Search Posts
I'm taking a new job in Richmond, VA and will be moving there mid/late February. I'm a long-time gamer, I've played more games and systems than I can remember, and I'm looking primarily for a mature (meaning game-focused, but with "real" jobs and an understanding of work/life/game balance) group who enjoys RPing/Action/Story in relatively equal measure. I could run, but I'm looking more to play until I get to know the group. Games I'm most interested in:
If you think you've got something I'd be interested in, and you've got a spot, let me know here. Thanks! VtM
Ted is taking all of Contest 2 (2011) entries, personally rewriting/editing/expanding them and splitting them into Anthology Vol. 2 & 3--which missed PaizoCon 2012--but both Contest #2/2011 Anthology Volumes are scheduled to come out at next year's PaizoCon (2013) along with Contest #3 entries in Anthology Vol #4.
I'm thinking it might be time to see if there's anyone interested in setting up a new game/group in 2012. I've got myself and probably 2 others from my old group interested as well, so that makes 3 people if we all find an agreeable idea. My ideal game would be "old school" in flavor, with strong Roleplaying/Story elements, heavy DM and player narrative, and a general idea that gaming is a cooperative, group effort that works together to create something beyond just sitting around rolling dice and pushing miniatures. We're kind of burned out on miniature-combat scenarios taking up most of the game, and I'm looking to get back to the fun and flavor of people sitting around a table having fun through collective imagination and willing suspension of disbelief. We'd looking to recapture the days of in-character conversations, of discovering the nuances of story, and of strictly narrative combat--no sitting around counting squares and forgetting that there's more to the rest of the game. I'm not sure what system, but probably Pathfinder, D&D (4e preferred, 3.5e considered), Earthdawn or Shadowrun would be my favorites. Probably with a few House Rules if I ran--though, to be honest, I'd rather play than run, or run on an alternating/rpund-robin or Co-GM schedule. The ideal group would be like-minded, excited about the idea of Roleplaying, creating a character, telling a story (with combat where/when appropriate) and limited to probably 5 players and 1 GM. Right now my schedule would favor Sundays, and the location would be SE Aurora (Parker/Arapahoe area). I've used the Tallyn's Reach library meeting rooms in the past. Anyone interested in something like this, let me know. As I said, while I'd strongly prefer to play, I could be convinced to run and/or Co-GM if that's how it worked out. Anyone interested, let me know. Thanks!
An evil character may not even know that he is evil. He may see his goals as good and virtuous, but simply ignores the evil he commits to achieve them. The evil character may even know the darkness that resides within him, but believes it is only another tool to reach his goal. He may believe his evil nature is what allows goodness to exist, or that neither good nor evil truly exist. He may believe that right and wrong, are separate from good and evil, or that law and chaos, are what truly matters. It may be his love and friendship, that fuel his evil. What can inspire great acts of good, may also inspire great acts of evil. Such evil characters may have the conviction of a paladin, and be charitable and kind, but a wrath like that of a demon. Mr Misunderstood: "Hey, Paladin Bob, do you think I'm evil?" Paladin Bob scrunches up his face, squints his eyes, tightens his bowels and...*Detect Evil*..."Yep. You're evil." Again, as written, Alignments are part of the structure of the universe. It's not a matter of whether the person thinks they are evil, or does or doesn't want to be evil, it's a black & white matter of whether they are Evil or not, period. Simplistic, sure, not easy to roleplay around, perhaps, but no matter what your character wants to think of himself, or how he wants to justify it, if he's evil then he's evil...
Anyone here ever actually played a Gestalt campaign with published Paizo or 3.5e Modules? Any feedback on how that went? I really don't see Gestalt as being that much more powerful, but I do find them way more interesting and more flexible. (Yes, I know, BAB, HP and Saves bump up, you get more feats/abilities, but overall it's not OP since you can still only do one standard action, etc.)
So, again, whatever happens with 5e, don't expect to see another OGL come out with it--and that's my (primary) point.Prepare to be very disappointed. Both Mike Mearls and Monte Cook are 100% behind the OGL, and they don't need anyone to point out how thoroughly WotC was damaged by the GSL. There undoubtedly will be a new OGL, if not simply the old one updated, and once more WotC will prosper! :) Until Paizo launches its Pathfinder-branded 5e-OGL-based products and takes 50% of WotC's market share...again. Mearls and Cook can want it all they'd like, but the GSL proves that WotC didn't want to do another OGL (or else they would have)... If OGL's purpose was to suppress all non-OGL games, then it succeeded--except in doing so it was also responsible for creating the biggest 3.X based OGL competitor to the D&D brand that it's ever seen...'winning the battle and losing the war' comes to mind. But, again, until the future is here, this is all conjecture. And, at this point I think we've exhausted the OGL 2.0 argument since there's nothing new to add--until and unless such time as there is...
My Favorites would be: PF:
Runners-up:
3.5e:
Of course, this is all theoretical. Despite repeated attempts by players and GMs in my group, we've never actually done a Gestalt game. I think it'd be pretty cool, and after playing 4e, it'd be a welcome way to add some flexibility to the classes...anyone running a gestalt game in my area, drop a line. :p
Not quite. I'm saying that while 4e's (relative) lack of dominance in the market the D&D brand created may be attributed to its own (perceived) shortcomings, the situation is exacerbated by the presence of a strong 3.X-based competitor. Paizo is using the "Old D&D" game and player base against the new one and its presence acts as leverage for not accepting 4e ("Why should we switch, when we've got everything we want in PF?"). Further, I'm saying that the OGL ultimately undermined 4e by allowing a 3.X competitor to steal the limelight and market share out from under D&D's newest edition with a re-skinned version of its prior self. And, due to this, I would not expect to see another OGL in the future. I'm saying that WotC learned from that mistake, and will not allow a new OGL to come out with 5e due to the (relative) "damage" the current/past OGL has and is doing to their D&D Brand presence. Remember, 3.X OGL was, in theory, designed to drive out competition to D&D, not create it. 4e may have failed to engage the old player base, and thus the edition wars were born. However, as is one of my primary points about WotC's future direction, had there been no OGL, and no way to keep 3.5 alive, then there would be no current competitor to "D&D" in the form of Paizo's Pathfinder. Therefore, the idea that 5e will come out with an open "OGL" instead of a restricted "GSL" style license seems implausible. Imagine that no OGL existed, imagine that there's no Pathfinder. 3.5e would be dead, and D&D, as 4e, would top the sales and dominate the market for the simple fact that there would be no other game with its resources, presence and player base. Now, however, the market's two major players are Paizo and WotC, Pathfinder and D&D--where D&D is forced to compete against its former self. Given the success of Paizo, I doubt WotC is going to recreate a 5e-OGL simply because that would be giving a strong competitor license to compete with D&D 5e with an updated/5e-compatible Pathfinder if they chose to do so. And, If 5e is compatible with every past edition of D&D, then why wouldn't Paizo take their IP and their fan base over to those who are going to buy/play 5e--especially if WotC gives the core to its system away for free in another OGL. Other than fluff and tweaks, there's no real cost to Paizo to do so. Monte Cook's latest post says that 5e will allow players of different editions to play at the same table in the same game. And, it would allow players who want heavily customized characters to play with ones who don't--again, at the same table, in the same game. That level of modularity and compatibility is something Paizo would be remiss to let pass them by--if there was an OGL to let them do so. Their books are already given away online for free, as you point out, yet their sales are massive enough to dent D&D's. So, the fact that all of Pathfinder is free online seems inconsequential to their sales and market presence and player/fan base--who are still spending money on the "free" system. So, again, whatever happens with 5e, don't expect to see another OGL come out with it--and that's my (primary) point.
Of course, because 4e used the GSL, it will eventually be much more dead than 0e-2e.You'd be surprised what can be recreated under the OGL. There's already OD&D-2e retro-clones, and if you really look at 4e and broke it down, you could recreate much of it under OGL 3.X rules. 4e may appear vastly different on the surface, it may play differently, but the mechanics wouldn't be impossible to replicate under OGL.
I doubt WotC wants to have a 5e OGL Pathfinder 2e to contend with, especially as 4e is losing market share to a competitor based on the "outdated"and abandoned 3.X platform--just think what a 5e Pathfinder would do to their fledgling 5e sales. But, we'll have another year before we see if Mearls can persuade WotC's bean counters that a new OGL won't simply help Paizo more than it helps the D&D brand's profits. And given Pathfinder's success staring them in the face that should be an interesting debate.
Just personal preference, but I'd like to see the name be "Dungeons & Dragons", period. If it has to be be there, put 'Fifth Edition' under it (in small print similar to AD&D 2e), if "D&D Next" is their internal name for it, fine. But, if they want to unite fans of all editions, then just call it...D&D...hearken back to the game's roots, don't highlight the fact that it's yet another round of flush-the-last-and-buy-the-new.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like to see the official modules for each world actually link and build upon each other and culminate in some sort of evolving world campaign. Something like Earthdawn's official (though uncompleted under FASA) "Prelude to War"/"Barsaive at War"/"Barsaive in Chaos" story arc. In this case it would be separate campaign arcs for each world/setting (of whichever ones D&D goes forward with).
Let's keep in mind that a reason that Paizo had such a good start was because it had been putting out "Official D&D Content". It was not just another 3PP. Due to putting out Official Content it was able to attract D&D players that didn't give 3PP stuff a second look. Agreed, and a lot of its core people were already associated with D&D/Dragon/Dungeon in some way or another, which gave it a leg up over "fly by night" or "start up" 3PP.
I think the world wasn't ready for 4e yet. I think it wasn't ready for 4e to be "D&D". And, not that it matters or that we'll ever know, but I wonder if WotC had spun what became 4e off as a "Chainmail" derivative or MtG RPG, (or whatever non "D&D" IP you want), if it would have been considered successful...
Back to the 5e Wishlist: I'd like to see an evolving game world instead of a static on that's only ever changed each edition (ex: Forgotten Realms from 3.X to 4e). I'd like each AP/Module to have "impact" so that things are changed on the small scale, but cumulatively add up to a world that is different (significantly) if you play through them all. I think that a game needs to be "organically dynamic" (for lack of a better description). Establish the core of the world and its "pillars" but then set everything else up that's peripheral to those core elements with an eye on changing them in the future. Even WoW sort of did this with each Expansion, though much of it was subtle and/or only affected the end-game--until Cataclysm, which completely changed the majority of the game world. I think a dynamic RPG should be similar. Build the world, expand on it, slowly alter it, but then have modules/campaigns that lead up to and involve/include truly world-changing events. Let the PCs shape the world--sort of like in Dragon Age II or Skyrim, where there are vague references to "The Hero of (Past Game Event)" within the new game. Plus, you could embed "fluff" into the modules so that it is a part of the (novel) fiction but also directly ties into changes in the game world in case you don't read anything else. Make both the modules and the novels part of the evolving landscape of the world instead of the game world being static and the fiction taking place within, but not directly affecting the world the players see.
A good product can fail if it overestimates (or underestimates, for that matter) some of the defining traits of its market. The closer to spot-on your conception of your audience, the better chance your marketing has of being successful. Unless the idea was to not market to your current audience (who were seen as aging and "lapsing" out of the profit stream) in an attempt to carve out a new audience from other markets--namely, it seemed, the 12+ Million MMO subscribers. "Beaconing" is often designed to try to pull people from close markets into your market, attracting them by what (hopefully) will be perceived as a similar-but-better experience/product or at least an additional-similar experience/product. Sometimes this works, and you grow your product while still keeping your core. Sometimes, unfortunately, this creates a backlash within your core because it's seen (partially correctly) as an abandonment of the current market in favor of a "greener" one. And those in the old core are now faced with a new product that's no longer designed to their wishes, it's altered to attract the new market. I think WotC may have misinterpreted both their new target and old core audiences and ultimately failed both. I think this is why we're already seeing the push for 5e to be seen as an "inclusive" system that will appeal to "all" audiences. Of course, how you pull this off without diluting the experience for any particular segment remains to be seen. I'm not sure a D&D variant of GURPS is likely to bring people back to D&D, but it's hard to have a "universal" game that isn't either overly bulky or else overly generic. And, in this case, each edition of D&D has a very unique "feel" and mechanical structure to it that's not immediately replicable in the other editions. WotC has gone from targeting a new audience to targeting every potential-possible D&D audience segment with one "umbrella" system. I think creating and marketing a single system to handle everything from the Rules Cyclopedia to 4e and Tactical Miniature Combat to Deep Immersive Roleplaying without marginalizing someone somewhere seems...difficult...
I think it's clearly that he simply does not believe us in how we see things. Continuing this seems pointless.WotC probably assumed that when they killed their support of 3.5e that the OGL would die a quiet death along with it. I doubt they expected their lack of support to turn against them and lead to the situation they're in now or they'd never have let the OGL be written as it was.Nope. The OGL worked exactly as it was supposed to. The reason I do not share your POV is that market mechanics that work are kept, ones that fail are dropped. If the OGL was deemed to be a success by Hasbro/WotC for the D&D brand then it would have returned with OGL 2.0 when 4e came out. Clearly, unlike us, they have access to far more industry data, sales data, market data, and their own P/L sheets. Somewhere in reviewing all of that data they determined that OGL would be replaced by GSL for 4e. That shift in market mechanics means that WotC/Hasbro/D&D no longer believed that the OGL was in their best interest. Had it been the overwhelming success for D&D that is being portrayed in this thread then 4e would have kept it.
[Sigh] all you'd like, the evidence of WotC's dislike of OGL and/or its impact is in their very decision to shift from OGL to GSL. They did not want OGL to continue or else they would have continued it...
OGL was, essentially, delayed poison to the D&D Brand. Whether it helped, harmed, or did nothing for D&D directly in the 3.X days, its effect on (4e) D&D has been to undermine the brand's position, market share, and image. GSL may not have been what the fans or 3PP wanted, but it didn't cause the direct damage to D&D's share or profits that their (legacy) OGL has and is doing to them. Pathfinder isn't a GSL game, it's a product of, and relies fully upon, OGL. And that is why the OGL is, overall, more detrimental to the (current) state of D&D than it was a (net) positive. GSL is essentially a non-issue since no real GSL-based competitor to the D&D Brand exists. Thus, OGL is directly responsible for the existence and creation of the D&D brand's biggest headache--Pathfinder. WotC probably assumed that when they killed their support of 3.5e that the OGL would die a quiet death along with it. I doubt they expected their lack of support to turn against them and lead to the situation they're in now or they'd never have let the OGL be written as it was.
Counterpoint: when I was in college and grad school I was in something like 13 campaigns in 7 different systems. Games and gamers were plentiful, and since we were all in college, we had tons of time to play. However, now that we've all "grown up", separated to different states, gotten "real" jobs, most are married, some have kids it's not likely we'll ever be able to play that many games again simply due to time and life constraints. Add into that general lack of time and freedom the idea that the gaming community is so fractured that I have a hard time finding games in my area that suit my play style even when/if I do have time. And, of course, just because I have time doesn't mean my friends do, we don't have the same days off, same schedules, or same home/life obligations. So, little time, little ability to find "like minded" gamers ("We only play 4e, We only play PF, We're Hack N Slash, We're RP"), leaves a dwindling chance to have a lot of (sometimes any) TT RPG in my life. BUT, I can go boot up Skyrim, Dragon Age, WoW, KOTOR, SWTOR, NWN and either play by myself of jump into the ever-present MMO. The roleplaying is mostly non-existent, the games are "canned" and scripted and don't really care what I do or don't react to things I'd like to see, but they're there when I have time, anytime I have it--I don't have to try to wrangle with people's schedules, or juggle locations, I don't have to "cover" for a player who drops out last minute or has to work/can't be there/etc. Sadly, it's all those external factors that are pushing me, and seemingly a lot of "gamers" off the table and into the virtual realm of C-RPGS and MMORPGs. VTTs and PbP and all of that is just too "unfun", too visually lacking, too slow, and too devoid of TT interaction to fill the niche, and for all the effort to make VTTs better, they'll eventually become so similar to video games that they won't be anything like traditional TT RPGs... So...sad as it is, I think video games in one way or another will replace, or at least largely take over the RPG industry... ymmv
Why stop at just two shields? Surely you could DW them AND Strap a tower shield across your back, right? ((fwiw, I think the whole dual-shield--western/medieval shields, not bucklers, not African battle spear-sheild things is a silly exercise in "working the system" more than anything--but I tend to treat my games as fictional slices of a "real" world, and since no one in the Middle Ages went about be-sheilded with 2 of them, I just can't stretch to allow it))
But I do nitpick posts when I see (frex) there/they're/their issues, because they're a sign of a different problem... Some of those, I think, are DYAC errors that go unnoticed, especially if you're using talk-to-text and it fills it what it wants and you don't check it when it posts. ...or not...might depend on the person...but it seems like more of an epidemic now that many surf the forums (any forums, not just here) on their smartphones instead of only on their PC/Laptop...
I think the "fluff mechanic" is the failure of most of 4e system. As DM you do have to do a lot of the mental gymnastics to spin their power-effects into something imaginative in the narrative description, but it can be done. The Seeker's primal arrow shot might summon ghostly primal forces that grasp at the monsters in the area, or maybe it makes the ground shift and tremble beneath their feet, or it makes the grass spring to life and grab their ankles--it's not in the system, but it can be added if your game cares about such things. Unfortunately, it's my experience in 4e that most 4e players don't really care. It's (as detractors often say) more mechanical/miniatures battle than immersive story/narrative fiction
Am I the only one not 'getting' why this is significant? If you want your elves to be Immortal (and I assume you mean solely in longevity, not inability to die/be killed) than just say "Elves are immortal" and be done with it. I don't see any significant mechanical benefit to it, most PCs will never live long enough for it to matter, and most campaigns won't stretch across 500 game years so that only Elves survive and everyone else is on their 50th character. If you want "immortal" elves, just do it, there's no need for a mechanic. Adjust the fluff/flavor of the world and be done with it.
Earthdawn (FASA 1991, now Red Brick) used this as the core of its system. While the everyman was mundane, every Player Character "Class" (called 'Discipline') was enhanced with magic. Some, like Elementalists and Wizards obviously channeled this into Spells, but the Swordmaster, Rogue, Warriors channeled it through themselves to accomplish "amazing" feats. Essentially, just like in 4e, all the classes had power sets, the casters got spells and other arcane abilities, the 'martial' classes got boosts/augments and things like ToB Maneuvers. I think the easiest way to incorporate something like this into PF would be to import Stances and Maneuvers from ToB and let the Martial classes pick from them. Thus, you have some magical or at least superhuman abilities that go beyond the mundane sword-swinging. You don't have to import the ToB classes themselves if you don't want them, but at least open up the Stances and Maneuvers where appropriate. You can use the Crusader's lists for Divine/Champion/Cavalier types, Warblade's list for Fighters/Barbarians, and the Sword Sage's list for Rogues/Rangers etc. How many you make available is up to the power level you want in your campaign. I obviously wouldn't give the PF classes as many as the full ToB classes have, but maybe 1 per 3 levels or something like that... Note--I've not tried this myself, just thought of it, but I think it's the easiest way to add "Magic" to the Martials without having them actually all be (essentially) Gestalt Ranger/Sorcerers or something like a Fighter casting spells...
Because, especially in the metagame sense, it's hard to surprise players that aren't new to the game. Most of my fellow players and GMs know the MM inside and out, and if you create baddies using the same formulas as PCs, then it's all the easier to know what the Evil Cultist can and cannot do. But, if you build the Evil Cultist as a Monster, instead of an NPC, then he can be free to be an "Evil Cultist (Monster)" instead of an "Evil Cultist (Cleric)". He/She can have "monstrous" powers the (jaded) players aren't expecting, and it's acceptable since it's built as a "monster". If you build an "Evil Cultist" as an NPC Cleric, then all the players know what to expect. Plus, as a DM, it's a lot easier to whip up a Monster on the fly than it is to stat out a Cleric and build it the way you need to in order to get to "Evil Cultist". Why does the Evil Cultist (Monster) have a Necrotic Burst that slows and weakens the players? Because it's a monster--and that's as far as the mechanics needs to go. Getting an Evil Cultist Cleric to have that same ability would take a lot of wrangling, and may not even prove possible. In 4e monster creation, I can create anything I can imagine quickly and easily, and without really having to worry about "how it got there" in terms of Feat Trees, Spell Lists, etc. Yet, as long as I follow the basic rules, it's still going to be balanced (and fun!) to play against. It really is one of the DM's Delights in 4e, especially compared to the slog of creating BBEGs in 3.X ymmv
I actually sometimes wonder why WotC keeps D&D on hand - it's a product line that you cannot possibly do well with; no matter what you do and in no matter how much good faith you do it, people will whine about what you're doing and accuse you of selling out Gary and Dave.Because whiners on a messageboard aren't really the determinant of your sales success. For every game that either succeeded or failed, the difference in the amount of people who whined about it, isn't probably substantive. And, despite the "whiners" D&D is still the brand name most associated with the industry for those outside of it. For non-gamers, they understand, in broad strokes, what "Dungeons & Dragons" is, and you can explain other games to them via that immediate brand link. "Want to play Pathfinder?"
It's a recognizable brand name that helps define the entire industry, just like asking for a "Kleenex" when you mean any tissue, or going to "Xerox" something on your Toshiba. That sort of market presence can't be bought, and for that reason alone "D&D" is a hot property in the industry.
The OGL was good for the Industry, definitely true--look at the strength of Pathfinder and other OGL-based systems. The OGL was not good for The D&D Brand, it didn't profit from the sales of 3PP modules, or of Pathfinder, or UA/UE, etc. In fact, all it did was create competitors for itself in a market it should have dominated when D&D moved on to 4e. Instead, when people didn't like 4e, then the OGL gave them the end-around to avoid playing 4e altogether--they had plenty of viable options to choose from, all based upon D&D's Free/Perpetual OGL. Had there been no OGL, and no OGL-based competitors, then D&D as a Brand would have dragged more people with it into 4e, and it wouldn't have had competition to 4e from 3.X OGL-based games--like Pathfinder. And, in the snapshot of the market today, we've got 4e fighting for position against OGL-based competition, so they are currently losing market share to their dead-edition's OGL. OGL helped, and is continuing to help, everyone except the D&D Brand itself. Hitdice is right, Hasbro gave everyone the seeds, expected the tomatoes, and instead got a bunch of flesh-eating monsters that're are still eating D&D's profits and market share.
Yep. The OGL opened the Padora's Box of competition--at first it was crap as you suggest, but with Paizo launching Pathfinder, the OGL has allowed for the creation of a massive market competitor that can exist in perpetuity by using the OGL to continually counter new editions of D&D with reverse-engineered OGL versions of "4e" or "5e"-like games. The OGL isn't just a sunk cost, it's an ongoing opportunity cost since it's continually allowing competitors to feed on what should be D&D's core market segments and profits. I can't see how WotC could go to Hasbro and convince them that the OGL was a good idea, that it was a success for The D&D Brand, that it did more help than harm to their bottom line, and that it ought to be done again. If they were smart, they'd create an open license that's limited to creating modules and world/fluff/extra content, but keep the core system and mechanic to themselves--that way anyone wanting to play "nu-OGL Product X" would still have to buy the D&D Brand PH, DMG, MM, etc to get the system's core rules. Letting everyone have free, unrestricted, and perpetual use of the entire 5e system isn't a good business model for the D&D brand.
I wouldn't mind seeing the various M:tG settings and other IP finding its way into D&D. That might get them some more marketshare in the way of MtG players who dont currently play D&D, and they wouldn't have to commission nearly as much art. Given how strangely rich and well-developed the back story and world creation is for "just" a card game, I think those IPs would lend themselves nicely to becoming a new "world"/campaign setting for the D&D brand. Plus, if 5e launched with these new worlds in addition to the "classics" (FR,DL,GH,EB,DS) then maybe that would increase interest in D&D as a brand, since people would want to play in their specific IP worlds/settings over OGL-X. I know I didn't like a lot of what they did to the 4e versions of their worlds, but starting new in Mirrodin or wherever wouldn't have that same stigma.
That's again, one of the things I didn't like about 4E. Initially, it sounded cool, but I also feel that one of the worst things you can do in a game is to have NPC's get abilities that PC never can. Like your 14 attacks thing, this is just an example, but it pissed me off when I read the Cleric in the MM (or might have been that first adventure) that got that cool shadow blast power, but I never could. DM might allow it, what ever, but I still think that was one of the biggest mistakes of 4E.I'm in the camp of thinking it was one of 4e's most important, most welcome changes. I'd say, for my group at least, it was a welcomed change and an improvement. Why would you build a Hydra as you would a human NPC? Why not let it be monstrous and do stuff no human being can do? Even an "Evil Cultist" isn't a Player Class, so let them do Evilly Cultisty things--Indiana Jones couldn't suck someone's heart out of their chest, yet seeing the Evil Bad Guy do it didn't ruin the movie (it was already ruined for many other reasons). Let BBEGs do unique/unexpected/different things. Building all your enemies as you would a PC just mirrors the PC classes, and that's not as unique since the players understand how the PC classes work, what they can do, and how to defeat them. As a GM, I liked being able to create monsters or NPC Baddies with "monster" powers that the PCs didn't have. The rules allowed you to make them balanced, but still interesting. And, it was an overall simpler and easier process than I'd expected.
Sometimes it's just for clarity of thought. I think half of what's said on forums is lost in the shuffle, half ignored, half useful, and the last half only half-listened-to.
We did this as well (4e game), but it led to poor tactics as players starting going after their favored type of treat instead of making the best choice for the party.So have I. In fact, I regularly use candy pieces to represent minions, with the player who kills the minion eating the candy.If it's chocolate, I want to play a big gunching fighter in your game! :D "Luckily", 2 of our players are now on no-carb diets. So, in fairness to them, the Treat Bowl was removed...probably sparing us all from untimely diabetes as you suggest. ;) Someone once suggested a "healthy" bowl of baby carrots and misc rabbit food, but that idea didn't go very far...
I no longer remember the exact rules, but 2e Ravenloft had insanities due to being exposed to the horrors of the realm, and the game Vampire had insanities as key to the Malkavian clan of possible player characters. L5R had "Taint" rules for exposure to the Shadowlands, and Rifts had various rules for their "Crazies/MoMs" and others who may acquire insanity. Maybe something in one of those could help...
Taking away the OGL might be a "terrible" decision for the industry, but it's a great way for D&D to protect its Brand and it's market share. The last four years have not been the success for D&D as a brand or for their market share largely because of the OGL, and Pathfinder, right? So why would they want to ensure that 5e comes out into the midst of competitors using their own system against them? Without the OGL there wouldn't be the battle for market share with Paizo since Pathfinder would not exist as the supported replacement for 3.X that WotC abandoned. And WotC must have realized this or else 4e would have shipped with an OGL instead of the GSL. It was a defensive maneuver to protect 4e from 3P 4e products as well as Pathfinder and the rest of the 3.X OGL competitors. WotC now has to figure out a way to protect 5e much better than they did 3.x, but without alienating people who "expect" to see an OGL. And, in that regard, the OGL was a complete failure for the D&D Brand--they lost market share, they lost profits, they created the idea that it "has" to be included in future D&D Brand products, and they inadvertently created a system where every 3P can successfully compete with WotC's new products with re-packaged former editions of D&D's own "dead" editions. So, again, what's Hasbro's incentive to repeat all of that with the launch of a robust 5e OGL? How would any of what has happened before encourage them to use the same type of OGL? How would a repeat of the last four years of struggle to increase D&D brand's profits or market share help them make the $50-100Million target Hasbro wants out of D&D? Without a 5e OGL, Pathfinder would be stuck with either staying OGL-Compatible and "falling off the curve" Again, had the OGL never existed then there would be no 3.x-compatible anything to stick with. 3.x, like OD&D-2e, would be just another dead edition, and would certainly not be alive and competing with D&D's current edition for market share. If 5e is succeeds at being the great "Uniter" that will call all previous-edition gamers back to D&D, why open that up to competition when you could corner the market by having your one product appeal to every gamer from every one of your prior editions? There is no "curve" to fall off; there is no equivalent to Moore's Law for non-electronic games. Most articles refer to it as the core segment vs. "lapsed gamers" who have fallen out of the purchase cycle. Dead editions are not driving current sales, Pathfinder and 4e are battling for market share, and dominating most of the industry because people are buying them. If the dead editions were sufficient, then sales would be flat, and clearly that's not the case. New players are not coming into the industry by purchasing the new products, not the old ones. If you want to play PFS, Encounters, Lair Assault, Essentials, Kingmaker or any of the current products, then you're buying the current systems "off the shelf" to do so. The industry is not driven by dead editions, it's driven by what's currently being marketed and sold and supported. Sure, someone on eBay may have just bought a mint Field Folio, but that's an outlier and nothing compared to the sales of PF or 4e--and that reflects the player base that's interested and motivated to stay "current". If not, then even Pathfinder wouldn't have found success since everyone would have just stayed with their WotC 3.X products. Instead, Pathfinder was seen as "better", newer, and supported--whereas D&D 3.5e was "dead" and off the curve. Plus, in another smart move, Paizo made Pathfinder just different enough that while it's still OGL-compatible, you cannot play it with the WotC D&D books. You cannot sit at a table in PFS with your 3.5e PH, you cannot play in a home game with a 3.5e DMG and have it work with Patfinder rules--not exactly, and not completely. So, Paizo has effectively made D&D books "obsolete". But, on the flip side, players new to the game can buy Pathfinder books and use them with old D&D modules if they want, so it's (essentially) backwards-compatible enough to provide more utility than a 3.5e Boxed Set has for current players. And, of course, all of this is profit for Paizo based on D&D's OGL...which they don't want to repeat--why give money to your #1 competitor at your own expense? If they release a 5e OGL that's essentially the same as the current one, then they're admitting that they're giving up on trying to recapture and corner the market that D&D originated...and with the money Hasbro's likely to spend on 5e, I'm not sure that's acceptable to them. I think WotC has put themselves into a no-win situation, and regardless of how great 5e might be, the brand may yet be doomed by its own prior actions. Is there a full moon tonight? :) Nope. :p
So have I. In fact, I regularly use candy pieces to represent minions, with the player who kills the minion eating the candy.If it's chocolate, I want to play a big gunching fighter in your game! :D We did this as well (4e game), but it led to poor tactics as players starting going after their favored type of treat instead of making the best choice for the party. Eventually, we went back to using non-edible placeholders and just had a bowl of chocolates for players to choose from to celebrate their victories.
You're right, clearly all the R&D, Market Impact Studies, Legal, Marketing Funds, Ad Campaigns, Website support/development, product development/testing/feedback loop, layout/design/editing/printing, and salaries/benefits/compensation packages will cost $5. How has the OGL "brought players in" to WotC/D&D? D&D's OGL effort is dead, unsupported, gone, kaput--not generating any revenue for them. Maybe the OGL-as-Pathfinder is bringing players to the RPG industry, but that's not any direct help to Hasbro's profits. Yet, the actual OGL itself is harming their profits because it's allowed Paizo to go toe-to-toe with them. Just because it's free hasn't stopped people from buying the books in numbers sufficient to challenge WotC's product line--clearly if no one was purchasing anything but modules that would not be the case. Yes, not having an OGL would restrict you to only buying from WotC--which is exactly what they want/need to ensure their product isn't toppled by Paizo (or someone else) yet again. Trust me, if auto manufacturers could limit you to only getting serviced at their dealerships, they would.
A new OGL would allow Pathfinder to move to PF 2.0 as a 5e-OGL-Compatible product. So, once again, WotC would be spending millions of dollars developing 5e just to let its largest competitor get a free piggyback onto all that it creates, and the OGL would instantly (relatively) mean that D&D 5e is competing with Paizo for market share*. *(obviously assuming Paizo would move forward, but I assume that if there was an OGL for 5e then they would) It'd be like GM giving Ford the plans for it's next breakthrough car and allowing that car to compete against it in the market the minute it's introduced. Taking away the OGL might be a "terrible" decision for the industry, but it's a great way for D&D to protect its Brand and it's market share. Without a 5e OGL, Pathfinder would be stuck with either staying OGL-Compatible and "falling off the curve" or else it would have to give up OGL and come up with an entirely new system in order to compete with D&D 5e. Either way, as a Brand, D&D/WotC/Hasbro would come out ahead--it's stymied it's largest competitor and (assuming the game's good) moved the industry onto it's next level. On the flip side, I can't see anything positive in ROI or Opportunity Cost if Hasbro allows WotC to do another OGL like the one that spawned Pathfinder...
The "OGL Mistake" is, essentially, Pathfinder. If OGL didn't exist, and therefore Pathfinder couldn't exist, then think of all the revenue that is now being generated by Paizo that would, by default, channeled elsewhere--most likely, into D&D/4e as they would be the only "current" game. There are always holdovers, but if there was no OGL support then those left behind aren't impacting future business. If there was no OGL, then those who loved 3.5e and wouldn't move into 4e would still be buying WotC 3.5e books where they could find them, and there'd be nothing else after that. Either way, those "lapsed" gamers aren't costing WotC money directly. However, as it is now, wvery time WotC looks at Pathfinder's quarterly earnings, they know that it was their OGL that allowed each one of those dollars to go to Paizo while simultaneously taking money from their own profits by allowing a previous edition to (very successfully) compete with their own newer product. I don't see a fiscal benefit to repeating that mistake--it's the same reason why Microsoft doesn't release a Freeware version of Windows, or MS Office--it's not practical to open the door for your free product to compete with your own core product line, especially to the point where the free product (OGL) is having nearly as much (or more) success than your own product.
|
