*Trade Kobold Crown for a fortune teller's .... whatever those things are called that take up their head slot*
Here's how I see the future, tell me how close or far off you think I am.
D&D 4E will be released as planned. The 3 core books will sell well but not as well as WotC hoped. Between 30-50% of D&D's current audiance will not switch over. Some new blood will be attracted to take the place of the old, but they will not attract as many as they lost.
Those that did not switch will hold true to 3.5 for a time (1-2 years) and support those publishers that stay behind before numberous distinct paths start to show. A small percentage will be tired of hearing of how D&D was slashed and burned for kindling and will leave the hobby for a time and an even smaller percentage turn to the indy RPGs. The first of the larger, more well travelled paths will look for a totally different feel of RPG (horror, supers). The second will stay true to 3.5 for years to come (all the way to 5.0 or even 6.0). The third will be those that try to recapture their love of Science Fiction and Star Wars and such.
And the largest, most well travelled path of them all will be playing a fanasy rpg that captures the feel of the game they love.
-----------------------------------------------------
Now that I finished writing this, I realized that what I wrote could be an allusion to Pathfinder. That wasn't my intention; I was thinking of Robert Frost's, "The Road Less Travelled". So please don't ascribe any meaning to that in any way, shape or form.
|
Here's how I see the future, tell me how close or far off you think I am.
Hi there! :-) For what it's worth I think the # of folk who didn't take up 2nd edition and stuck with 1st edition was pretty large. Because I still know many of them. I switched, however.
I'm also pretty sure that that # went down, and that many more 2nd edition players DID convert to 3rd. I don't know anyone who didn't. I know I switched!
I think the edition split this time around is more to what you predict. In polls everywhere and general ideals Eric Noah may have the quote of the year: "There really has never been a better time NOT to switch." I know I won't, it's the easiest decision I ever had to make!
And your last quote, most interesting, is about the flavor of the game. Because D&D at it's core always seemed to be mostly flavorless in intent, to give a set of generic fantasy tools to DMs to let them create the world of their choice, and now, in mnay different ways, they are intruding on that. By both stripping many things we know and expect and forcing other stuff down our mouths. Well, those who buy the stuff, at least. :-)
-DM Jeff
I predict only 10% refuse to switch. For all the bemoaning, I see no more resistance than 3.5.
I think the edition split this time around is more to what you predict. In polls everywhere and general ideals Eric Noah may have the quote of the year: "There really has never been a better time NOT to switch." I know I won't, it's the easiest decision I ever had to make!
Wow, Eric Noah said that? Was that in reponse to 4th Edition I assume?
I wonder how he feels about his old website, ENWorld, completely selling out to WotC?
I predict only 10% refuse to switch. For all the bemoaning, I see no more resistance than 3.5.
I agree. Too much disposable income isn't being spent right now by those whom regularly buy splat books and the like. These people would spend more if it made their character more powerful.
|
If the switch to 4E is anything like the switch to 2E or 3E it will go like this:
Game store opens on the first day 4E is available. No mad rush.
As the day goes on the first shipment of books sells briskly and by the time Saturday rolls around they will be gone.
Grognards stand by wondering who these people are. They ask why is this thing selling? Bewildered they watch as day by day and week by week gamers they did not know existed come in and pick up the abomination that is the new edition.
People still come in to buy older books for a while, but as the year moves on the shelf of old games begins to collect dust as the 4E material comes in.
Then at some point even the grognards begin to switch. This usually happens when a cool third party product hits the shelves - "This game sucked until The Grim Keep of the Doom Lords came along" - or their favorite setting moves over to 4E - "I wasn't gonna play but if Ed Garfield's Misplaced Kingdoms is gonna switch I figure the game must be ok".
By the time we are three years in most will be playing the new edition except for those that feel no need - but they will be a minority group compared to those that play the current edition.
I predict only 10% refuse to switch. For all the bemoaning, I see no more resistance than 3.5.I agree. Too much disposable income isn't being spent right now by those whom regularly buy splat books and the like. These people would spend more if it made their character more powerful.
I'd rather not spend my disposal income on what I consider to be a disposal game.
I will stick with 3.X and support any company that puts out decent products for 3.X. If none do, then I'll play 3.5 until I run out of materials or a better version of D&D comes along (I'm hoping that 5th edition will return the game to its roots).
|
I will add my own equally random thoughts in here, too, then. :)
I expect 4e will sell well out of the gate - even some of the people who have said they have no need nor desire to switch have said that they will buy the core three just to see what they're like (as for me, I'll just download them... I hear you can do that through the intertubes).
To pull a number out of my ass, I will say that approximately 40% of the existing customer base will not switch, but 40% of those will still buy the core books just to take a look. That means that about 76% of the existing customer base will buy the new books.
Wizards will manage to attract approximately a 1% increase in their customer base from new players. These will be players who either haven't played D&D in a while, or people who have never really liked D&D but will give it a shot now that there is a new edition.
There will be 1 person who will buy the books and play it just to spite the 3e players (sorry DangerDwarf :).
There will be an increase of 0% in the customer base from converted MMORPGers. Any MMORPGer who wants to play a tabletop/p&p/ftf roleplaying game likely already is. If they don't have an interest in that, I doubt there is a game around that could entice them away from the immersive world that is WoW (or one of the other MMORPGs).
This results in a net loss of 23%-1 customers.
Now, where it goes from there is really dependent upon how good the system is. I have the following highly researched numbers:
Of the 60% who do switch immediately, I predict that about 35% of them will drift off to other games (maybe back to 3.x, maybe onto a totally different system - they switched once to 4.0, why not switch to another new system and see what it's like... their brand loyalty has been betrayed and they feel no reason to bother with WotC anymore). THe other 65% of the 60% (39% of old 3.x customer base) will truly enjoy 4e and will pump all sorts of crazy coin into the DI and other stuff that WotC offers online, in addition to a neverending stream of paper.
Of the 16% who never planned to switch but bought the books to take a look, 40% will switch to 4e, and the rest will stay with 3.x. That is another 6.4% of the original 3.x customer base who will be playing 4e.
Oh, and DangerDwarf will go back to playing 2e where he has the most fun (and as I've said before, I liked 2e, good system :). A further 0% increase will occur due to lured MMORPGers.
That means, after a year to 18 months of 4e exposure, I expect the customer base to be about 45.4% of what the 3.x customer base was before the announcement of 4e.
Where do the other 54.6% go? I think that about 44% will still be playing 3.x and 10.6% will abandon D&D altogether for other game systems and companies.
Now, imagine the joy Paizo would feel if they could rein in some or all of that 44% of D&D's current customer base for their own products. I expect that would be quite an impressive feat that they could pull off.
Farther into the future, I think that after 3 years, depending entirely on what the support is like for the 3.x ruleset, some of the "holdouts" will switch to 4.0 (or more likely 4.3.09 by that time) for reasons which might include "I couldn't find anyone in my area playing 3.x", "We thought we'd give it another shot", "I heard that 5e was right around the corner, so I thought I'd get in and buy up as many 4e products as I could" etc.
Anyway, that's my highly educated, well informed, researched, and time-travelled-for-verification input.
PS - DangerDwarf, I hope you don't get mad at me including you in my statistics, it was meant in good fun and not to pick on you. :)
|
|
I predict that 73% of the current 4e haters will be saying "I'm not switching! I've got enough 4e books to carry me through the next decade!" when 5e is announced.
I agree... My reading seems to indicate that exactly the same thing happened when 3rd Edition came out. I think that most people will switch over in a year or so. I think that there is much more communication now and there is a group of 4e haters that a vocal few have a huge influence on.
I have a friend who stayed with 2e for a time. Then stayed with 3e for about a year and now is a firm 3.5 person. He doubts that he will try 4e right out of the gate but will eventually get there.
I have already ordered everything from Amazon that comes up for 4e but do not know about how and when I will switch. I will be playing several 3.5 APs into next year and will not switch until Paizo does (if they do) because their APs are what I am interested in playing.
I certainly will not make any major decisions until I sit with the books for awhile to decide what is what.
There are lots of other signs in the future as well:
- Oil just hit $100 a barrel. Gas to get to my friend's houses to play isn't ever going to get cheaper than it is today.
- I might want to own a house one day soon. I'll have to curb lots of spending to do so.
- I wear the clothes I own until they're threadbare, should my gaming habits be any different?
Simply put, I'm not ecstatic about 4e. If I do indeed decide to play it, I'll be waiting for used copies to start popping up. I have a lot of games to play, so I'm in no hurry to fork over my hard earned money to keep up to date. Heck, I was running a Celeron computer until about a year ago!
|
There will be 1 person who will buy the books and play it just to spite the 3e players (sorry DangerDwarf :).
Actually, I will liquidate my retirement accounts in order to buy as many copies of the core books as possible to get the greatest amount of spite possible while sitting atop a veritable mountain of books cackling madly. Also, while playing 4e on the super awesome DDI tabletop ,I'll be real-time posting on these boards as to just how much fun I am having for no other reason than to hose off the grognards.
Oh, and DangerDwarf will go back to playing 2e where he has the most fun (and as I've said before, I liked 2e, good system :).
At which point I'll trade in my million extra copies of the 4e core three for store credit at Noble Knight Games and finish off my collection of still needed 2nd Edition books. All the while moaning about having to work an extra 15 years to catch my retirement accounts back up.
PS - DangerDwarf, I hope you don't get mad at me including you in my statistics, it was meant in good fun and not to pick on you. :)
don't mind in the slightest dude. I got a huge laugh when I read it.
I won't make predictions now, but I am *very* curious how well the game will be received at Origins and Gen Con this year.
I think con buzz will go a long way towards telling the success or failure of 4E (from a long-term point of view).
My personal hope is that the fanbase will find the changes to be too drastic, leading to a better edition with 5E from a different company that runs D&D under the guidance of a visionary leader (as original 3E was, IIRC) rather than development by committee (as 4E is).
I feel that Peter Adkison was so respectful of the game's origins and history which helped contribute to 3E's success. The current designers seem to want to make a fun game, but don't seem to give a damn about the history of the game. We'll see if it works out for them.
My vision of the future is entirely different. I believe that Apple will make an ipod/iphone product so amazingly useful and perfect that it will attain sentience and enslave humanity.
*WHA-PSSSHH*
"Ow! Why are you whipping us? We're not resisting!"
"We just like whipping!"
|
|
My vision of the future is entirely different. I believe that Apple will make an ipod/iphone product so amazingly useful and perfect that it will attain sentience and enslave humanity.
*WHA-PSSSHH*
"Ow! Why are you whipping us? We're not resisting!"
"We just like whipping!"
In that vision of the future I predict 17% of the population enjoying the whippings.
I wonder how he feels about his old website, ENWorld, completely selling out to WotC?
There is so much wrong with that sentence, I'm not too sure where to start...
My vision of the future is entirely different. I believe that Apple will make an ipod/iphone product so amazingly useful and perfect that it will attain sentience and enslave humanity.
*WHA-PSSSHH*
"Ow! Why are you whipping us? We're not resisting!"
"We just like whipping!"In that vision of the future I predict 17% of the population enjoying the whippings.
I think that's a fairly accurate statistic, taking into account that some whipping enthusiasts will prefer humans on the other end and therefore will not be into this ipod initiated masochism while others will not normally be whipping types but will be into it just because it's new gadgets doing it to them. So it balances out.
I won't make any scrying. I just think that this present situation might be turning out very differently from the 2E-to-3E switch or any previous edition switch for that matter.
Kinda reminds me of the 3E to 3.5 transition, just with more time for teeth-gnashing. I expect the result will be similar.
I groaned when serious talk of 4e began. I'd just gotten back into D&D with 3.5 after being out since 1st ed. And I am just as skeptical (though not as cynical) as other "WoTC is a soul-less, capitalist machine" posters. WoTC will never escape that anyway.
Then I started to really listen to the 4e changes and the reasons for those changes.
The changes make sense. They address some clunky and flawed issues of 3.5 gameplay. While I won't enjoy laying out money for new books, I think it will be worth it.
As for the switch-over dynamics:
1. Resistance will be strong. 3rd ed grew with the Internet and online communities that connect gamers and designers. Gamers have a whole wwweb-worth of material that they themselves have contributed to the game. That's tough to say 'goodbye' to.
2. According to ENWorld, there will be WoTC material and the rest is OGL. Everyone will be able to legally use 4e mechanics. That will entice many convert, and make the transition easier (for those who are on the fence).
3. ...and this is strictly my gut reaction after exploring the 4e changes- the D&D learning curve was meant to be flattened in 4e. This will attract new gamers (kids who like the speed and immediacy of Magic or miniature games) but want more of a role-playing experience. Yet 4e is not 'D&D lite' as many might think a change like this often produces.
3.x sought to unify the game mechanics. 4e improves upon that, but with a focus on the gameplay. If it turns out the way the designers at Wizards say it will, it might not be so bad after all.
Since the majority of you are going to switch anyway, why not try a completely new system. You know…one that works.
And don't forget, there will be a 4.5. Mark my words.
I think that the number of people not switching will be greater than ever before. This has a couple of reasons:
1. While previous edition transitions were mostly rules, with only minor changes in the game's flavour and history, this transition messes with the game history big time. Things that have been true in D&D for 30 years will no longer be true in 4e. And I'm not talking about how many hit dice a troll has or who happens to roll the saves now. Many will just stop playing because they want to play D&D, and this new thing isn't D&D for them.
2. Making point 1 worse, they move away from the mostly universal fantasy RPG D&D was. 4e seems hellbent on hardwiring their history into the rules, so those who want to play in other worlds will have a harder time. Cynics could say that they do this to make it harder for other companies' campaign settings to work with 4e, so the Competition will be put at an advantage, which is easier than making an effort to improve the own products.
3. 3e has had a bigger support then any other edition before, due to the SRD/OGL. With smaller publishers on the scene, as well as books sold as electronic versions instead of print, there is a vast amount of material usable for D&D 3e or with very similar rules to it, and many of it is quite good.
Smaller publishers and pdfs mean that they don't have to sell nearly as many copies as wizards and still consider it a success, so more specialised topics can get their own books (like books on taverns, single monsters like bugbears, a single type or weaon like whip, a single new base class like noble, and many others).
In addition, many new campaign settings appeared on the scene, and many fiction settings got a d20 treatment - and many of those are still around.
All that means that even if you don't change to 4e, and even if not a single new book is ever again produced for 3e after 4e's release, people will still have tons of material to use - enough to last several lifetimes.
4. Due to the SRD/OGL being there forever, 3e can still be supported, even if 4e hits the game scene. With former editions, the support for the older edition ceased as soon as the new one appeared - once 3e was there, no one made any more 2e book. But for 3e, there can still be more books for those who want to stick around.
And not only that: Support can also come from other users. With the internet, we can keep publishing our house rules for those who want them, we can have communities to discuss the rules, and the Net's much more crowded than it was with older editions.
It's true: It was never as good not to switch as it is now.
5. A lot of settings and the like will probably not work with 4e, and I think that many of those have enough fans to keep them published even with an "outdated" ruleset.
Take Midnight for example. A world of rare magic, where you have to think twice before casting a spell. That is probably the exact opposite of what wizards wants to achieve in 4e: All Magic All The Time.
6. I also think that wizards attitude is worse than ever before. That means more people pissed off then ever before. That means more people that won't give Wizards any more money than ever before.
All in all, it seems clear to me that more people will give the new edition a pass than ever.
And as for new customers to make up the loss:
I don't think there will be that many. Certainly not enough.
Sure, some roleplayers who don't care about D&D's history, or maybe actually hate it, will play this new game that is called D&D for some reason. But it remains to be seen whether that many of those will stick to it.
And as for those they apparently try to draw from the MMORPG crowd: My prediction is that only very few people will start playing D&D because it got more like WoW, and even less (if any) will leave WoW for D&D.
In fact, I think it's rather the other way around: They seem to make D&D so much like WoW that people will directly compare them. They'll see that D&D's main advantage - complete freedfom - has been reduced in 4e, and not as well supported as before. And it still plays as smoothly as WoW, with the computer taking care of all the rules, and rollings, and calculations. 4e is fast-pased and action-packed? Well, WoW is far more so, and people who value those things will invariably choose WoW.
Sure, some roleplayers who don't care about D&D's history, or maybe actually hate it, will play this new game that is called D&D for some reason. But it remains to be seen whether that many of those will stick to it.
You are forgetting about those DMs that are flexible enough to take the new rules and adapt them to their own fluff. Never has the official D&D prescribed fluff been mandatory.
Greg
I think you should say "Never BEFORE has the fluff been mandatory" - from what WotC has shown us so far, it appears they SERIOUSLY wish to end this little bit of history.
Maybe they'll prove me wrong - I hope so - but...
Maybe I haven't been reading everything very closely, but the only thing that I've seen that even comes close to the idea that fluff is mandatory, is the change of succubi from demons to devils. And I suspect it wouldn't be hard to change the succubi entry in the MM yourself to add tanar'ri traits and remove baatzu.
Hey if Mike Mearls can change the ogre mage and beholder because he doesn't like the MM entry, why can't I?
Greg
That means, after a year to 18 months of 4e exposure, I expect the customer base to be about 45.4% of what the 3.x customer base was before the announcement of 4e.
That's about the number I arrive at as well.
If true, that will of course mean the end of D&D as a pen-and-paper game. But, I believe 4e was only ever meant as a bridge between old school tabletop D&D and the new all-online version that Hasbro doubtless has planned.
I suspect the only reason there's a 4e at all is because the 3.5 rules are too difficult to code. And I'm certain that regardless of how well 4e does or does not sell, there will never be another print edition of D&D.
And I'm certain that regardless of how well 4e does or does not sell, there will never be another print edition of D&D.
Can I quote you on that?
You are forgetting about those DMs that are flexible enough to take the new rules and adapt them to their own fluff. Never has the official D&D prescribed fluff been mandatory.
You're wrong, I'm not forgetting anything. The fluff is going to be hard-coded into the rules a lot more than older editions, so changing it will be quite a lot of work. I know that many DMs don't have the time to change large parts of the rules they use. When it becomes too much work to make 4e work with the preferred fluff, people will ditch it alltogether.
|
|
Sure, some roleplayers who don't care about D&D's history, or maybe actually hate it, will play this new game that is called D&D for some reason. But it remains to be seen whether that many of those will stick to it.
You are forgetting about those DMs that are flexible enough to take the new rules and adapt them to their own fluff. Never has the official D&D prescribed fluff been mandatory.
Greg
Not only do I agree with what you just said but I also believe that the majority of GMs simply did not use vastness of D&D canon wholesale. Details are used, certain default assumptions are monopolized, but a lot of the material is simply changed. Sometimes this change comes from GMs wanting to make their mark and sometimes these deviations derive from a simple lack of knowledge.
|
|
That, and it's one way to further reign in their IP, keeping more of the Cash Cow in their own hands, which seems to be at least 1/3 of their motivation behind this edition.
I am not sure how this helps them reign in their IP. The current elf fluff is not included in the SRD, though the details of how an elf operates is generally accepted amongst most publishers and players. But even with this default assumption ingrained in D&D culture there are notable and dramatic deviations from that fluff. Even if the new fluff is included in the new SRD there is nothing to say publishers must use that material.
I don't think the future will be different. Right now we have some implied fluff for goblins based on material in the MM. But if I were to pick up a 3rd party campaign setting, like Golarion, I can see the changes Paizo made are clearly defined. So as a GM I can say, this is how goblins operate in this world. I think this will remain to be the case once 4e is released.
i am curious - what fluff looks mandatory to you?
Ever try to pry the concept of Character = Equipment out of D&D?
My guess is that most people will switch. I've been around since 1st, and eventually the vast majority of people have always switched. There are just too many advantages that using the current, in-print edition brings to the table to ignore long-term.
I predict most of the "I'm never going to switch" rhetoric, while sincere, will ultimately be much ado about nothing.
The only way I see that *not* happening is for them to produce something unplayable, which I frankly just don't see happening.
I'm certain that regardless of how well 4e does or does not sell, there will never be another print edition of D&D.
This is an...odd assertion. If history shows us anything, it is that people are amazing resourceful when there is money to be made. If 4E sells well enough to point to future print editions being profitable, someone will print them, for good or ill.
i am curious - what fluff looks mandatory to you?
It is a matter of perspective...
To some, all the people I know for example, Vancian magic is a strong part of D&D. The new "cool down" magic is "mandatory" fluff.
Now, an argument could be made to change the rules... But if you do, then you aren't really playing 4th Edition. To play 4th Edition, at least as it is intended, there are several "fluff-mechanical" changes that are mandatory.
Fighters that have abilities that "feel" like spells, casters never running out of power, *no penalty for anything... These are all "fluff" changes that have been written into the new edition. Yes, they can be changed or altered to suit... But never before have people had to stray so far from an edition's intended direction to bring it back in line with previous editions.
It comes down to just how someone wants to apply "mandatory" to the fluff changes. It is both true, and false, to varying degrees.
*My take from the Elf write up. If they have removed penalties to attributes (a one time adjustment), they are very likely removing penalties from everything - and just replacing them with bonuses where appropriate instead.
i am curious - what fluff looks mandatory to you?It is a matter of perspective...
To some, all the people I know for example, Vancian magic is a strong part of D&D. The new "cool down" magic is "mandatory" fluff.
Now, an argument could be made to change the rules... But if you do, then you aren't really playing 4th Edition. To play 4th Edition, at least as it is intended, there are several "fluff-mechanical" changes that are mandatory.
Fighters that have abilities that "feel" like spells, casters never running out of power, *no penalty for anything... These are all "fluff" changes that have been written into the new edition. Yes, they can be changed or altered to suit... But never before have people had to stray so far from an edition's intended direction to bring it back in line with previous editions.
It comes down to just how someone wants to apply "mandatory" to the fluff changes. It is both true, and false, to varying degrees.
*My take from the Elf write up. If they have removed penalties to attributes (a one time adjustment), they are very likely removing penalties from everything - and just replacing them with bonuses where appropriate instead.
There are certainly massive social and setting details implicit in the magic system. I think this is inescapable with any defined, ready-to-use out of the box system. You can use something like HERO to build a magic system that (seems to) support the setting you want, but otherwise you live with what came in the box. Obviously this isn't new to 4th edition, but we might be looking at such things much more carefully now. I know many published settings seem to ignore the social impact of the D&D magic system.
It is a matter of perspective...
It absolutely is.
To some, all the people I know for example, Vancian magic is a strong part of D&D. The new "cool down" magic is "mandatory" fluff.
Now, an argument could be made to change the rules... But if you do, then you aren't really playing 4th Edition. To play 4th Edition, at least as it is intended, there are several "fluff-mechanical" changes that are mandatory.
Fighters that have abilities that "feel" like spells, casters never running out of power, *no penalty for anything... These are all "fluff" changes that have been written into the new edition. Yes, they can be changed or altered to suit... But never before have people had to stray so far from an edition's intended direction to bring it back in line with previous editions.
It comes down to just how someone wants to apply "mandatory" to the fluff changes. It is both true, and false, to varying degrees.
Ok. I agree in principal with everything you say. Except none of this is "fluff" to me. It's "crunch". Fluff to me is "elves and eladrin are the same race". I can change that in an instant in my world ("no they aren't"). But the removal of the "fire-and-forget" magic system and the addition of spells to fighters are rules. They are crunch. I was referring to how people were saying the "fluff" was mandatory. The "crunch" is nearly always mandatory, but the fluff never is.
Greg
Ahh...
Different perspectives again.
I take it, by default, that WotC changed the fluff of D&D and then wrote rules to accommodate those changes as "mandatory fluff."
If specifically referring to the new fluff-only content as mandatory, no it isn't.
Ahh...
Different perspectives again.
I take it, by default, that WotC changed the fluff of D&D and then wrote rules to accommodate those changes as "mandatory fluff."
If specifically referring to the new fluff-only content as mandatory, no it isn't.
Even rules themselves aren't strictly mandatory. Hence the creation of "house rules". But yes, rules can be considered to be mandatory (if you aren't playing the D&D rules, then you aren't playing D&D).
But the original poster was stating that "fluff was mandatory". I was offering the opinion that fluff is the opposite of mandatory - it's optional.
Greg
|
|
If you've actually seen the SRD, then I'll defer to your judgement. All I've seen are the previews, and these IMPLY (but do not actually state/enforce) a very strong tie between "Fluff" and "Crunch" - one that gives them a much tighter grip on the "brand" and anything done with it.
I have not seen the SRD either, no one has. Both of us are drawing conclusions from perception. I am tempering that with how the OGL has been applied in the past. I am hard pressed to figure out how it would be possible to enforce a strong fluff/crunch connection through the OGL. A new 4e OGL would at least have to take into consideration what has come before. Otherwise the 4e OGL would be so prohibitive that publishers would simply ignore it in favor of the easier to use current OGL.
Even the guys at Paizo have stated they believe the OGL might even be more permissive than the current one, though I admit there is not explicit evidence that is true. Wizards can impose limits on what is acceptable for third party publishers to produce. They can determine what goes into the SRD. I have no doubt that certain proprietary creatures will not be included. But there is no logic in limiting third party development by insisting all fluff found in the SRD must be used by publishers in their material. Such a restriction would render the contract useless to publishers like Paizo and thus negate the spirit of the license entirely. It would certainly hinder development on both ends of the spectrum. Wizards could ignore anything produced by a third party publisher but this action would increase the chances they duplicate efforts, something neither Wizards or third party publishers would want.
Wizards doesn't need to take a tighter hold of the brand. They produce Dungeons and Dragons. Third party publishers operating under the OGL don't. They produce material that is compatible, nothing more. This is how it is under the 3e OGL and I would be overwhelmingly surprised if that changed with 4e. Further distinction is being made by eliminating the d20 stl for 4e but that is as far as the company needs to go to maintain brand integrity.
But let's presume your scenario is true. What explicit evidence from the previews leads you to believe Wizards will tie the hands of publishers so completely? What is about the previews that seems to contradict 8 years of a fairly equitable practice? Give me some quotes that seem to imply the limitation of development by third party publishers.
3e had an implied setting. 4e does as well. The fluff doesn't seem any more integrated now than it does in 3e. The three core books will create a baseline assumption that may or may not hold true for future settings produced by Wizards or third party publishers, just as it does now.
Simply put, if Wizards wanted to take control of the brand they wouldn't have produced a 4e OGL or SRD at all. They would have changed the game so much (elimination of AC, HP, etc.) as to make it impossible to produce compatible material under the current OGL. There are ways of doing it that are much more definitive. Even the transition between 3.0 and 3.5 was frustrating but hardly earth shattering and certainly not limiting in the ways you seem to be indicating.
I am much more likely to believe that Wizards will come back say "Oops, sorry, we decided 4e won't be available via an OGL" than have them create a scarecrow of a license that will prevent development of varied and diverse material.
I do think the marketing material that Wizards produces will be very clear that there is a difference between OGL developed material and product with the Dungeons and Dragons logo on it. It only makes sense for them to draw that line in the consumer's mind.
In the end though, this is a discussion based on perception. If I am wrong, trust me, I will eat crow and admit my mistake. You can quote me on that.
Never has the official D&D prescribed fluff been mandatory.
Never has there been official fluff to speak of.
Never before have DMs had to work much to remove it -- that's likely to change with 4/e. Not arguing, just pointing out an annoying (IMO) point.
|
|
Never has there been official fluff to speak of.
Never before have DMs had to work much to remove it -- that's likely to change with 4/e. Not arguing, just pointing out an annoying (IMO) point.
The funny thing is, that here in Germany some people are complaining about what they see as the most fluff-less edition of D&D since the red box. They think that it would be much easier to get new players into D&D if someone showed them how to role-play (instead of showing them how to rule-play which isn't considered too difficult for someone growing up with German Games).
This is not necessarily my opinion (as far as 4E is concerned I'm true neutral at the moment), but it makes me wonder how one can have such a different view about the same thing.
|
|
Never has the official D&D prescribed fluff been mandatory.Never has there been official fluff to speak of.
Never before have DMs had to work much to remove it -- that's likely to change with 4/e. Not arguing, just pointing out an annoying (IMO) point.
I don't see it. What is about 3e fluff that is less integrated than what we have seen in the previews so far? There is a ton of fluff that is assumed in the three core books alone. It seems generic enough but familiarity is not the same as a lack of official fluff.
Just as an example, the hierarchies and residents of both the Nine Hells and the Abyss. How is the current set-up any different than the one Wizards is proposing? How will it be more difficult to change?
How is removing tieflings from my 4e games any different than my friend removing gnomes or halflings from his 3e game?
I will admit none of us have seen the books yet so making these kind of calls is dicey at best. I might be very wrong. I am only basing this on my perception of the preview material. I just don't see so much there that I can't change if need be.
Talking about switching don't forget that it was not easy to stay with 1st edition and 2nd edition as it was with 3rd edition since the moment you stay with 1.0 or 2.0 you were at your own. No more support, no more adventures, no more nothing. But since the arrive of the d20 license started a flood of in most cases excellent material so no one wanted loose that great quantity of good stuff and this made the transition easier. At this time 3.5 has a crowd of followers and support material and devoted websites and accumulated stuff and publishers who will stick than any other RPG system in the history. So those who stay with 3.5 will not suffer not even a bit at least for 5 to 10 years when the new edition arrives after the 4th edition failure.
Maybe those who are still playing 3.5 and converting all 4th edition stuff to 3.5 will embrace 5th edition (a system promised to go back to the roots of the game) to make a fresh change after almost 2 decades of 3.5 I perhaps could be among them.