| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Aug 2006 : 22:53:33
|
| CoF makes my head hurt in the bad kind of way.... Well, at least, when Dani starts "singing"... |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
 |
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2006 : 23:34:33
|
I don't like to say things like "I told you all," but I did, about a year and a half ago, when I heard confirmation of a 4E at a big gaming convention (I was sipping a beer at the right time and at the right place, if you know what I mean). That didn't strike me as a shock: businesses need money and Mr. Krashos is right in that the core books are the breadmakers.
When I heard the gents talk, they were outlining the marketing campaign for "late 2006"
Now, with 20/20 hindsight, it appears that some 3.5 books are still in the works for 2007... my questions is: are they? (i.e. are they 3.5!!!  )
My personal take on this: I'm quite satisfied with my current line of 3.5 books, and I will keep using them as long as I keep playing D&D (I'm planting my flag on this edition, and I'm not moving)
I might check into the FR books if they come after the release of 4E (IF, that is....) but I won't buy EVERYTHING with a Realms logo anymore... that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 04 Aug 2006 : 23:44:44
|
Eric Noah posted this evening:quote:
Well here's some more...
I just heard from a high-up at WotC. He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark.
I trust my source's intentions, though as I've said earlier my source could be misunderstanding something, or I could have misconstrued something.
Hopefully if the WotC person doesn't mind outing himself he could post here to verify and share what info he is allowed to share.
In any case, I responded to him as I respond to all of you: I'm out of the "D&D scoop business" and so this is the last you'll hear from me on anything 4E related.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36797 Posts |
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2006 : 06:58:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
We have no metric for knowing what fans want, or how popular the current products are either in sales or in terms of how people like them.
We here online don't, but WotC most certainly does.
I'm too am curious to see what comes out of it, and whether the Realms will even see a face lift.
Should new core rulebooks come out, I'll certainly look at 'em. May even purchase them for the novelty of it. Probably won't convert (too much work for now-Epic characters!).
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2006 : 08:24:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Eric Noah posted this evening:quote:
Well here's some more...
I just heard from a high-up at WotC. He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark.
I trust my source's intentions, though as I've said earlier my source could be misunderstanding something, or I could have misconstrued something.
Hopefully if the WotC person doesn't mind outing himself he could post here to verify and share what info he is allowed to share.
In any case, I responded to him as I respond to all of you: I'm out of the "D&D scoop business" and so this is the last you'll hear from me on anything 4E related.
I suspected this for the last few days when the story was floating around, but I figured it would resolve itself. As freelancers, we are continuing full steam ahead with a heavy plate of 3rd/3.5 products (including FR ones) well into 2007. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2006 : 16:53:35
|
I doubt it's all hooey. There will be a 4E, because the new books that can be published for any edition hit diminishing returns. And the trend is towards more orientation with miniatures.
Who knows, maybe these leaked rumours are to desensitize us so that when rumours leak closer to the 3E announcement they'll be dismissed and so the pre-new-edition sales drop will be shortened.
(My point about Eric Noah is that he isn't the sort of person who would name his own website after himself in that way.) |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2006 : 17:24:58
|
That's it, sages, move along... nothing to see here... put your wise little heads back in the san... err... in your books.  |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2006 : 18:04:29
|
| The German RPG The Dark Eye has seen more revisions in way less time than D&D, I just realized that, and they still seem to be the hottest seller over here in the old country... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2006 : 21:12:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I doubt it's all hooey. There will be a 4E, because the new books that can be published for any edition hit diminishing returns. And the trend is towards more orientation with miniatures.
Who knows, maybe these leaked rumours are to desensitize us so that when rumours leak closer to the 3E announcement they'll be dismissed and so the pre-new-edition sales drop will be shortened.
(My point about Eric Noah is that he isn't the sort of person who would name his own website after himself in that way.)
I have no doubt that there will eventually be a 4th edition. I think I can say with near certainty that it will not happen anytime before 2008. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2006 : 22:08:19
|
| We appreciate the intelligence. 2008 is my guess, and was Monte Cook's too, though I'd be happy to be wrong. |
|
|
|
Snotlord
Senior Scribe
Norway
476 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 00:03:47
|
I am not worried. I have lots of book yet to be used, FR and otherwise, and I could always join the cranky oldtimers and just stick to the lore bits if the 4e changes don't appeal to me.
The difference between 2e and 3e IMO, is that 3e was long overdue, while 3.5 still works reasonably well. The clever suits at wotc knows this, if they are doing their job.
...and besides: Noah debunked his own rumour. |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 03:43:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I doubt it's all hooey. There will be a 4E, because the new books that can be published for any edition hit diminishing returns. And the trend is towards more orientation with miniatures.
I have to wonder where that trend came from, myself. Yes, I know D&D originated from wargames that used minatures (at least, that's what I've read), but surely these new minatures are not based on a desire to "retro-game"?
Also, I always try to be skeptical (that is, questioning) of both rumors and company statements attempting to debunk them. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 06 Aug 2006 03:43:39 |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 07:02:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
I doubt it's all hooey. There will be a 4E, because the new books that can be published for any edition hit diminishing returns. And the trend is towards more orientation with miniatures.
I have to wonder where that trend came from, myself. Yes, I know D&D originated from wargames that used minatures (at least, that's what I've read), but surely these new minatures are not based on a desire to "retro-game"?
Also, I always try to be skeptical (that is, questioning) of both rumors and company statements attempting to debunk them.
The expanding use of miniatures is more due to the fact that they are collectible than that they are retro or foster nostalgia (though I guess these could play a minor role as well). Many people love minis and love to collect all of them (or all of anything for that matter), so minis have more value. A mini that was put out in 2001 is just as useful as one put out in 2006. Rules may change, but the lizardman figure in 2001 could be a snakeman in 2003, a weresnake from 2011, or half a score of other things. People still use the minis the metal minis they bought 20 years ago in their games.
Besides having multiple uses, minis are decorative. The same cannot be said for Sword and Fist. No matter how well conceived a rules supplement is, it loses the vast majority of its value when a new ruleset replaces it. While FR sourcebooks from 15 years ago still contain useful information (and us designers and you diehard fans still reference them), even they lose most of their value. They may be slightly more valuable than an old obsolete bard handbook, but only a little bit. In the long run, collectibility, decoration, amusement factor, appeal to children, resaleability, and usefulness make minis a better financial investment than RPG books. That doesn't mean that RPG books will die out. It just means that the marketing methods and planning strategies of companies like Wizards of the Coast, Games Workshop, and Mongoose will change. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
Edited by - EytanBernstein on 06 Aug 2006 07:04:20 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 07:33:03
|
quote:
Rules may change, but the lizardman figure in 2001 could be a snakeman in 2003, a weresnake from 2011, or half a score of other things.
That's why so many of us prefer lore-filled books to crunchy ones, among other things. :) Lore doesn't change from edition to edition.
Though I would note that I think planar beings probably have a better idea of what's going on than Prime Material ones. (Just the ability to see a larger picture of things, that's all.) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 06 Aug 2006 07:40:37 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 07:49:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
The expanding use of miniatures is more due to the fact that they are collectible than that they are retro or foster nostalgia (though I guess these could play a minor role as well). Many people love minis and love to collect all of them (or all of anything for that matter), so minis have more value. A mini that was put out in 2001 is just as useful as one put out in 2006. Rules may change, but the lizardman figure in 2001 could be a snakeman in 2003, a weresnake from 2011, or half a score of other things. People still use the minis the metal minis they bought 20 years ago in their games.
Besides having multiple uses, minis are decorative. The same cannot be said for Sword and Fist. No matter how well conceived a rules supplement is, it loses the vast majority of its value when a new ruleset replaces it. While FR sourcebooks from 15 years ago still contain useful information (and us designers and you diehard fans still reference them), even they lose most of their value. They may be slightly more valuable than an old obsolete bard handbook, but only a little bit. In the long run, collectibility, decoration, amusement factor, appeal to children, resaleability, and usefulness make minis a better financial investment than RPG books. That doesn't mean that RPG books will die out. It just means that the marketing methods and planning strategies of companies like Wizards of the Coast, Games Workshop, and Mongoose will change.
Thanks for the detailed answer. Now, at least I have an inkling as to why WotC is pushing minis so hard. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 08:05:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernsteinRules may change, but the lizardman figure in 2001 could be a snakeman in 2003, a weresnake from 2011, or half a score of other things. People still use the minis the metal minis they bought 20 years ago in their games.
I think it would be smart for WotC to keep pushing adventures and minis at this point, following this train of thoughts... those minis ARE good sellers. Even me fell in this bandwagon 3 years ago... (I'm loaded with minis now, it's insane)
I am, however, camping myself firmly in the clearing of 3.5. I've DMed with these rules since they came out now (summer 2003?) and I can't possibly imagine a major improvement over that. One must realize when his demand truly exists, and not fall prone to offer slavery!  |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 08:13:49
|
quote:
I am, however, camping myself firmly in the clearing of 3.5. I've DMed with these rules since they came out now (summer 2003?) and I can't possibly imagine a major improvement over that. One must realize when his demand truly exists, and not fall prone to offer slavery!
It will actually be somewhat of a reprieve to watch all of the 3E/.5 players irrationally stand their ground. Then maybe they'll realize where 2E players are coming from - not the irrational part, though. Some of us genuinely like certain aspects of 2E's rules more. :) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 09:55:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
quote:
I am, however, camping myself firmly in the clearing of 3.5. I've DMed with these rules since they came out now (summer 2003?) and I can't possibly imagine a major improvement over that. One must realize when his demand truly exists, and not fall prone to offer slavery!
It will actually be somewhat of a reprieve to watch all of the 3E/.5 players irrationally stand their ground. Then maybe they'll realize where 2E players are coming from - not the irrational part, though. Some of us genuinely like certain aspects of 2E's rules more. :)
Most of the people I gamed with as a teenager still long for the days of 2nd edition. In their minds, the lack of rules clarity made people disregard a lof of the rules, making them emphasize story for lack of ability to have coherent rules. (I'm not claiming this to be the case for all fans of 2E). They feel that the greater clarity and complexity of 3rd/3.5 rules means that story is often sacrificed. My opinion is that the rules in no way dictate the story and that if everyone is familiar with them, they can be used as a common framework, rather than a limitation. We shouldn't need to disregard rules in order to play a game.
I know others that believe that 2E had more of the quirks that differentiate the genre. They don't want everything to be stackable, interchangeable, and numerically smooth. They'd rather that you have unique multiclass combinations that set different races apart, that psionics functions different from magic, that clerics don't have to have the same number of spell levels as wizards, that spells and monsters need not have standardized entries because these only limit their creativity. I don't happen to agree with these sentiments, but I do understand and sympathize.
I'd be curious to hear what aspects of 2E you do genuinely like? (And I'm not asking this to demean or contradict them. You feel the way you feel and that is as valid as anyone else's feelings). |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 09:56:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
The expanding use of miniatures is more due to the fact that they are collectible than that they are retro or foster nostalgia (though I guess these could play a minor role as well). Many people love minis and love to collect all of them (or all of anything for that matter), so minis have more value. A mini that was put out in 2001 is just as useful as one put out in 2006. Rules may change, but the lizardman figure in 2001 could be a snakeman in 2003, a weresnake from 2011, or half a score of other things. People still use the minis the metal minis they bought 20 years ago in their games.
Besides having multiple uses, minis are decorative. The same cannot be said for Sword and Fist. No matter how well conceived a rules supplement is, it loses the vast majority of its value when a new ruleset replaces it. While FR sourcebooks from 15 years ago still contain useful information (and us designers and you diehard fans still reference them), even they lose most of their value. They may be slightly more valuable than an old obsolete bard handbook, but only a little bit. In the long run, collectibility, decoration, amusement factor, appeal to children, resaleability, and usefulness make minis a better financial investment than RPG books. That doesn't mean that RPG books will die out. It just means that the marketing methods and planning strategies of companies like Wizards of the Coast, Games Workshop, and Mongoose will change.
Thanks for the detailed answer. Now, at least I have an inkling as to why WotC is pushing minis so hard.
You're quite welcome. I only began to pick up this sort of thing when I worked in RPG marketing myself. My work is not on the same scale as WOTC's marketing, but it shares many of the same concerns. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 10:22:45
|
quote:
From Eric Noah on EnWorld :
On a more serious note ... it is ironic that even yesterday I got some major scoops about the future of D&D. It is sounding like some of our most paranoid fears are in fact in the works.
-4E already in the works? Check.
-Even more miniatures-centric? Check.
-Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately? Check.
-A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC).
It doesn't surprise me that there are plans for a 4th edition but I doubt that is the way to go.
The problem with 3rd edition was version 3.5, which was either a very cynical ploy if it was planned, or it was terrible planning. I got into D&D with First Edition, got more involved with 2nd Edition and I've kept up with it since. After V3.5 I made a point of only buying Forgotten Realms material and I gave Eberron a very wide berth - mostly because there is only so much that I can spend my hard-earned shekels on.
The big problem with WotC nowadays is they can see that there is a huge demand for fantasy related products. The Lord of the Rings (LotR) films were watched by many and Harry Potter has a huge fanbase too. So a large amount of people like magic and dragons. They also like a good heroic tale.
All of which are staples in a D&D setting, aren't they?
So why isn't D&D selling?
In essence, D&D is a dice roll that determines luck. All that is needed is for the involved players to agree upon the odds. For example, armour class, spell resistance, skill with a sword, etc.
Unfortunately, the direction of D&D has been towards increasing the tables and the rules. There are more and more rules, which are taking the forms of prestige classes, spells and feats. Have you seen how many feats you can now have? http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats- this page has 2774 feats. And then we have the Draconomicon which gave us prestige classes for dragons. Surely a full grown dragon is prestigous enough, isn't it? (If anyone's interested I designed an abyssal toilet cleaner prestige class.)
A while ago the unpleasant terminology 'crunch' and 'fluff' began to be used. Crunch was used to describe the ever-increasing amount of rules, feats, spells and prestige classes and 'fluff' described the setting and the story. (Incidentally, my Dutch-speaking colleagues tell me that 'fluff' is a rather obscene word in their language.)
However, the LotR and Harry Potter franchises are proof that people love a damn good story. And this is, I feel, what WotC need to get back to with their settings.
The retro-engineering is a big problem too. I'll give you an example. For the last few years I was involved with an online persistent world server, which was trying to construct Menzoberranzan. Because of the game engine we had to use 3rd Edn rules, which meant I, as Head Dungeon Master, had to accomodate the new character classes. The big problem was a lot of power gamers wanted to play sorcerers because they had more castings from a limited range of spells. However, when I sat down and thought through the sorcerer issue from a drow point of view I realised that sorcerers would be killed after their first year at Sorcere. ('I'm sorry Matron Baenre but little Yazston couldn't even cast Arcane Mark. We tried beatings, darkness deprivation even thumb screws but he couldn't cast it. We had to kill him for the good of of the race, you understand, I'm sure.')
This is where it's gone wrong, the story is a side issue when really I feel, it should be the only issue.
The question then becomes how does WotC make money then, if the story is the issue. I think products like The Mysteries of Moonsea are the way to go. The story and the setting are foremost and there are no gimmicks like new prestige classes.
I'm sorry for going off on a bit of a rant and probably going away from the discussion point but I've been having this inner argument for over two years now. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Alaundo
Head Moderator
United Kingdom
5695 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 10:59:17
|
Well met
Some very good points raised here, Kiaransalyn and I quite agree.
I've already stated that when a 4th edition is released, I will cease any further D&D core purchases. The thought of going through this all again...buying another PHB, DMG, MMI-?? etc. is very unappealing. I have more than enough core material to last me a lifetime. I'll still continue to purchase FR products, purely for the lore etc, however.
I would much prefer it WotC had produced material on the same lines as some other RPG producers.... have a core set of books which contain all the crunch (which they currently do, in effect), and have the campaign specific products be purely fluff. This really appeals to me. On this similiar note, Black Industries (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay) produce products which contain a mix of rules and lore, whilst another arm of Games Workshop called Black Library, produce "background books" and novels. These background books are fluff from cover to cover. Even the printing information is done as if printed in the "Old World".
|
Alaundo
Candlekeep Forums Head Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
An Introduction to Candlekeep - by Ed Greenwood
The Candlekeep Compendium - Tomes of Realmslore penned by Scribes of Candlekeep
|
|
|
|
Snotlord
Senior Scribe
Norway
476 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 11:14:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
I'd be curious to hear what aspects of 2E you do genuinely like? (And I'm not asking this to demean or contradict them. You feel the way you feel and that is as valid as anyone else's feelings).
There is a number of things I liked about AD&D, after all I played it for 10-11 (?) years.
1) Preparation was more about the setting and story, not making baddies. 3e gives rules clarity, the downside of that is time consuming detail.
2) More options shifts the focus slightly towards powergaming. In AD&D every fighter was more or less identical (we never used kits) so the players focused more on story and less on interesting abilities. Players investing time building a cool characters is a good thing, but personally I liked the old classes better from a DM's perspective.
3) The setting books was often more interesting. Less mechanics and stats made them more fun to read. Back in those days I had more time to create my own stuff, and given the crude nature of AD&D, is was also easier.
Some may believe I contradict myself here, given my opinions about books like Mysteries of the Moonsea, but I'd like to point out that my actual preference would be separating the setting lore and setting stats in separate books. If wotc published a 400 page book with FR specic generic npcs for every edition of the game, and keep the other books free of mechanics, I would be a very happy DM.
I think the current separation, with Mysteries of the Moonsea on one hand and Lost Empires of Faerûn on the other is the next best thing.
But I digress...
4) 2e combat was faster. Sometimes I enjoy the tactical possibilites of 3e, other times I want to get on with the story. The 3e DMG assumes 4 encounters pr dungeon session, and I never seem to reach that "target".
Given this, I still stand by my "irrational" preference of 3e. The point is that there are lots of good and bad features of both editions, but in the end I picked flexibility and clarity over speed. I just need to keep the story fixed in my mind, and use premade sources whenever they fit.
|
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 11:43:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
Well met
Some very good points raised here, Kiaransalyn and I quite agree.
Well met.
I'm glad you say I raised some very good points otherwise my internal dialogue would be cause for concern.
I enjoy the Forgotten Realms setting and just as there are people out there who collect miniatures I am a person who collects F.R. sourcebooks. And recently there have been a few books where I've not really got much for my money.
The Player's Guide to Faerun being the best (worst?) example here. This is crammed with a lot of stuff that most players and DM's won't use. And it also made for very boring reading on the train. There are people (I'm not sure how many) who buy sourcebooks to read them, and I'm one of them.
One of the problems with prestige classes is that they cause people to meta-game. Players see a cool class that they want to play but they have to take X number of feats and precursor levels before their character can become a prestige character. That robs a game/story of a large degree of spontaneity. Second Edition had something similar with speciality priests. However, because of their tie to a deity and their obvious requirements they worked better, in my opinion.
The Forgotten Realms has a big advantage in that it is active and on January 1st another year of history has been added to it. With products like City of the Spider Queen (City of the White Banshee surely) and Mysteries of the Moonsea follow-up products can be released a few years later which give the official Realms point of view.
This initially sounds a bit tricky but every adventure is designed for the player to have a decent chance of winning it. For example, most people who enjoy the Realms know that Irae Tsarren didn't succeed in her plan in Maerimydra. |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 12:41:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Moradin
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, It's why I said "first serious rumor"
Skeptic who don't care about D&D anymore, because he's working on a FR Burning Wheel conversion 
I have been thinking about running Ben Lehmann's Polaris set in the Realms |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 15:01:50
|
Kiaransalyn, I agree with that (except dice rolls aren't D&D's essence, they're facilitating machinery).
You do RPGs yourself: they're not a passive consumerist medium. So RPG books (unlike miniatures for miniatures games) are all 'accessories', unnecessary add-ons, and the idea of an 'RPG industry' is paradoxical. So one of the problems Wizards tried to fix was the fact that only a small minority of the millions of D&D players bought books beyond the Player's Handbook. Early on, 3E attracted a lot of lapsed players and buyers, and for a while could avoid the 1990s TSR strategy of putting out lots of product for a finite and slowly dwindling audience; indeed, it declaimed it wouldn't go down that path. It did, and now seems to be heading to the Games Workshop model of new-edition 'refreshes'.
The way out of that spiral is a determined advertising and promotional campaign like the one that drove the 1980s boom but targeted at all those fantasy readers -- imaginative adults, mostly, some of whom would love the idea of an RPG if they had any idea of what it was -- while most Americans have heard of D&D, very few of them could describe how it's done. Wizards is the only company who could remotely afford this, and so far they haven't had the vision to take the risk. RPGers who want the medium to thrive should have cried 'Shame!' to heaven that Wizards cack-handedly fumbled what could have been the massive free advertising of the astoundingly popular Lord of the Rings films.
The market for rules add-ons appeals to the inherently very limited group of rules engineers. The more Wizards plays to that group, to males who self-identify as 'gamers', the more insular and self-limited D&D becomes and the harder to sell to the potentially much larger group of people who love stories -- everyone -- and -- far fewer, but no one knows how many till it's tried -- are prepared to accept they can take part in their own.
D&D can't compete with the MMORPGs as a monster-killing, character-building game: at best it can be a stable appendix to that market. The miniatures game is profitable, by (again, but more effectively) selling a lot of product to a small group. Its only chance to deghettoize itself is to get some damn self respect and play to its strengths -- a social, imaginative fantasy roleplaying game.
More later! |
Edited by - Faraer on 06 Aug 2006 15:13:05 |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 15:03:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
I've already stated that when a 4th edition is released, I will cease any further D&D core purchases. The thought of going through this all again...buying another PHB, DMG, MMI-?? etc. is very unappealing. I have more than enough core material to last me a lifetime. I'll still continue to purchase FR products, purely for the lore etc, however.
My thoughts exactly.  |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2006 : 16:57:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
The problem with 3rd edition was version 3.5, which was either a very cynical ploy if it was planned, or it was terrible planning.
It was planned from the start. 3.5 was supposed to be an all inclusive edition of the D20 product. Anything that worked better then what was there (combing Ambidex and Two weapon fighting into 1 feat for example) and other changes that happened via eratta and better playtesting.
The problem is the people that made 3.0 and planned for 3.5 either quit or were laid off and weren't around to make sure 3.5 wasn't an entirely new product line like it turned into.
|
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 03:37:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
Well met
Some very good points raised here, Kiaransalyn and I quite agree.
I've already stated that when a 4th edition is released, I will cease any further D&D core purchases. The thought of going through this all again...buying another PHB, DMG, MMI-?? etc. is very unappealing. I have more than enough core material to last me a lifetime. I'll still continue to purchase FR products, purely for the lore etc, however.
I would much prefer it WotC had produced material on the same lines as some other RPG producers.... have a core set of books which contain all the crunch (which they currently do, in effect), and have the campaign specific products be purely fluff. This really appeals to me. On this similiar note, Black Industries (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay) produce products which contain a mix of rules and lore, whilst another arm of Games Workshop called Black Library, produce "background books" and novels. These background books are fluff from cover to cover. Even the printing information is done as if printed in the "Old World".
I certainly can't blame people for feeling this way. If I wasn't a game designer, I might have the same perspective. As a designer, I can't help but like 3rd/3.5 better, simply because longing for 2nd edition would be counterproductive. It helps that I actually like 3.5, but I have a weird head for numbers. When I write characters or create creatures, they must have a combination of lore, mechanical viability, and numerical fluidity. I'm not happy with a creation unless it works on both the level of the setting and the current ruleset (whatever it may be). 2nd edition was far too arbitrary and mechanically clunky for me. I definitely enjoyed it while it was around, but when 3rd ed. was on the horizon, it was something I felt was desperately needed.
4th ed. would make the lives of most designers more complicated, simply because we have to learn a new ruleset. That said, it might be a better ruleset and its inception my be a harbinger of new opportunities for those who can adapt. Regardless, it isn't looming in the next year, so I will continue to focus on the products in the current edition. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2006 : 04:41:36
|
I think that a lot of what we consider about 2E to be 'arbitrary' merely meant that it was mating mechanics to fluff, irrevocably, to the point of being hindersome.
And I believe that was excellent for core Greyhawk, where it was the only campaign setting that it had to have rules for.
At this point, I really wish there was a completely different game set for every campaign world, because for FR, neither 2E or 3E really cuts it, for different reasons. Perhaps if they had done in the FRCS what they had done with the Song of Ice and Fire RPG, then I'd like it a little more.. But by far and large they just seem to try copying and pasting core mechanics onto FR (which they did in 2E, though they seemed to later realize that didn't work so hot), and it just isn't working for me. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
First 4E serious rumor
Topic Locked
