table could link all those players who have laid down their dice due to time constraints (mostly scheduling conflicts) and/or the dissolution of their gaming groups. A virtual table could bring past, present, and future gamers into the game, unlike a ruleset which is only going to reach those that have the time and money right now.
MMOs are ascendant right now because everyone has a computer, and you can play at your own schedule. You can't always do that with a gaming group, and rulebooks, unlike computers, have only one purpose. Let everyone play when they want, and you'll have more people at the table. It may only be a virtual table, but that's better than none at all. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 16:24:58
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
When I said Breeze, I was speaking of the speed in which it takes me to prepare for a campaign. Your correct in that a DM can't prepare for every out come, but quick access and the speed in which it takes to make up encounters, use monster (or change monster's stats), and dole out XP and treausre is measured in minutes instead of hours or scrapping the session completly or fudging the rules on the fly.
This is why using published adventures is much easier, as a lot of the story is already laid out for you. For example, in my upcoming Heroes of the Moonsea adventure (v3.5) I'm using 4 pre-made adventures that'll take my PCs from level 1 to 18! I expect some changes, deaths, and alterations to the adventure in addition to alternative plots that might or might not come to pass. But I've the time now to devote to running this style of campaign. Had I 2 hours to make something up, I'd run 4E without question. AND it would be just as involved as the previous adventure because I have more time to devote to the story/plot without having to sit through 5 Monster Manuals, 2 DMGs, and setting material. It's all online, right at my finger tips.
I still don't see much of a difference. If you're writing your own story, the ruleset is not going to make setup any quicker or not. The TOOLS you use will. Yes, for 4E, I can sign up for a DDI account and have a whole bunch of tools crunch the numbers for me and give me all the NPCs/etc. I need. But in 3E, I can do the same thing using my Hero Labs programs. Both take me the same amount of time.
All I'm trying to say is that the RULES you use don't make the accounting any more easier. |
| Therise |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 16:10:20
Frankly, I'm not sure what they would do in 5E, except perhaps swing back to individually customizable PCs and monsters. Or perhaps do something completely different like a roleplaying-computer hybrid.
But at this point, I don't think anyone will believe that WotC can effectively incorporate and deliver on a computerized element (like a gaming table to connect people in different cities for the same gaming session). So it will likely be something else or a reversion back to customizability. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 16:05:05
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Factoids like this tidbit about sales, and the first run of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook selling out before its debut at GenCon, have got to have WotC execs very nervous. I'd love to sit in on some of those staff meetings!
I'd like that as well. In fact, if they were worth their salt as a gaming industry they'd have people who utilize their product and give great professional criticism back to the big Corporate guys just to let them know where they stand and where they need to be 2 years down the road.
Heh, if they'd have solicited my input years back, instead of a new edition, we'd have a fully-functional, subscription-based and rules-neutral virtual gaming table hosted by a very reliable third party, with the weight of WotC behind it to give it prominence. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 15:35:52
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'll agree that Paizo's sales don't necessarily fortell the downfall of 4E, but I do believe this is the first time in the history of D&D that the game has had serious competition. There have long been other systems and other companies producing them, but WotC and TSR before them always remained the biggest kid on the block. They still are the biggest kid on the block, but for the first time, they are not the dominant leader.
Can Paizo supplant WotC as the biggest name in RPGs? Maybe, maybe not. I do think it's telling, though, that for the first time since Gary Gygax intro'ed the game, that someone appears poised to do supplant the original.
Question is, Is this good for the RPG community or bad? I feel healthy competition keeps costs low, quality up, and breeds great ideas like Fortune Cards or the Paizo equivolent (can't remembe the name off-hand). Of course it's not great for WotC, as they're no longer Top Dog, but it's good for consumers and now WotC and Paizo have to work hard to gain our $$.
By biggest gripe is the fact that I can't run all three (v3.5/PF/4E) systems more often .
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Factoids like this tidbit about sales, and the first run of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook selling out before its debut at GenCon, have got to have WotC execs very nervous. I'd love to sit in on some of those staff meetings!
I'd like that as well. In fact, if they were worth their salt as a gaming industry they'd have people who utilize their product and give great professional criticism back to the big Corporate guys just to let them know where they stand and where they need to be 2 years down the road. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 15:16:51
When I said Breeze, I was speaking of the speed in which it takes me to prepare for a campaign. Your correct in that a DM can't prepare for every out come, but quick access and the speed in which it takes to make up encounters, use monster (or change monster's stats), and dole out XP and treausre is measured in minutes instead of hours or scrapping the session completly or fudging the rules on the fly.
This is why using published adventures is much easier, as a lot of the story is already laid out for you. For example, in my upcoming Heroes of the Moonsea adventure (v3.5) I'm using 4 pre-made adventures that'll take my PCs from level 1 to 18! I expect some changes, deaths, and alterations to the adventure in addition to alternative plots that might or might not come to pass. But I've the time now to devote to running this style of campaign. Had I 2 hours to make something up, I'd run 4E without question. AND it would be just as involved as the previous adventure because I have more time to devote to the story/plot without having to sit through 5 Monster Manuals, 2 DMGs, and setting material. It's all online, right at my finger tips. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 14:58:18
quote:
Originally posted by DiffanPlus DMing 4E is a breeze compared to v3.5/PF.
This is the only statement that I continually have a problem with.
In all my years of gaming, the one thing that always made DM'ing more time-consuming and difficult had nothing to do with the rules we were using and everything to do with the story you were telling. The story is where the meat of the game is and also where the biggest pitfalls are. If you are telling a sub-par story, you're players will call you out on it and, most likely, this is where the dynamic will fall apart. On the flip side, you as a DM, cannot prepare for everything a party may do during the game. Even if you run published adventures you bought at the store, the players can make decisions designers never even considered.
So I don't (and will never) see how a ruleset makes DM'ing easier.
Of course, now the response to this will be "but 4E makes monster generation/rules adjudication/etc. easier because of X". In response to that, I'd like to point out that most of my DM's (and myself) never had any issues with that no matter what rules we were running (even non-D&D rules). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 14:57:03
I'll agree that Paizo's sales don't necessarily fortell the downfall of 4E, but I do believe this is the first time in the history of D&D that the game has had serious competition. There have long been other systems and other companies producing them, but WotC and TSR before them always remained the biggest kid on the block. They still are the biggest kid on the block, but for the first time, they are not the dominant leader.
Can Paizo supplant WotC as the biggest name in RPGs? Maybe, maybe not. I do think it's telling, though, that for the first time since Gary Gygax intro'ed the game, that someone appears poised to do supplant the original.
Factoids like this tidbit about sales, and the first run of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook selling out before its debut at GenCon, have got to have WotC execs very nervous. I'd love to sit in on some of those staff meetings! |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 13:20:18
quote:
Originally posted by see
I think we're seeing that Hasbro made some serious mistakes with 4e. What exactly those mistakes were, I'm not going to particularly theorize on, though I have very strong opinions.
But we've certainly seen a series of major line adjustments (Essentials, the just-announced cancellations). We've also seen reports that Pathfinder has matched D&D sales (ICv2 report, Q3-2010) or even exceeded them (Ryan Dancey's first EnWorld column, Jan 18th), the first time a rival RPG has seriously challenged D&D in sales, ever. These are not signs of health for 4e.
I see the opposite actually. To me it shows that they're willing to adapt to the ebb and flow of the market and target audience. The release of Essentials was a great way to extrapolate on the classes they currently have while adding interesting character archs previously untouched by 4E. Also, it was a way for them to compile all the rule changes prior to Essentials into one supplement instead of a few pages at the back of every supplement. And judging from the style and quality of their products for the past 4 months I'm pretty confident that D&D is going strong.
I think Paizo's good sales are in part a result of people's love for the previous style of d20/OGL and the large separation of rules of 4E. But just because the sales are on par with WotC's sales of 4E doesn't foretell it's downfall. It just shows that one system is just as good (in different ways) in comparison to another and that the fan base still finds a lot of uses for d20/OGL. Espically when you have fans like myself who patron both Paizo and WotC because I love variety. Since I know v3.5/PF so well and it's free online database is super easy to access I'd be silly not to utilize that system for some awesome gaming. On the flip side, 4E brings to light A LOT of aspects which I find really interesting, fun, and has more "flare" for characters in combat. Plus DMing 4E is a breeze compared to v3.5/PF. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 05:53:25
quote:
Originally posted by see
I think we're seeing that Hasbro made some serious mistakes with 4e. What exactly those mistakes were, I'm not going to particularly theorize on, though I have very strong opinions.
But we've certainly seen a series of major line adjustments (Essentials, the just-announced cancellations). We've also seen reports that Pathfinder has matched D&D sales (ICv2 report, Q3-2010) or even exceeded them (Ryan Dancey's first EnWorld column, Jan 18th), the first time a rival RPG has seriously challenged D&D in sales, ever. These are not signs of health for 4e.
For those interested, you can read Ryan's column here |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 05:18:01
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Or an update on Cormyr...
This.
They sort of got close with the Cormyr adventure as it had an update on the region in Cormyr where the adventure took place in the appendix.
During the later part of 3E, it seemed to me like WotC was treating the Realms as "old" and out of date. Instead of doing that and trying to strip the FR logo from rulebooks, I wish WotC would have introduced more rules and rulebooks through the Realms.
Think of it as an expansion on the Prestige Class concept. Tie in the rules to the flavor of the (unexplored) parts of Faerun and Toril. If they'd gone to other continents, it would have been less influenced by the Realms, but part of the same setting.
Contrary to Diffan, I don't think 4E was needed at all. |
| see |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 05:01:19
I think we're seeing that Hasbro made some serious mistakes with 4e. What exactly those mistakes were, I'm not going to particularly theorize on, though I have very strong opinions.
But we've certainly seen a series of major line adjustments (Essentials, the just-announced cancellations). We've also seen reports that Pathfinder has matched D&D sales (ICv2 report, Q3-2010) or even exceeded them (Ryan Dancey's first EnWorld column, Jan 18th), the first time a rival RPG has seriously challenged D&D in sales, ever. These are not signs of health for 4e. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 03:53:06
BTW I'd like to give us all a round of applause for the simple fact that this thread as gone on 4 pages without becoming the target of edition wars, thread de-railment, personal attacks and/or flaming  !
I hope this is a sign that as Realms fans we can set aside personal distaste for strongly opiniated open debate while remaining civil towards one another. I'm so proud of you guys *wipes tear* |
|
|
