Pauldanielj's page

Pauldanielj wrote:

I don't consider derisive harangues against capitalism to be of any merit.

No offense, but if you equate truth-telling about marketing and optimization of revenues for a company to equate "harangues vs. capitalism", you really ought to double-check your own values system. I couldn't be more pro-capitalism, actually. Capitalism doesn't have to go hand-in-hand with blind support from the costumers to any given company because of ideals or morality. It is actually contrary to the idea of capitalism, if you ask me.

Oh, and by the way: I've read the books. I know what I'm talking about. Every usual user of these boards knows that I've read them. You shouldn't attack people like this without a tad bit of background story to avoid ridiculing yourself.

That said, we still can disagree with each other, provided we don't snipe like we both just did, and that's fine with me. :-)

Agreed, and if my post was construed as an 'attack', I apologise. My main point was in relation to you saying this:

"Malarkey, as far as I'm concerned. All it is, my friends, is the old recycling of goods destined to sell you the same product over, and over again without having to expand what already is. It's cheaper, easier, uses less resources and -gasp!- imagination. It's win-win for a game company."

I'm not understanding how you can have read the 4e rulebooks, and then claim that WotC is "recycling goods" and is "sell[ing] the same product over and over again". Are you saying that 4th Edition isn't any different than 3.5 edition?

Pauldanielj wrote:

Wouldn't that relegate the game to stagnation, though?

Part of me can't help but think that the whole evolution and stagnation concepts as we talk about them for role-playing games are mirages. Would you consider a game like Chess "stagnant"? Its rules didn't change for the past centuries, you know? [Sure, you'll find the odd product adding a twist to the Chess game (Tempest on the Chessboard comes to mind), but really, the core, mainstream rules haven't changed]

I think this whole idea of game evolution is just an artefact of modern consumerist marketing.

"Quick! Got to have the NEW product, the NEW color, the NEW shape! Doesn't matter if the product we have works just fine! No, no, no! Let us not think, but BUY! Follow the Fashion of the Day! Show off to the other kids in the school yard (or 'RPG community' if you will)." And so on.

Malarkey, as far as I'm concerned. All it is, my friends, is the old recycling of goods destined to sell you the same product over, and over again without having to expand what already is. It's cheaper, easier, uses less resources and -gasp!- imagination. It's win-win for a game company.

Speaking of malarkey.

To answer your question, yes I consider chess to be stagnant. But that doesn't mean it too didn't have its evolution. Chess started in India in the sixth century, and it has enjoyed uncounted variations and incarnations up to its current form; and the chess you're referring to is western chess, there are other forms of chess popular around the world; so chess really isn't as unchanging as you'd like to think.

As for the rest of your post, I don't consider derisive harangues against capitalism to be of any merit. Wizards of the Coast is a for profit business, and none of us has the justification to deny them the right to manufacture and market a new product. Furthermore, 4th Edition is not the same product over again; if you think that you probably haven't read the books or tried the game. Nor does it use less (gasp!) imagination. At least, not as the rules are written. If you choose to play with less imagination, I'll leave you to it.

But are the Realms really the Realms without the complexity and the backstories ? Is Planescape really Planescape without the Factions ? I know it is subjective, but I don't think so.

That same argument was launched a number of times when 4e first shipped, the idea that D&D wasn't D&D anymore because it was different than what came before. I'm not sure it's a valid point though. You're basically saying that things can never change, or that they can only change in relatively superficial ways. Wouldn't that relegate the game to stagnation, though? I can be a nostalgic as the next gamer, but I hope I never get to a point that I object to things changing like that.