|
I think everyone is missing the big picture here. The big question everyone has failed to ask. That is simply this.
Why is there a picture of Gorilla Grodd on that article? Or is that Ultra-Humanite? Don't tell me WotC has taken up the old DC comics decree of "A monkey (or ape)on every cover!"?
I guess there's nothing more fun than a barrel of monkeys, now is there?
Haven't you heard? Now that DC Comics has brought back the multiverse, D&D is part of it all. The Forgotten Realms will now be known as Earth F. That image you mistook for Gorilla Grodd is actually the Earth F version of the same character. He will be know as Gorilla Bar'l. With his vast psionic powers and brute strength he will be the cornerstone of the Earth F supervillian group, the Council of Doom. Other members of the Council will be F'zoul Futher, Warforgiac 92, and Etrigan the No-longer-demon-now-a-devil.
and Etrigan the No-longer-demon-now-a-devil.
I physically, literally laughed out loud
thank you
So what's the deal with the poor Yugoloths?
Exactly! What happens to the neutral evil fiends? Are they all gone? Does this mean alignment is gone? Will we only have Law v. Chaos and Good v. Evil?
Serioulsy, I always thought the "cosmology" of devils and demons was bleedingly obvious. Then again, I never had that much difficulty, intellectually, figuring out alignment. Apparently all the moronic arguments about alignment over the years has resulted in "simpler" rules.
The revamping of demons as feral reminds me of the "kids" who played chaotic as "random". In particular I think of the kid who gamed with us one time, until politely being asked to leave, who wanted to play a schizophrenic character who would talk like Beavis or Butthead depending on his personality, who rather than actually imitate the voices actually said "I'm talking like Beavis now" who thought that that was "chaotic".
Maybe the old Dragon articles on the politics of Hell (based off Catholic views) shaped my view, but I understood that Hell was orderly and evil and the Abyss chaotic and evil. I also understood that there was room for something in between, something that was neither obsessed with detail or torn by indecision. Call them Yugoloths if you must, but Daemons have always occupied a very strong place in my campaigns.
I don't want to get this infuriated by 4e, but it certainly seems ill-conceived and designed for kids without the brainpower to think on their own. Spoonfeeding every detail without leaving room for innovation will kill the game (and many other things as well).
I almost posted a tremendously arrogant rant here, but I will leave it at this. How "simple" do we have to make the rules before it becomes something different? And once we have something different, is there no room for the original?
Just read the latest info on ENWorld and, as usual, their summary of the various blog posts by the 4e designers is more informative and interesting than the articles posted on the WotC website.
Heh. You noticed too, huh? I check ENWorld daily. The last time I tried to read an article on the WotC site (the very Demons and Devils article that started this thread) I got the "log into DnD Insider to read this" message. Screw that. I'll just check ENWorld.
I further agree with Sebastian about Wizard's lousy PR. In the full scheme of the world, what with all the wars and such, a new edition of a freakin' game doesn't mean all that much. But, to people like me, who've been playing (and getting people into the hobby!) since 1981, it's a pretty big concern as far as my recreation hours and dollars are spent.
My current group has six players. Three of them never played DnD before, at all, in any edition. One is a old 1E guy who hadn't picked up a d20 since the original UA came out. One is a 2E guy who dropped out of RPGs in the mid-nineties. The last one started with 3.0 after hanging out in a store where he played MtG. I am running two concurrent campaigns with these folks. I'm a Moldvay grognard who's bringing in fresh blood. I am the type of guy that WotC should be courting.
Should they be catering to me and my ilk alone? Of course not. But I'd like to see fewer flavor change teasers and more "crunchy" stuff. Then again, I'm not a PR guy, so what do I know?
I'm just glad 3.5 was around long enough for me to have Fiendish Codex I & II.
I don't need anything new. I'm glad 4e continues to give me reasons not to upgrade.
I'm good.
i'm concerned about the Slaadi and other non-fiend planar beings; are they getting tossed out as well?
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
That article does not fill me with a tremendous amount of confidence.
Apparently gone with the death of the Great Wheel is the concept of the outer planes being an afterlife, and mortal souls turning into fiends, etc. Hurm.
I was relieved by two elements of this post:
1) I'm very glad I got a chance to co-write Hordes of the Abyss under a design paradigm that was respectful of the game's 30-year history and development. Shoehorning all of the stuff I put into that book into this new set-up would be an exercise in depression.
2) I am very glad that Paizo gets to go its own way on the "story" aspect of our products (even if we do convert to 4.0), and we no longer must follow Wizards of the Coast lock, stock, and barrel. I have a great deal of trust in Wizards of the Coast's mechanical abilities. Not so much on the story side of things.
--Erik
1) I'm very glad I got a chance to co-write Hordes of the Abyss under a design paradigm that was respectful of the game's 30-year history and development. Shoehorning all of the stuff I put into that book into this new set-up would be an exercise in depression.
I am grateful for this as well. The two Fiendish Codices are very nice capstones to the story of the classic demons and devils that frightened and fascinated me from the minute I cracked open my original Monster Manual way back when. From this point on, we have what is effectively a different story and that saddens me.
What saddens me just as much is that, along with that original story, we lose a common vocabulary that we all, as D&D players, shared, regardless of edition. The advent of 4E seems to me to be a definitive break with the past rather than an embellishment upon and expansion of what has gone before.
While I have lots of beefs with the way 3/3.5E handled various aspects of the shared D&D story, for the most part, it treated the past with respect and found new ways to use old ideas to make them at once fresh and at once familiar. With 4E, that will no longer be the case. Whether WotC intended it or not, the fanbase will split in a way that will make the edition wars of the past seem minor by comparison.
Such a shame; such wasted potential.
|
|
Haven't you heard? Now that DC Comics has brought back the multiverse, D&D is part of it all. The Forgotten Realms will now be known as Earth F. That image you mistook for Gorilla Grodd is actually the Earth F version of the same character. He will be know as Gorilla Bar'l. With his vast psionic powers and brute strength he will be the cornerstone of the Earth F supervillian group, the Council of Doom. Other members of the Council will be F'zoul Futher, Warforgiac 92, and Etrigan the No-longer-demon-now-a-devil.
How much of a geek am I that I actually followed that?
I have a great deal of trust in Wizards of the Coast's mechanical abilities. Not so much on the story side of things.
Well said. Plus, they failed in the PR department...
And I´m happy to own the Fiendish Codices, even if I didn´t have the time to read the second. But perhaps I should now, as I might use some of the stuff in my CY 576-5?? Shield Lands campaign.Stefan
Ok folks, here's the deal: as someone who has actually done PR and lives in Los Angeles (the home of all things "spin"), i can tell you several things.
1) Not trying to be arrogant and saying "I know better than all," just giving the benefit (hopefully) of my experience.
2) If you are going to make a change to something popular and established, you do NOT go in with a chainsaw and massacre it. You try to use a scalpel and do precision work that will not be as dramatically noticable. That being said, you can use the chainsaw if you do not care about your established customers and want to market an entirely new product. Which, unfortunately, seems to be the case here.
3) As many here have said, you want to focus on the "good" changes you are making. Telling us silly stories with no relevance only serves to blow smoke. If that's your goal, so be it, but the goal should be selling the "new and improved" points and telling customers WHY it will be better. The smoke blowing only serves to foster doubt and questions like "what are they hiding and what are they not telling us?"
4) Opening up new markets and tailoring them to the new customers is totally acceptable, but NOT at the cost of your established base. This base, whether WoTC likes it or not, is going to be the top $$$ portion of sales. If you piss them off too much (as it seems is happening) you will lose sales. Some loss is acceptable and is even expected in the marketing strategy, but too great a loss nullifies the gains. Simple economics/business.
5) Change can be very good. Fixing things here and there, trying new things and experimenting all have their uses. Change for the sake of change, however, can often be disastrous. The demon/devil debaucle is a crystal clear illustration of that. Are there seriously people out there who couldn't tell the difference? FGS, the two sentences in FC2 explain it better than anything: Demons want to destroy the world. Devils want to own it. Now, was that hard for anyone out there? Didn't think so... This smacks of change for the sake of change - kind of an "I'm in charge now b****es and we're doing it my way because I can" attitude. Translated into PR/marketing it comes off as arrogant, selfish and, more importantly, it's off-putting and brings several negative vibes. Which, as anyone can imagine, is the LAST thing you want when launching/re-launching a product. No negative, all positive is the staple of PR. You spin away the bad. You DO NOT cultivate it.
Anyway, just my thoughts. And remember: I'f we've lost Sebastian, we've lost middle America..."
|
I like the new deal.
I've been playing D&D over 20 years and never got into the whole demon/devil cosmology. I definitely never bought into the Great Wheel crap.
Devils have always been the cool scheming ones to me. Demons have always seemed to be pure, evil chaos. Not very organized sounding to me.
I think this new demon / devil stuff sounds pretty good. Its more along the lines of what I've always thought anyways. If nothing else, it is definitely nothing to get my britches in a knot over.
|
|
2) If you are going to make a change to something popular and established, you do NOT go in with a chainsaw and massacre it. You try to use a scalpel and do precision work that will not be as dramatically noticable. That being said, you can use the chainsaw if you do not care about your established customers and want to market an entirely new product. Which, unfortunately, seems to be the case here.
4) Opening up new markets and tailoring them to the new customers is totally acceptable, but NOT at the cost of your established base. This base, whether WoTC likes it or not, is going to be the top $$$ portion of sales. If you piss them off too much (as it seems is happening) you will lose sales. Some loss is acceptable and is even expected in the marketing strategy, but too great a loss nullifies the gains. Simple economics/business.
Both very relevant when they switched from AD&D to the d20 3e crud. Although now its the 3e fans bemoaning it.
|
I don't think too many would object to changes in the rules mechanics, provided they are cool and good, other than on the "Man, do I have to spend more money on rulebooks?" aspect. But changing key elements of the fluff is possibly a bigger deal, because it has grown up over time and is part of the D&D scenery.
Judging by reactions, you may be right about that. But for me, it's just the opposite. The cosmology hinted at in the Devils & Demons article sounds like it could be interesting on its own, but I have plans for Planescape campaigning, so I'll be completely ignoring it for that purpose. Granted, combining that cosmology with adventuring in Kara-Tur/Maztica/etc. twists me into contortions, but I'd rather deal with that and keep the Planescape campaign setting material, and the larger history of the D&D multiverse, intact.
What's more annoying is mechanical changes I have to undo (like turning succubi back into demons). As long as the individual creatures are mostly the same (i.e., are fairly direct mechanical translations), I can ignore their new back stories when I plug them into earlier-edition adventures. But major conceptual differences (e.g., marilith become mindless, winged, half-draconic demons that spray acid from their eyes*) mean I'd have to completely recreate the creature. The scope of those kinds of changes is still unclear.
* That is a totally hypothetical example. I have no idea what they're doing with mariliths. Just wanted to clear that up before I saw a "Mariliths are acid-spraying half-dragons!" thread pop up at ENWorld.
|
|
The Devils and Demons article made it clear to me that what WotC is doing with 4E is creating an entirely new IP. The 3E SRD more or less "gave away the store" when it came to 30+ years of accumulated D&D story. With the exception of things like mind flayers, beholders, etc. (which were removed from the SRD after the initial release), pretty much all the iconic elements of D&D are out there for any company that wants to use them to do with as they please. I have absolutely no doubt that someone at WotC (or Hasbro, or both) looked at this and asked, "So what makes D&D, as a brand, distinctive anymore?"
It's an interesting hypothesis, but I don't see how this article supports it. None of the story elements being replaced (the Great Wheel's outer planes, the Blood War, demon princes and archdevils, etc.) were ever released as part of the SRD. They have no need to replace the Great Wheel for purposes of regaining control of their IP; they never gave that away.
Are you doubting that reimagined devils and demons won't make it into the 4e SRD? If so, I guess we can only wait and see.
ENWorld put up a poll on thoughts on this change:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=208125
In particular I think of the kid who gamed with us one time, until politely being asked to leave, who wanted to play a schizophrenic character who would talk like Beavis or Butthead depending on his personality, who rather than actually imitate the voices actually said "I'm talking like Beavis now" who thought that that was "chaotic".
Oh my goodness, that is lame. Beavis and Butthead are probably the most faked voices (right up there with imitating Dana Carvey imitating the first Prez Bush, as well as probably his Church Lady character also). It's not like it's all that hard to do a bad Beavis and Butthead impression.
Wow, talk about immersive roleplaying! Right up there with this image I have of someone talking in a monotone voice, "Ok, I say in a really scary voice - 'Stop foul demon before I kill you.'"
Regardless of alignment opinions, I'd have kicked him out for "I'm talking like Beavis now." That's too lame even for gamers.
|
4) Opening up new markets and tailoring them to the new customers is totally acceptable, but NOT at the cost of your established base. This base, whether WoTC likes it or not, is going to be the top $$$ portion of sales. If you piss them off too much (as it seems is happening) you will lose sales. Some loss is acceptable and is even expected in the marketing strategy, but too great a loss nullifies the gains. Simple economics/business.
I honestly hope that enough of us "Established Basers" withhold our dollars until after the SRD comes out so the initial spike in Core Book sells does not send the wrong impression. Ummm...I think there were too many double negatives in there. Let me say it this way. I wish no one would buy the core books at first. Then maybe WotC might have to rethink it's strategy a bit. ...of course that would probably guarantee a 4.5.
I honestly hope that enough of us "Established Basers" withhold our dollars until after the SRD comes out so the initial spike in Core Book sells does not send the wrong impression. Ummm...I think there were too many double negatives in there. Let me say it this way. I wish no one would buy the core books at first. Then maybe WotC might have to rethink it's strategy a bit. ...of course that would probably guarantee a 4.5.
I'm with you. If we can't vote with our words and voices, we must vote with our dollars.
Are you doubting that reimagined devils and demons won't make it into the 4e SRD? If so, I guess we can only wait and see.
Not specifically, although I would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out to be the case.
My real point wasn't focused on devil and demon changes as such; it's just that reading that article caused a light bulb to turn on in my head. My feeling remains that WotC is changing a lot of D&D's accumulated fluff for a variety of reasons, all of which work hand in hand, and one of them is to create new IP that they completely control, unlike the situation now, where it's quite easy for a company like, say, Green Ronin to create a pastiche of the non-OGL IP (look at The Book of Fiends, for example) that's easily interchangeable with WotC's closed content.
I expect we will see a much greater use of new names, proper nouns, and other means to help keep 4E's fluff safely closed and thus providing distinctiveness to the official D&D brand. WotC is committed to a 4E SRD only because they have to, not out of principle. That is, if 4E remained closed, that'd create a real opportunity for someone to come in and produce a v.3.5-compatible "Wizards & Warriors" game to lure away people who might eventually upgrade to 4E. WotC doesn't want that, so 4E will be open, but I'd wager good money that it'll be done a fair bit more cynically than last time around.
I wish no one would buy the core books at first. Then maybe WotC might have to rethink it's strategy a bit. ...of course that would probably guarantee a 4.5.
If no ones buys the core books at first WotC will not be releasing a 4.5 as there will be no one left employed on the D&D brand team to write it.
I think sales of the core books will be good, no matter what. After that, what will probably matter is the number of subscribers to DDI - that will determine the financial success of D&D in the next couple of years. If that tanks, I think the game as we know it is done (at least at WotC). If it's successul, all will be well with the brand.
Personally, I think D&D as a tabletop RPG at WotC is done (or sold) in 3-5 years. This might be the last edition. (Unless the rights are sold.)
(OF course, I'm depressed about the whole thing right now, so it's most certainly affecting my outlook on the game.)
After that, what will probably matter is the number of subscribers to DDI - that will determine the financial success of D&D in the next couple of years. If that tanks, I think the game as we know it is done (at least at WotC). If it's successul, all will be well with the brand.
I think that the success or failure of DDI will play a big role in the future of 4E and D&D. We'll be able to judge whether DDI met WotC's revenue expectations based on how optional it remains. If, as 2009 rolls around, we see more and more essential articles, errata, and so forth appear only through DDI, you can be sure that Insider hasn't met expectations and WotC is scrambling to find a way to funnel more players to it. On the other hand, if it remains truly optional, on par with what Dragon was back in the day -- nice to have but hardly necessary -- then DDI probably has enough subscribers to keep WotC (and Hasbro) happy.
|
|
What I'm curious about is how much these changes will effect the average game.
In my games over the years, the characters never got involved in the whole "how the demons/devils work" thing.
If a devil appeared, the characters were more than likely to refer to it as a demon. The average PC in my games were never aware of the difference. Evil outsiders are evil outsiders and the difference was never more than what the differences between orc tribes would be from a CHARACTER's perspective.
Outside of Planscape type games, do that many folks actually do a lot of planar type stuff in their games? Will your characters be gnashing their teeth in angst as they charge into the evil warlord's keep to defeat his humanoid army while contemplating the nature of demons?
I just fail to see how "game ruining" this is.
Personally, I wish they leave a lot of cosmology out regardless. Cosmology should be a campaign setting specific thing.
2) I am very glad that Paizo gets to go its own way on the "story" aspect of our products (even if we do convert to 4.0), and we no longer must follow Wizards of the Coast lock, stock, and barrel. I have a great deal of trust in Wizards of the Coast's mechanical abilities. Not so much on the story side of things.
--Erik
Y'know, Erik hit it on the head for me here. Assuming that 4E (and I'm getting wary of assumptions about 4E now) is at least moderately divisible along the line between fluff and crunch, I will probably get the core rules of 4th.
Just for the crunch.
Heck, I might even go through the book with an El-Marko and blot out every single fluff reference I find. Maybe. Probably.
Long live 3E Fluff! Long live Paizo!
Actually, wasn't there an earlier discussion about how Ice Devils were now going to be Yugoloths, and that insectoid features would be the difining point of the Yugoloth race? I can't remember where I read it, but it made me wonder whether Chasme demons would become Yugoloths, or even old Lolth herself? I wonder if they'll go back to calling them daemons though.
Outside of Planscape type games, do that many folks actually do a lot of planar type stuff in their games? Will your characters be gnashing their teeth in angst as they charge into the evil warlord's keep to defeat his humanoid army while contemplating the nature of demons?I just fail to see how "game ruining" this is.
These changes probably won´t be game ruining. But from what I read out of the article, they seem to set up demons as mindless (or at least, very savage) killers. That´s basically ok, but if you see what kind of intrigue has been going on between the demons and in the Blood War, then "dumbing down" the demons is changing one of the basics of the game system (the cosmology and the beings exemplifying it) for the worse. With mindless killers, you can only have fights. But with intrigue and ongoing conflicts which the players can use for their own ends, it offers more roleplaying opportunities. Of course, the PCs can still charge in and just bash everything - but you have other options. And these options are taken away for no good reason, IMO. So, that change is bad (again, IMO).
Stefan
|
|
1) I'm very glad I got a chance to co-write Hordes of the Abyss under a design paradigm that was respectful of the game's 30-year history and development. Shoehorning all of the stuff I put into that book into this new set-up would be an exercise in depression.
As are many of us here on these boards. I am sure I speak for many when saying that you , James, and the other folks at Paizo have put out more high-quality D&D products in the last few years then wotC could ever hope to do. And I am sure than many of us also appreciate your dedication to and respect for the history of the game.
2) I am very glad that Paizo gets to go its own way on the "story" aspect of our products (even if we do convert to 4.0), and we no longer must follow Wizards of the Coast lock, stock, and barrel. I have a great deal of trust in Wizards of the Coast's mechanical abilities. Not so much on the story side of things.
I, too, am glad that paizo is no longer shackled to the WotC express. The more I think about it, and the more I see from WotC (or lack thereof), I think I will seriously consider switching to 4E if, and only if, Paizo does so as well. And I don't think I'll be buying too many WotC products anymore.
|
|
These changes probably won´t be game ruining. But from what I read out of the article, they seem to set up demons as mindless (or at least, very savage) killers. That´s basically ok, but if you see what kind of intrigue has been going on between the demons and in the Blood War, then "dumbing down" the demons is changing one of the basics of the game system (the cosmology and the beings exemplifying it) for the worse. With mindless killers, you can only have fights. But with intrigue and ongoing conflicts which the players can use for their own ends, it offers more roleplaying opportunities. Of course, the PCs can still charge in and just bash everything - but you have other options. And these options are taken away for no good reason, IMO. So, that change is bad (again, IMO).
Stefan
Um. I thought they were pretty much portrayed that way in 1st Edition as well.
I'd have to pull out the MM and look again but I'm fairly certain in the original mm that there were more than 1 or 2 demons will low or semi intelligence. I think they were described as basically killers who fought to the death regardless types too.
Quoting from the article, "Even the mightiest demon lords manipulate other demons by using threats, direct violence, or the promise of more destruction through affiliation." Thats sounds about right to me as well.
Like I said, I am one of those guys who thinks Planscape and the Bloodwars was crap, so maybe thats why I don't mind the change and view it as an improvement though.
Haven't you heard? Now that DC Comics has brought back the multiverse, D&D is part of it all. The Forgotten Realms will now be known as Earth F. That image you mistook for Gorilla Grodd is actually the Earth F version of the same character. He will be know as Gorilla Bar'l. With his vast psionic powers and brute strength he will be the cornerstone of the Earth F supervillian group, the Council of Doom. Other members of the Council will be F'zoul Futher, Warforgiac 92, and Etrigan the No-longer-demon-now-a-devil.I think everyone is missing the big picture here. The big question everyone has failed to ask. That is simply this.
Why is there a picture of Gorilla Grodd on that article? Or is that Ultra-Humanite? Don't tell me WotC has taken up the old DC comics decree of "A monkey (or ape)on every cover!"?
I guess there's nothing more fun than a barrel of monkeys, now is there?
Me am not being sent to punish you for violating NDA issued by Dan Didi . .. er . . . Didididi . . . er . . . D Diddy. Me am not having to enforce strict silence about new 4th edition plans to coincide with new series after Countdown, which am not being called 26 x 2 . . .
Um. I thought they were pretty much portrayed that way in 1st Edition as well.
I'd have to pull out the MM and look again but I'm fairly certain in the original mm that there were more than 1 or 2 demons will low or semi intelligence. I think they were described as basically killers who fought to the death regardless types too.
Quoting from the article, "Even the mightiest demon lords manipulate other demons by using threats, direct violence, or the promise of more destruction through affiliation." Thats sounds about right to me as well.
Like I said, I am one of those guys who thinks Planscape and the Bloodwars was crap, so maybe thats why I don't mind the change and view it as an improvement though.
Well, if u think it's "crap," so be it. But you're missing the point entirely my friend. It's not about demons per se, but about the huge amount (whether you like it or not) of people who do like the history of the planes and the people who have worked hard to write it getting slapped in the face. Change is cool, but not if you alienate a huge portion of your fanbase. And it's not just the demon/devil thing, it's one thing after another with this 4th edition. Completely altering the core of the game (elves, classes, outsiders, etc...) takes it further and further from true D&D...
|
|
But you're missing the point entirely my friend. It's not about demons per se, but about the huge amount (whether you like it or not) of people who do like the history of the planes and the people who have worked hard to write it getting slapped in the face.
I dunno. So far the Poll Results just aren't screaming "huge amount" of hate to me.
The "hates" account for only about 1/3 of the "likes". And the "not sures" outnumber the "hates" too.
But I'm sure the "hates" do hate it enough for everyone.
Sure it's not scientific, but I have to ask:
Is losing 1/3 of the fanbase an acceptable loss?
Maybe it is. I would hope not.
But you're missing the point entirely my friend. It's not about demons per se, but about the huge amount (whether you like it or not) of people who do like the history of the planes and the people who have worked hard to write it getting slapped in the face.I dunno. So far the Poll Results just aren't screaming "huge amount" of hate to me.
The "hates" account for only about 1/3 of the "likes". And the "not sures" outnumber the "hates" too.
But I'm sure the "hates" do hate it enough for everyone.
As of right now, and discounting the undecided votes, its ~56% in favor, and ~25% against.
So yeah, at this time (and the poll if fairly new still) its roughly 2-1 in favor of the change to some degree.
But this isn't a simple majority wins situation.
All of the voters care enough about D&D as a brand to vote, otherwise they wouldn't be taking a poll on Enworlds, right?
So at what point does the change piss off enough people to make it not worth changing something that has stood for 30 years as canon?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sure it's not scientific, but I have to ask:
Is losing 1/3 of the fanbase an acceptable loss?
Maybe it is. I would hope not.
Depends. They were going to lose some portion of the fan base regardless of the level of changes being made (cue the teeth-gnashing "I'll stick to 3.5 posts" that followed the announcement of the existence of 4e without any mind to the substance of 4e). They have probably calculated that they will gain that many or more new fans.
I am also not a GW fan. I was looking forward to a change. This, however, was not the change for which I was hoping. Judging by the poll, many do like this change.
However, WotC has still failed completely in communicating the necessity of any change whatsoever. There are good reasons for chucking the Great Wheel, and it wouldn't kill them to provide the reasons. There's no reason to alienate fans of the current regime unnecessarily, which appears to be their current style.
I see them losing fans in several ways:
First, they lost the folks who didn't want a new edition now (or ever). Not much they could do about that.
Second, they are losing the folks who don't like the mechanical changes ("too videogamey", "too much like anime", "too player-centric", etc.)
Third, they are losing the folks (like me) who don't like changes to what they think makes D&D not just another generic fantasy role-playing game. These were the easiest bunch to retain, but they decided to play risky.
Fourth, they are losing the fans of Forgotten Realms (and possibly Eberron) who don't like the radical retcons.
That seems like too many fronts to take risks.
The third and fourth options could have easily been avoided by sticking with a more generic (or tried and true) core and just launching a new Points of Light campaign setting. Everyone wins.
But you're missing the point entirely my friend. It's not about demons per se, but about the huge amount (whether you like it or not) of people who do like the history of the planes and the people who have worked hard to write it getting slapped in the face.I dunno. So far the Poll Results just aren't screaming "huge amount" of hate to me.
The "hates" account for only about 1/3 of the "likes". And the "not sures" outnumber the "hates" too.
But I'm sure the "hates" do hate it enough for everyone.
While EN World does have probably the largest number of members for a d20 site outside of WOTC's own, a large number does not automatically make it a representative sample. I have a user name there, but didn't post for years, and after a few weeks of 4th edition news, quit posting there once more. So I "count" as a member, but don't often make my opinion known, and go there far more frequently to the news page than the forums.
I'm not saying it is or isn't correct, just that its not a verifiable means of getting a representative sample of the whole gaming community. If I made that same poll at Candlekeep, Canonfire, or here, I'd bet the results would be different, but they would be no more representative as a sample.
What I'm curious about is how much these changes will effect the average game.
In my games over the years, the characters never got involved in the whole "how the demons/devils work" thing.
If a devil appeared, the characters were more than likely to refer to it as a demon. The average PC in my games were never aware of the difference. Evil outsiders are evil outsiders and the difference was never more than what the differences between orc tribes would be from a CHARACTER's perspective.
Outside of Planscape type games, do that many folks actually do a lot of planar type stuff in their games? Will your characters be gnashing their teeth in angst as they charge into the evil warlord's keep to defeat his humanoid army while contemplating the nature of demons?
I just fail to see how "game ruining" this is.
Personally, I wish they leave a lot of cosmology out regardless. Cosmology should be a campaign setting specific thing.
That's pretty much where I am on this particular issue. I see that it's got some people really riled up both for and against, but I'm just sorta left wondering, "So? The nature of heaven, hell, and the afterlife changes from campaign to campaign anyway, doesn't it?"
What I want to know is how this change is supposed to make my game better at the table.
-The Gneech
I was looking forward to a change. This, however, was not the change for which I was hoping.
Nailed it in one.
|
|
I see them losing fans in several ways
But, while I'm fairly certain I'm probably a minority...
They are gaining fans (at least initially in my case)who haven't bought a product from them in years, by moving past an edition which is overly bloated and barely recognizable as D&D anymore except in name.
I'll not venture to make any predictions how it will all work out in the end, but I do know that them moving past the 3e thing has me actually excited about D&D again.
|
|
While EN World does have probably the largest number of members for a d20 site outside of WOTC's own, a large number does not automatically make it a representative sample. I have a user name there, but didn't post for years, and after a few weeks of 4th edition news, quit posting there once more. So I "count" as a member, but don't often make my opinion known, and go there far more frequently to the news page than the forums.
I'm not saying it is or isn't correct, just that its not a verifiable means of getting a representative sample of the whole gaming community. If I made that same poll at Candlekeep, Canonfire, or here, I'd bet the results would be different, but they would be no more representative as a sample.
I actually 100% agree with you. Was mainly just responding to Helbron's assertion that some vast majority of the gaming population was against the change. It is entirely untrue.
takes it further and further from true D&D...
I always thought true D&D is what each gaming group decides it is. I have firearms in my game? For some firearms is not real D&D. But for me and my players it is baby. It is baby it is. To some Ebberon is not real D&D (they chucked the whole great wheel out the door as well.) To some it is.
I'm a big fan of the Great Wheel. I was a big fan of Planescape which is built arround the great wheel cosmology. But I like the stuff they present about the 4e cosmology as well. to me it sounds cool.
|
|
I expect we will see a much greater use of new names, proper nouns, and other means to help keep 4E's fluff safely closed and thus providing distinctiveness to the official D&D brand. WotC is committed to a 4E SRD only because they have to, not out of principle. That is, if 4E remained closed, that'd create a real opportunity for someone to come in and produce a v.3.5-compatible "Wizards & Warriors" game to lure away people who might eventually upgrade to 4E. WotC doesn't want that, so 4E will be open, but I'd wager good money that it'll be done a fair bit more cynically than last time around.
That could be, but between FR, Eberron, Greyhawk, the wealth of 2e settings they could revive, and new setting material, I don't see WotC hurting for potentially valuable IP. I really doubt that the default multiversal structure, whether it be the Great Wheel or something new, really contributes much to that. IOW, while they may make more use of the IP in a new default setting, that doesn't seem like a sufficient reason for or against sweeping changes to the cosmology.
Actually, wasn't there an earlier discussion about how Ice Devils were now going to be Yugoloths, and that insectoid features would be the difining point of the Yugoloth race? I can't remember where I read it, but it made me wonder whether Chasme demons would become Yugoloths, or even old Lolth herself? I wonder if they'll go back to calling them daemons though.
Yup. I read that too.
2) If you are going to make a change to something popular and established, you do NOT go in with a chainsaw and massacre it. You try to use a scalpel and do precision work that will not be as dramatically noticeable. That being said, you can use the chainsaw if you do not care about your established customers and want to market an entirely new product. Which, unfortunately, seems to be the case here.
4) Opening up new markets and tailoring them to the new customers is totally acceptable, but NOT at the cost of your established base. This base, whether WoTC likes it or not, is going to be the top $$$ portion of sales. If you piss them off too much (as it seems is happening) you will lose sales. Some loss is acceptable and is even expected in the marketing strategy, but too great a loss nullifies the gains. Simple economics/business.
Both very relevant when they switched from AD&D to the d20 3e crud. Although now its the 3e fans bemoaning it.
True, but 3rd edition was actually far more respectful of *1st* edition, in ways that 2nd was not. That's what attracted me to it.
Actually, wasn't there an earlier discussion about how Ice Devils were now going to be Yugoloths, and that insectoid features would be the difining point of the Yugoloth race? I can't remember where I read it, but it made me wonder whether Chasme demons would become Yugoloths, or even old Lolth herself? I wonder if they'll go back to calling them daemons though.Yup. I read that too.
The only article I can remember was the blog post by Rich Baker that broke the Succubus news, in which he said that gelugons were more of a "demon/yugoloth" race. Which to me implied that yugoloths are gone in 4th edition, unless you guys read a different article elsewhere.
That could be, but between FR, Eberron, Greyhawk, the wealth of 2e settings they could revive, and new setting material, I don't see WotC hurting for potentially valuable IP.
Certainly they're not, but look at how they're using that IP. We've already seen that they're importing "Tharizdun" into the default meta-setting of 4E. They've also mentioned Obad-Hai in reference to the elves. In short, they look like they're cannibalizing existing IP to create the new edition rather than using it in continuity with what came before.
I have no idea what this means, but it is interesting and it represents a departure from how 3E handled existing IP.
Ok what if:
During some Recent Unpleasantness, some epic adventurers managed to thwart the plans of the Prince of Demons, resulting in his destruction. Total chaos (hee hee) reigns in the Abyss as every demon lord scrambles unsuccessfully to claim his crown. The Blood War is abandoned; the demons just stop showing up as any semblance of organization degenerates in battles between themselves. In fact the very Abyss rises up in rage at the loss of its Prince, ramping up the feral nature of its creations.
Or,
During some Recent Unpleasantness, the plans of the Prince of Demons succeeded beyond even his expectations. A tide of savagery powered by the effective destruction of an entire world (?!!?) wiped across the Abyss in such massive amounts that any shred of higher thought was wiped from all but the most powerful of demons.
Devil angle would still need to be explained.
..Of course, when TSR tried to rationalize rule changes with The Fate of Istus, it freakin' drove me nuts...