| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Apex |
Posted - 30 May 2014 : 15:59:35
From what I have seen so far of 5th/new FR, I am going to guess that this will be the last editions of both. The big problem they are facing is that the nostalgia loving players (the older ones with lots of cash) have/can stick with the editions/lore they loved/grew up with and the younger market simply has a ton of competition for table top gaming (ie most gamers are introduced through word of mouth and that can be ANY edition). Every time they add an edition, they further splinter their customer base and (outside of an initial "its new" splurge) sales decline.
WoTC missed the market with 3rd edition by assuming they could recapture the glory days of D&D sales, when in fact they would have been far better off recognizing D&D as a niche product with a fanatical customer base and simply refine/update/continue 2nd edition. Since that release they have been constantly trying to regain their old base without success while at the same time trying to figure out what younger potential gamers want in a game (again with limited success at best).
I haven't seen anything in 5th ed/5th Realms that is going to bring gamers like myself back into the market, as the game I play still works perfectly fine (as it always did). To many of us, the new editions simply are not D&D in the respect of what we knew D&D to be. Simply put, there is nothing at all that is compelling about the new edition that "forces" anyone interested in D&D to choose it over a past edition and that is a big problem. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 14 Jun 2014 : 23:30:03
I wouldnt be surprised to see a 5E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting released. Alongside counterparts for Greyhawk and any other settings Wizbro deems worth the investment to continue.
But not before all the FR novels and trilogies which detail the transition to FR5E have already been marketed. Dont want to spoil the stories (or book revenues!) with neat little heres-what-happened synopses in the game products.
Meanwhile, modules and adventures and whatnot will be generic and setting neutral, possibly including comments about how to tailor them into mainstream campaign settings.
It happened with 2E, 3E, 4E ... why should 5E deviate from a proven formula for success? Methinks the novel revenues significantly outweigh gamebook revenues, both in terms of how many fans buy into them and how much raw profit is generated - although admitttedly thats just my opinion, I dont really know and WotC has always kept their real numbers away from public domain. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 08 Jun 2014 : 21:04:55
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
Systems aside, I don't think the Forgotten Realms in the gaming space matters anymore. Looks how it was marketed under 4e, Forgotten Realms didn't have a logo. It was plain text under the D&D logo, then there were some Realms books that didn't say Forgotten Realms at all.
I'd beg to differ. Since the start of the playtest we've seen specifically the Forgotten Realms name dropped consistently dropped though out most of the playtest products. Second, this link to the Tyranny of Dragons specifically states it takes place along the Sword Coast and the North. So obviously the Forgotten Realms is going to be a heavily supported setting in the next edition.
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
Let's looks at the 5e offerings, we have 2 adventures coming out set in the Realms. No mention on the covers (based on the images on Amazon) that they're Realms adventures at all. No logo, no text.
You obviously didn't look hard enough as it's right there in the lower part of the front cover. It's says Forgotten Realms: The Sundering and has this symbol.
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
I'd be shocked if we saw a Player's Guide AND a Campaign Setting this edition.
To me, the older stuff is more important then ever before but it's not going to attract a new audience, not when other game systems have eclipsed the amount of material put out by WOTC.
I'd be shocked if they didn't considering all the hoopla of the Realms being talked about for the past year. I mean, if what your saying is true then why even bother with the Sundering event? Why bother putting a LOT of time and effort into the collaboration between the game's designers and the writers of the setting? It doesn't add up. What it does say is that the Realms are going to probably be the flagship setting for this edition and that we'll see more products of it than we ever saw in 4E (which is a good thing). |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 08 Jun 2014 : 20:43:18
Well sirurza, what you say is scary but has a ring of truth. I wouldn't be surprised if WoTC deliberately sabotaged the Forgotten Realms to make a quick sale.
Now that I think about that makes sense of some actions that I thought stupid but only because I assumed they wanted to keep FR going |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 08 Jun 2014 : 20:37:22
Systems aside, I don't think the Forgotten Realms in the gaming space matters anymore. Looks how it was marketed under 4e, Forgotten Realms didn't have a logo. It was plain text under the D&D logo, then there were some Realms books that didn't say Forgotten Realms at all.
Let's looks at the 5e offerings, we have 2 adventures coming out set in the Realms. No mention on the covers (based on the images on Amazon) that they're Realms adventures at all. No logo, no text.
I'd be shocked if we saw a Player's Guide AND a Campaign Setting this edition.
To me, the older stuff is more important then ever before but it's not going to attract a new audience, not when other game systems have eclipsed the amount of material put out by WOTC.
|
| ksu_bond |
Posted - 07 Jun 2014 : 15:49:50
In an "adult" game indeed...role-playing games since the 90s have had to deal with the rise of the uber-munchkin players, so while 3/3.5 was rife with munchkin's (it just happened to be the common rule set avaiable at the time) they would have arisen regardless of what rules were being used...admittedly some DM's handle these players better than others...so the claim that in a particular rule set (such as 2e) or in an "adult" game these things wouldn't happen is likewise misleading and an over-simplification...for proof of this look at modern computer/console games...even the "free" online games such as Tribal Wars have developed a problem in that people can "pay to win"... |
| Barastir |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 12:19:17
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
2E was a patchwork, wonky system that worked great for people who'd been playing it forever and had already memorized their 10 binders full of notes, rules changes and ad-hoc rules fixes.
(...)
You all ignore the first rule that said that most of the rules were optional. When 3e came 2nd edition was there for 13 years, IIRC, and of course during this time a lot of optionals appeared. In fact, 3e was in the same way, with lots of completes, substitution levels, and so on. Of course, it was easier for those that accompanied 3e from the start and saw the development of the rules as they were published not to be lost in the maelstrom. But both editions can work nicely if you want to, and all have their own flaws (a friend of mine made the indestructible kobold sorcerer with 3e rules).
After all, good sense must prevail, for systems can be bended. Just see what better suits your campaign, set the limits you think necessary, and all will have fun.  |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 09:53:08
I enjoyed the half-vampire template, though I probably would've had him become a Paladin of Tyranny (Unearthed Arcana) had that option been present. Or maybe slowly convert levels from the PHB paladin to the Tyranny one slowly.
In 4e, I had a Paladin who also had the Vampiric Bloodline feats, gave a different feel and role-play experience to the character. The group, thankfully, wasn't overtly good aligned so the need to destroy the character wasn't there so long as I didn't jepordize missions or ruin chances of the group getting gold (heavy mercenary-vibe group, think The Black Company |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 08:21:51
We have had a great time with a vampire paladin combo.
Using the rules from Libris Mortis the paladin had to make regular checks to ensure he did not succumb to madness and bite the first thing to hand.
He would attempt to stave this off by drinking animal blood and he always had to be careful not to make physical contact with another living being.
It was a very enjoyable mini scenario that unfortunately ended in disaster when he finally succumbed to the need to feed, lost his paladin powers, became a blackguard and had to be destroyed by the rest of the group.
Despite the negative outcome it was thoroughly enjoyed by all and is on of the reasons i love 3rd edition. Anything is possible. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 06:42:45
Wait, why are half-vampire Paladins a bad thing?? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 03:25:40
D&D3E improved a lot on AD&D2E, of course; that's progress. But like every (A)D&D edition before and after (except perhaps 1E, or perhaps not), 3E started off nice and clean and organized and kinda fair-balanced but inevitably evolved into an ugly mountain of sourcebooks and rules and optional rules and things which could be abused and mixed out of their standalone contexts countless different ways. Unbeatable NPCs were not new to 2E, nor did they disappear after 2E. |
| Apex |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 02:32:15
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
2nd edition was flat out broken. The stuff I could do with a 2nd edition wizard were seriously SERIOUSLY broken. The sheer concept of contingent type spells needed rework. The concepts of spells being stored in other spells needed rework. Did I love it? At the time I relished in it. But when I pulled back the rulesets, I discovered that I could easily create NPC's that were effectively unbeatable based upon how magic worked (drow liches were just plain nasty with their high magic resistance AND the defensive spellcasting that an archmage can do). Its a lot harder to develop that totally unbeatable person in 3.5.
What does this have to do with anything? AD&D isn't a competitive game and thus a mature DM isn't trying to make "unbeatable" NPCs anyways. And while 3rd may have made unbeatable combos harder (but again, it wasn't like this was a problem in any adult AD&D games anyways), it added the absurdity of a player run game and characters that were half vampire paladins and so on. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 02:13:36
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
2E was a patchwork, wonky system that worked great for people who'd been playing it forever and had already memorized their 10 binders full of notes, rules changes and ad-hoc rules fixes.
That's a bunch of hooey. 2nd edition was a very simple system to learn and play (I am specifically referring to 2nd here, not 2.5) and played perfectly well just out of the box so to speak. What third did was completely change the entire aspect of D&D from one of problem solving and role playing development of characters to one of based on mechanical character development (ie more stats) and set challenges that relied more on stats than brains.
You are effectively making up history by trying to claim that 2nd was a bad system (since 2nd was little more than a clarification of first and a translation of much of the rules from High Gygaxian into common), as one can easily argue that AD&D lasted for more than 20 years. What third was more than anything was an attempt by WoTC to immediately ramp up profits from a recently acquired company by producing a product that everyone had to buy (and changing it enough that if you wanted to play the new game you had to buy everything all over again).
2nd edition was flat out broken. The stuff I could do with a 2nd edition wizard were seriously SERIOUSLY broken. The sheer concept of contingent type spells needed rework. The concepts of spells being stored in other spells needed rework. Did I love it? At the time I relished in it. But when I pulled back the rulesets, I discovered that I could easily create NPC's that were effectively unbeatable based upon how magic worked (drow liches were just plain nasty with their high magic resistance AND the defensive spellcasting that an archmage can do). Its a lot harder to develop that totally unbeatable person in 3.5. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 06 Jun 2014 : 02:04:33
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
From a pop culture and saturation standpoint that is definitely true with no room for debate. By the end of 2nd edition D&D had already effectively become a niche product of which the move to 3/3.5/4/5 has only exacerbated. As we have seen, with no reason to "upgrade" editions like there is in video games, the customer base splinters. There is a huge 1st/2nd edition community (much larger than some here want to admit) and there is now a huge 3.5 community (Pathfinder et al) as well.
That and they are usually writing themselves into a corner. The options that they provide start to break down whenever person A takes option Q from Y book and combines with with option Z form R book and option X from N book.
Someone with better market knowledge than me can probably clarify this, but it doesn't seem to make any sense that WotC, and in fact all major RPG producers (White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games...) have always kept launching new rulesets if there was no reason for it. My first assumption is that their sales, in most or all these cases, were falling to the point the line would cease to be profitable, and the alternative to a new ruleset would be to discontinue the line.
|
| Apex |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 18:04:17
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
2E was a patchwork, wonky system that worked great for people who'd been playing it forever and had already memorized their 10 binders full of notes, rules changes and ad-hoc rules fixes.
That's a bunch of hooey. 2nd edition was a very simple system to learn and play (I am specifically referring to 2nd here, not 2.5) and played perfectly well just out of the box so to speak. What third did was completely change the entire aspect of D&D from one of problem solving and role playing development of characters to one of based on mechanical character development (ie more stats) and set challenges that relied more on stats than brains.
You are effectively making up history by trying to claim that 2nd was a bad system (since 2nd was little more than a clarification of first and a translation of much of the rules from High Gygaxian into common), as one can easily argue that AD&D lasted for more than 20 years. What third was more than anything was an attempt by WoTC to immediately ramp up profits from a recently acquired company by producing a product that everyone had to buy (and changing it enough that if you wanted to play the new game you had to buy everything all over again). |
| hobbitfan |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 09:00:11
My experience of 4E Realms pretty much mirrors your own. To me it felt hugely disrespectful to the fanbase as well as an irresponsible way to treat a valued setting.
I'm really curious to see how WOTC's 5E team handles the Realms. If they crap on the fans again, I'm done with them as a customer. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 08:40:13
Well Jeremy that sounds exactly right to me and is my experience of DnD.
I started with 2nd edition and while i liked playing the game the rules were cumbersome and i dont know of many people that played a game beyond 5th level.
When 3rd edition came out i recognised the mathematical potential of the rules to make the game work. Everything fit nicely and the players and monsters were all using the same rules. Even better house-rules that fit seemlessly with the whole system were so easy to create. My own system is now entirely different from 3.5 or 3.75 and yet anyone who had used those systems would instantly be able to pick it up and use it without any explanation.
I didnt mind the release of 3.5 since i saw it as an update or improvement to the rules (which like computer software is a necessity). For pathfinder (3.75) i saw another update and so was happy to go along with it and again it proved to be even better. I would have bought rules 3.8, 3.9, 3.99 since they were all built from the same base and mostly compatible with each other.
The 4th edition rules wasnt an upgrade it was an entirely new system and one that i found initially interesting but ultimately souless (too much like a computer game).
And as for the setting changes. Again 1st edition, 2nd edition, and 3rd edition were all the same setting with little updates to the lore (although the later updates to the timeline were not so great). 4th edition is not the same setting and again ultimately proved souless for me. 5th edition is another new setting or pehaps an upgrade to 4th edition. Either way i didnt want a new piece of software, i wanted an upgrade to the existing software.
3rd edition saved DnD. 4th edition killed it, and 5th edition may well prove to put the nails in the coffin, cremate it, and bury the ashes in the ground.
When you release a piece of software you spend the time upgrading it and improving it and adding on additional modules until it is perfect. This satisfies your existing customers and draws new customers to the product.
Then typically once perfected you release an entirely new system to get new customers while keeping the old system going (with a lower development and upgrade cycle) to appease the old customers you have, and gradually the old customers convert to the new system and once you reach suitably low numbers on the old product you discontinue upgrade and support for it.
And that is just the program behind it, the actual business process (or campaign setting) it supports should never change so that people are familiar with the process and can easily switch between your old product and your new one
You never, ever release a new piece of software, get it to a working product, delete it and abandon your old customers and then release a new system with a completely new business process only to abandon that a few years later. Thats just stupid business.
I realise i am drawing parallels between roleplaying games and business software but they are both niche products and so the same rules should apply. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 03:34:35
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
Third wasn't created because anything was wrong with 2nd.
2E was a patchwork, wonky system that worked great for people who'd been playing it forever and had already memorized their 10 binders full of notes, rules changes and ad-hoc rules fixes.
And yes it's true that TSR ran itself into the ground--nobody disputes that--it's just that suggesting 2nd Edition wasn't a "bad game model" and so WotC only made 3E to get people to spend money is ignoring history.
Third Edition came into being because WotC set themselves the goal of revitalizing Dungeons & Dragons as a brand and as a game.
This quickly changed to "make as much money as possible" when Hasbro took over, but that doesn't change the success of 3E or the reasoning that went into its creation.
*****
The idea that new editions splinter the customer base has some merit, but it only goes so far.
With each new edition there is no such thing as a clean break. Gamers by and large will try new editions, will buy different sets of game books and will then pick and choose which they want to use, while keeping in mind that can switch back if that's what people feel like playing.
Certainly some will make the choice not to buy into the a new edition, but who those people are often depends on how old the prior edition is and how set in their ways people are.
For 2nd Edition there were a lot of older gamers that didn't make the switch to 3E, but only because they'd been playing 2E for years and years (and in many cases 1E before that).
Likewise, there were younger gamers that came on in the 90s through 2E who made the switch gladly to 3E. These gamers made up a large portion of the gaming community and they didn't just play D&D.
Their enthusiasm for 3E meant the next generation of gamers coming of age would be playing 3E, not 2E, and adopting is as their rules system of choice.
The 3.0 Core Rulebooks would not have repeatedly sold out otherwise, which is to say 3E grew the D&D fan base.
In no way, shape or form did it splinter the D&D fan base.
The difference between the 2E to 3E transition as opposed to the 3.5 to 4E to 5E transition is that the time between editions has shrunk considerably. The same generation of gamers will have seen all three rules iterations.
WotC plus Paizo have saturated the (ever shrinking, unfortunately) market with rules sets like TSR saturated the market with too many campaign worlds.
That saturation--literally having two or three sets of core rulebooks plus expansions on the bookshelf--coupled with an ever increasing price tag is what's turning some people off.
Their strategy to cater to all editions makes sense in this regard, because they're trying to bring people back under one roof.
Whether or not there are enough gamers to comprise the next generation of D&D fans remains to be seen.
|
| ksu_bond |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 01:37:55
Can't say that I agree with the nothing wrong with 2e as I've followed the Realms for quite some time, well before 3e came out...however, I didn't get into playing DnD until 3e as I found the rules more to my liking than the previous editions...so to each there own...as far a rules go, I never had a problem with 4e, rather I disliked the impact that it had on FR lore (over time I've come to appreciate some of the changes, but there are many I still have a hard time stomaching)... |
| Apex |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 00:49:42
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
A huge complaint that people had with WotC is that they felt they were too greedy. Creating 3rd Edition in 2000 and then revising it in nearly the same way Paizo did in 2003, it put a sour taste in a LOT of people's mouths and they were pretty vocal about the revision if my memory serves me. I feel the same exact thing would've happened again regarding the system. A small overhaul wouldn't have gone over well but I think people's hindsight is "well, I would've accepted a small revision to 4E". But we'll never truly know.
Third wasn't created because anything was wrong with 2nd. TSR was a poorly run business, not a bad game model. Third came into play because the fastest/easiest way to make money in a game is to make a new edition (ie something everyone "has" to buy). The problem as I stated before is that every time you do this with an RPG, you end up splintering your customer base a bit more. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 22:38:34
Yet had WotC just fixed those problems with 3.5 in a slightly updated ruleset just 5 years after doing it again....how would that look? I mean, c'mon people were pissed they revised the game so early. People were mad and felt cheated out of their 3.0 books. Even if the conversion is simple (and in some instances it is, others it's not) people don't want to do it because they'd rather be doing stuff for their campaign rather than re-tooling the system to fix a new adventure.
|
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 21:36:57
The only reason I can think of is to sell more 4e stuff.
At the time WoTC were the market leaders I believe and if they suddenly start pointing out all the bad points why wouldn't you believe them.
If they then offer you a super new ruleset that promises to fix all the problems with the old one then why wouldn't you buy it.
I think most companies only want to sell one product (makes it easier to maintain). My company certainly focuses on one product and if you ask about older products they reply they are no longer available. Unfortunately DnD is sold by other vendors so WoTC had to try and get people to stop buying 3rd edition and start by 4th. So market that 3rd edition is pooh and hey presto people buy 4th edition - until someone else brings out a fix to the 3rd edition problems you focused on. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 21:29:46
Also, I never got the whole WotC bashing at the time of 3.5... I mean, 3.0 and 3.5 are basically fungible, with a little experience you can make conversions in your head while playing the game. So it's not like they made anything from 3.0 outdated. You could buy 3.5 supplements and use your 3.0 Player's Handbook with them, and you could get your 3.0 supplements and use them in your 3.5 game with less effort than say, adding psionics or Incarnum to it. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 21:27:42
I'm with you Wooly. My bosses are always about money now, even if it means much less money in the future.
Big Business usually equates to short sightedness.
The 3.5 and Pathfinder version proved there was still plenty of life in 3rd edition. The ruleset was so versatile that rewriting them without invalidating everything published before was very easy.
Even then rules have no bearing on a setting lore so the only reason to release 4e as it existed was to bring out something "New and exciting" to chase as much immediate profit as possible.
While as you say it is all conjecture, "If the cap fits". |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 21:26:07
Well... companies work in odd ways, I figure. What's profit enough for Paizo might be grounds for termination of the line for Hasbro. And that doesn't necessarily mean Hasbro was too greedy (i.e. stupid), but if they could not satisfy certain profit margins, which depend on several factors we're mostly blind to, they could not argue for sustaining the product. Of course, there's also the possibility that Hasbro was stupid and ditched a product line with acceptable profits for a ghost of a potential gold mine. But what I was saying in general is that saying there's no reason to continually release new ruleset pretty much amounts to saying everyone in the business until this decade at least has been utterly mistaken in their practices. Which is possible, I guess, but it's quite a big claim. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 21:25:02
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
From a pop culture and saturation standpoint that is definitely true with no room for debate. By the end of 2nd edition D&D had already effectively become a niche product of which the move to 3/3.5/4/5 has only exacerbated. As we have seen, with no reason to "upgrade" editions like there is in video games, the customer base splinters. There is a huge 1st/2nd edition community (much larger than some here want to admit) and there is now a huge 3.5 community (Pathfinder et al) as well.
Someone with better market knowledge than me can probably clarify this, but it doesn't seem to make any sense that WotC, and in fact all major RPG producers (White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games...) have always kept launching new rulesets if there was no reason for it. My first assumption is that their sales, in most or all these cases, were falling to the point the line would cease to be profitable, and the alternative to a new ruleset would be to discontinue the line.
My assumption is that the release of 4E was less about preventing the demise of the IP, and more about just bumping up profits. I think 3.5 could have gone on a lot longer, but someone further up the food chain demanded more money NOW, and 4E was the result. I have nothing concrete I can point to, in support of this; it is just the impression I got from the way 4E was hyped by the designers (while bashing prior editions), the way the rules were changed, and the fact that Paizo has quite readily proven the lifespan of the ruleset.
Eh, Paizo has proven that another company can created yet another revision of the OGL and get away with not being called a "cash grab". I think 3.5 was nearing the end because the amount of splats hit a huge saturation point. The designers at the time probably had a decision to make: stick with the OGL and alter the game slightly and in ways that somewhat make it similar yet just enough that people will have to switch and re-buy ALL the products over again OR make another game that has ties to previous editions but changes a lot of assumptions on how the game plays. I feel had they of created a 3.75 say that looks similar to Star Wars: Saga AND had done everything else that they did with 4E (bashing previous editions, pulling D&D Mags from Paizo, limiting the game to the original GSL 4E started with, we'd probably be in the same boat right now.
A huge complaint that people had with WotC is that they felt they were too greedy. Creating 3rd Edition in 2000 and then revising it in nearly the same way Paizo did in 2003, it put a sour taste in a LOT of people's mouths and they were pretty vocal about the revision if my memory serves me. I feel the same exact thing would've happened again regarding the system. A small overhaul wouldn't have gone over well but I think people's hindsight is "well, I would've accepted a small revision to 4E". But we'll never truly know. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 20:22:13
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
From a pop culture and saturation standpoint that is definitely true with no room for debate. By the end of 2nd edition D&D had already effectively become a niche product of which the move to 3/3.5/4/5 has only exacerbated. As we have seen, with no reason to "upgrade" editions like there is in video games, the customer base splinters. There is a huge 1st/2nd edition community (much larger than some here want to admit) and there is now a huge 3.5 community (Pathfinder et al) as well.
Someone with better market knowledge than me can probably clarify this, but it doesn't seem to make any sense that WotC, and in fact all major RPG producers (White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games...) have always kept launching new rulesets if there was no reason for it. My first assumption is that their sales, in most or all these cases, were falling to the point the line would cease to be profitable, and the alternative to a new ruleset would be to discontinue the line.
My assumption is that the release of 4E was less about preventing the demise of the IP, and more about just bumping up profits. I think 3.5 could have gone on a lot longer, but someone further up the food chain demanded more money NOW, and 4E was the result. I have nothing concrete I can point to, in support of this; it is just the impression I got from the way 4E was hyped by the designers (while bashing prior editions), the way the rules were changed, and the fact that Paizo has quite readily proven the lifespan of the ruleset. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 20:04:03
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
From a pop culture and saturation standpoint that is definitely true with no room for debate. By the end of 2nd edition D&D had already effectively become a niche product of which the move to 3/3.5/4/5 has only exacerbated. As we have seen, with no reason to "upgrade" editions like there is in video games, the customer base splinters. There is a huge 1st/2nd edition community (much larger than some here want to admit) and there is now a huge 3.5 community (Pathfinder et al) as well.
Someone with better market knowledge than me can probably clarify this, but it doesn't seem to make any sense that WotC, and in fact all major RPG producers (White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games...) have always kept launching new rulesets if there was no reason for it. My first assumption is that their sales, in most or all these cases, were falling to the point the line would cease to be profitable, and the alternative to a new ruleset would be to discontinue the line. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 18:14:52
Swords high, gloomthoughts! I think fifth-edition D&D may be very good news for the Realms. By turning back from the rules-for-rules'-sake tendencies of the last fifteen years and taking focus off the mechanics per se, it looks to be a lot closer to Ed's idea of the role of game rules in play. As a simpler, faster game, but shorn of a lot of 2E's Gygaxian heirlooms -- which I love in their own right -- and with the flattened power differentials, which echo human-scale sword and sorcery rather tan fantasy superheroics, it stands a good chance of being a great fit with the Realms. And there are signs that the product line will shift somewhat from rules supplements to content -- adventures and, perhaps, sourcebooks. |
| Apex |
Posted - 03 Jun 2014 : 14:20:49
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
My simple and without any real info or data to back it up view is that D&D is less successful now than it was in 1E and 2E days. I've noted an acceleration of the cycle in terms of spawning new editions, which to me seems to indicate that interest is on the wane and has needed a series of "boosts" in the last decade to prop up sales and try and generate fan interest and excitement.
-- George Krashos
From a pop culture and saturation standpoint that is definitely true with no room for debate. By the end of 2nd edition D&D had already effectively become a niche product of which the move to 3/3.5/4/5 has only exacerbated. As we have seen, with no reason to "upgrade" editions like there is in video games, the customer base splinters. There is a huge 1st/2nd edition community (much larger than some here want to admit) and there is now a huge 3.5 community (Pathfinder et al) as well. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 03 Jun 2014 : 07:44:58
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
My simple and without any real info or data to back it up view is that D&D is less successful now than it was in 1E and 2E days. I've noted an acceleration of the cycle in terms of spawning new editions, which to me seems to indicate that interest is on the wane and has needed a series of "boosts" in the last decade to prop up sales and try and generate fan interest and excitement.
It's a model that IMO is unsustainable as you likely lose a segment of your core market with every edition change and the fact that the OGL for 3.XE still exists means that companies like Paizo can ignore the edition changes and continue to churn out products. I said it before and I'll say it again: there was nothing wrong with the 4E changes to the Realms save and except for how they were implemented. That bad execution was exacerbated by the adoption of a model whereby there were no follow up products to continue to generate fan excitement in the brand for too long a time. By the time "Neverwinter" and other stuff came along, the ship had sailed for the Nelanther. If the 4E Campaign Guide had been written by Ed Greenwood and Eric Boyd in mouse font, and then a further four sourcebooks a year - every year - provided to flesh out the new landscape, I think the fans would have enjoyed the ride and gone along with it.
Let's see what will happen with 5E (which I'm sure is already mapped out and planned). If they go with the 2 books and an adventure model again, well, they need their heads read.
-- George Krashos
And partly, I feel like the people made changes because they simply couldn't keep up with all the changes down the years (hell, I have the same problem), so it was decided "let's swap things out that way WE know what's going on". That however didn't go over well with the fanbase who then saw them treating their favorite world as nothing more than some playground to vet new ideas. |
|
|
