Frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about here. If anything, 3e is less 'look under the hood' because there are a bazillion ways to add capabilities to mobs. In 1e (skipped 2e, personally) there were tons of players who would say "oh, that's an ogre mage it does X, Y, and Z". In 3e, you can never be sure its not an advanced fiendish ogre mage warlock.
The whole convention for giving high end mobs tons of combat and non combat capabilities came from the 1e MM and modules.
Personally, I don't see any obvious reason for every high-level monster being capable of teleport to every place we wants, read thoughts, or polymorph into any creature, with all of these abilities at will and taking at most 6 seconds to use. High-level PCs certainly can't do that. Are these abilities really necessary, or you insist that they should have them because "that's how D&D always worked"?
Note that I don't have any problem with this second argument; tradition is important to many people, and I respect that. I just find strange that people say that they are "unable to role-play their high-level monsters" when some players make extremly interesting characters of high-level fighters, rangers and rogues that can't teleport, polymorph or read thoughts.
I do wish that they spent more effort on being creative in their new stuff instead of going down the path of least resistance.. like using gods from existing campaign worlds, making all angels generic, and so on. Some of the stuff they are doing is great, like the Feywild and the Shadowfell (though I'm not sold on the names, especially). A lot of stuff isn't.
And no matter how many times you tell me that I don't need to use the new material that still won't become a valid rebuttal to criticism of the new material's quality.
Well... have you took the opportunity to read "Worlds & Monsters"? I think that those who have a little bit of open mind left should really read this book, and perhaps will change their perception of things. For me, it really changed.
Apart from Eberron and Ravenloft, that's the first D&D fluff I actually enjoyed reading after 15 years. It's incredible how removing the word "symmetry" and reducing the frequency of the word "aligmment" can make everything seem less predictable and interesting.
I can have a "Shadowfell" without the need of a "Lightfell".
I can have a "Far Realm" without the need of a "Near Realm".
I can have "evil devils" without the need of "good angels".
I can have undead which have a tendency towards evil, but at the same time aren't inherently evil by any means.
I can have death being truly uncertain and mysterious, rather than expecting the dead guy to become a 2-HD outsider and going to the plane associated with its alignment.
I can have dragons that I don't choose if I'm going to attack or not by looking at their color.
I don't have any doubt that 4E fluff is both creative and interesting. Does it breaks 30 years of tradition? Yes. Does it upset a lot of people who truly enjoyed the old fluff? Yes, and these people are correct on feeling upset.
But it really annoys me when people (it's not you, Timothy) call the new fluff "dumb" or "stupid", because I like it, as much as I like Eberron and 2E Ravenloft. I wonder how these people would feel if I said that "all this Great Wheel stuff is incredibly dumb and stupid"?
Careful there Krauser! You keep talking like that and everyone might start getting along over here! Where would that leave us then!
;)
I feel similarly about "Worlds and Monsters." I can understand the frustration of people who love the traditional D&D cosmology, but I thought the handling of Shadowfell and Feywild, for example, and their interaction with the main world was actually pretty intriguing.
As curiosity, the role-playing information for the succubus in the various editions:
...
2nd edition
??? (I don't know where they are)...
What edition provides the best insight of how to use the succubus outside combat?
For 2e see the Planescape Monstrous Compendium. At a quick glance there's about double the length of that 4e section. Plus there's the details you can collect from the tanar'ri chapter of 'Faces of Evil: The Fiends' which frankly nothing since has touched (though FC:I comes damn close, but its focus is in different areas FoE).
Antioch,
The only problem with them recycling the names is that you are creating a generation gap in communication. Maybe you only talk to folks playing the latest edition, but there are lots of places where folks playing a variety of editions of D&D mingle. The fact that eladrin used to be celestials and now are faeries... or that archons used to be angels and now are elementals... is that every time I want to talk about archons or eladrin in a post or article, I now have to specify what I'm talking about. That's never been an issue before. Writing edition free fan articles is now much more difficult than it was before. Until 4e comes out, I can write a 'fluff' article and post it on canonfire and it'll be equally useful to a 1e, 2e, or 3e guy. In the future, I'll have to add a bunch of verbiage to cover 4e as well. That's annoying. They could have stopped using the old stuff and come up with new stuff and that wouldn't have been a problem. Now you can argue that WotC shouldn't care about that and you might be right. But its just a needless 'in your face', intentional or not, that is going to be a constant annoyance going forward.
Assuming that you were writing something for prior D&D editions, and the material happened to overlap, you could just as easily distinguish it by citing the relevant edition somewhere in the article's title, subtitle, or somewhere near the top.
Failing that, if you manage some kind of article archive, you could also organize them by edition (which is how I would do things anyway, assuming I wanted to write for older editions of a game).
Now, assuming I am regaling an game story to some friends, I'd just say what I already do now, opening it up with, "I remember back when I used to play 2nd Edition..."
See, I played 2nd Edition and even transitioned a character to 3rd Edition. I already HAVE to start off my stories ahead of time by telling whomever which edition I was playing my human fighter in, just to keep things clear.
Finally, you could look at the new naming conventions as an "in-your-face-thing", if you want. I dont see why you would, as I doubt that Wizards had any kind of baleful intention behind removing past symmetries for the same of symmetry and keeping some need-sounding names for other, more unique things.
For 2e see the Planescape Monstrous Compendium. At a quick glance there's about double the length of that 4e section.
Certainly. 2nd edition is probably the best when it comes on providing role-playing information on monsters. Dragon Magazine ecology articles are nice, but having them on a core book is one of the things I most miss from 2nd edition. Although I'm not sure if "Planescape Monstrous Compendium" can be considered a core book.
Oh, flavor text is pretty poor for most creatures in general throughout D&D's history. I'm not sure where you got the idea I thought 4e was starting something there. I said it was going even further down the wrong road than in the past. For me, at least, looking at monsters with diverse powers.. some combat and some non combat... would make me think of reasons why they would need such powers or when they might use them.
So, the statblocks would more "inspirational" to use the monster in non-combat situations than their description text? For experienced DMs like us, who easily ignore the flavor text, it may be the case. But since we are talking about unexperience/new DMs, I'm sure these give some look at the flavor text for ideas of how to use the monster. At least, I did that a lot with my 2E Monstrous Manual.
It's nice that I had good knowledge of role-playing 2E monsters when I switched to 3rd edition. It's no surprise that I can't role-play rasts, tojanidas and ravids at all on 3rd edition.
Not every high level monster needs to be able to teleport or anything else. Not every high level monster could, either.
So, why this plethora of "non-combat powers" is that important? It seems non-combat powers still exist on D&D 4E. Succubus still have the Change Shape ability. Pit fiends can still grant a wish to mortals through rituals. All devils can still teleport themselves through rituals. Pit fiends can't polymorph anymore, but I never thought they needed it. They are rulers and commanders, not seducers or spies. Their ability of making even the greatest kings of the world trembling in terror seems to fit them nicely.
Monsters have ability scores, skills, and can use rituals; which attends most of your needs when using a monster outside combat. Remember that monsters never had ability scores until 2E Skills & Powers, and didn't have skills/proficiencies until 3E.
No, but my sense is that WotC is stereotyping gamers and their games inaccurately...
My sense tells me that what they are doing is catering to the majority of D&D players, seeing as they have access to surveys, message boards, email messages, letters, and personal discussions with D&D players, and thus are a pretty good authority figure on what the mainstream likes and dislikes of D&D are.
Your sense is that WotC is completely upfront and honest in their claims. Mine isn't.
IMO the majority of D&D players wanted some things fixed -- but that's not what WotC did. Instead, they did a near-total redesign, which incidentally does a great job of coercing customers into replacing hundreds of dollars of books with new ones. At the same time they redefine the OGL (or whatever it's called now) in a way that further limits participation by other publishers. I won't even touch the DDI.
I'm sure 4/e has lots of good points, but I think why WotC made it and why they say they made it are two totally different animals.
Yes, I'm cynical. Brazen attempts at manipulation by corporations do that to me :/
So, essentially, all they are doing is saying "we don't feel like providing stats for the good guys since you won't fight them, we'll just make them the same as the bad guys you will fight but give them white hats instead of black ones". I think that's a terrible idea.
First, most of these "customized divine minions" from previous editions were presented on obscure supplements, many of them I personally never heard off. Heck, the 3E abishai was presented on "Monsters of Faerun"!
Second, "customized divine minions" are likely to exist on 4E. It was mentioned that Shadar-kai are servants of the Raven Queen, for instance. I find very likely that other "customized divine minions" will appear on the upcoming Manual of the Planes. But putting them in the core Monster Manual doesn't seem a good idea - we want to have things in the core Monster Manual other than "divine minions".
The only significant deviation from previous editions is that "angels" are now "generic divine servants" rather than "generic good-aligned divine servants". And previous edition angels didn't seem "customized" at all. Most of them were only "strikingly" handsome humans with feathered wings, who were "single-mindedly devoted to the cause of good and fighting evil". (Well, guardinals were humanoids with animal heads, but for some reason this idea doesn't seem "strikingly" cool and creative.) Maybe some obscure 2E Planescape supplement gives a better insight of them than this, but we're again, talking about newbie DMs, who will hardly have a better impression by looking at the core books only.
At least the Angels' 4E excerpt explictly mention that angels can have other motivations rather than "single-mindedly" following their deities' whims. That's how the devils were born, after all.
No, but my sense is that WotC is stereotyping gamers and their games inaccurately...My sense tells me that what they are doing is catering to the majority of D&D players, seeing as they have access to surveys, message boards, email messages, letters, and personal discussions with D&D players, and thus are a pretty good authority figure on what the mainstream likes and dislikes of D&D are.Your sense is that WotC is completely upfront and honest in their claims. Mine isn't.
IMO the majority of D&D players wanted some things fixed -- but that's not what WotC did. Instead, they did a near-total redesign, which incidentally does a great job of coercing customers into replacing hundreds of dollars of books with new ones. At the same time they redefine the OGL (or whatever it's called now) in a way that further limits participation by other publishers. I won't even touch the DDI.
I'm sure 4/e has lots of good points, but I think why WotC made it and why they say they made it are two totally different animals.
Yes, I'm cynical. Brazen attempts at manipulation by corporations do that to me :/
When 3.5 came out, the howling from the masses at the books being release with so few changes was so loud I had to drop off the message boards for several weeks or risk deafness. I find it ironic that now the outcry is that there are so many changes.
Giant evil corporations just can't win. :P
Giant evil corporations just can't win. :P
No, they can't :/
I'd hate to be the 4/e design staff, because there's no way to make everybody (or perhaps even most people) happy. I'm sure they are doing the best they can for the position they're in.
Regards again :)
Giant evil corporations just can't win. :PNo, they can't :/
I'd hate to be the 4/e design staff, because there's no way to make everybody (or perhaps even most people) happy. I'm sure they are doing the best they can for the position they're in.
Regards again :)
Aye, as I said re: the Paizo designers, its not easy being caught between two opposing groups of fans with seemingly ever diverging tastes. One way or another you end up losing some of your fans and it can at times become ... bitter is perhaps a nice way of saying it.
As the release comes and goes, however, I think many wounds heal and are only dimly remembered. These boards don't have nearly the level of vitriol they used to, and I'd say that is almost 100% because of Pathfinder. I expect the level to drop even further once 4E is out, but I've been surprised before.
Cheers! :)
Edit: Forgot the meaning of remember.
Giant evil corporations just can't win. :PNo, they can't :/
I'd hate to be the 4/e design staff, because there's no way to make everybody (or perhaps even most people) happy. I'm sure they are doing the best they can for the position they're in.
Regards again :)
"You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."
- Abraham Lincoln.
You are missing the point. Sites like Canonfire are not edition specific and never needed to be. You could write for a particular edition if you wanted to, but that only mattered for stat blocks and maybe a bit for the BECMI crowd. Now discussions there and other similar places are going to need to think about it. If a post comes in asking about eladrin, the first response is going to have to be: "uhh, do you mean the eladrin as celestials or the eladrin as faeries?" And you are gonna have folks who only play 1, 2, or 3 posting information that conflicts with what the only plays 4e guy is saying. And you'll have the same problem when someone asks about Pelor.. do you mean the GH Pelor? The 3e PHB Pelor? The 4e PHB Pelor? Because they aren't the same.
Cannonfire has a whopping 4500 people registered in the forums, and those forums are already divided into 1E & 2E, 3E, and 4E sections. Even in the download sections they note the edition for various material (such as adventures). Not that I exactly foresee a torrent of eladrin/archon articles flooding the site.
Again, if someone wants to post about 4th Edition eladrin, they can do so in the 4th Edition portion of the site. Otherwise, drop it in the other parts of the forums.
That could have been easily avoided but they didn't bother. They even said it was essentially laziness in the case of the gods' names/design.
Yes, it was probably extremely easy, but they were so busy high-fiving eachother on how they are bilking us out of money by making the game unplayable without laptops and a DDI subscription to be bothered to make a fun, functional game.
Oh, and I pointed out that the in your face aspect was unintentional. But there are still a lot of folks who reacted just like that. WotC may not give a rat's behind because quite a few are the sorts who probably wouldn't be going 4e anyway. But you really think its not going to cause needless problems for the people who run and post at Planewalker.com, for instance?
People who actually think that Wizards has "faced" them are taking it way too seriously, or are likely easy to offend.
Planewalker.com is, what, a stab at an unofficial 3rd Edition version of Planescape? I understand that it has a labeled 2nd Edition portion, but from what I'd gathered it was largely devoted to 3E.
It doesnt matter, since its not a 4th Edition source. Why would you go to a 3rd Edition site to get 4th Edition answers?
You obviously don't spend very much time on Canonfire. The edition specific forums are little used and are specifically for game mechanics issues. The function of the site is in the articles and the general discussion. The bulk of the content there is not edition specific because there has never been a need for it to be.
I'd never heard of Cannonfire until you brought it up.
Also, if people NEED to post an ecology of the eladrin article in the 4th Edition section to avoid confusion, then, oh well? It sounds like you are making a way bigger deal out of this than its actually going to be.
The solution sounds so simple: specify ahead of time.
Planewalker isn't edition specific either. It doesn't deal with game mechanics. It deals with "fluff". You could get good information there regardless of what edition you played, because that material was still valid.
A casual perusal of the site would indicate otherwise: downloads for 3rd Edition material is plastered everywhere. In fact, a download for a 3rd Edition module is the first thing that greets you when you go there.
I'm not going to check every page of the entire site, but I was able to find quite a bit of mechanic stuff just be clicking around for a bit. Not that I'm surprised, its what the site is largely about.
Anyway, there isn't much point in talking to you since you insist on denigrating the views of anyone who doesn't agree with you and your supposed majority.
I'm sorry that I'm just not buying into the supposed severity of your proposed problem. You think that its going to cause a lot of confusion because people may have to define which edition they are talking about, and I think that since that sort of thing happens now, that its not that really anything new.
You feel that the customization should be in supplementary books. There is some truth in that. The problem is.. those books don't sell as well as the MM. And, perhaps more importantly, they come out years later. So plenty of campaigns will already be started using the bland MM examples..
The 4e designers are right... 3e angels aren't used much and evil deities don't have any servants of their own. Their solution? Take the little used and rather bland angels and stick everyone with them... Woot? No. Not IMHO at any rate. They should have done better. They did tons better with the Shadowfell and the Feywilde.
Maybe it's my personal opinion, but I don't think that the new angels are "bland". Real-world polytheistic religions had "generic servants", like the Einherjar for the Norse pantheon.
Remember that on 4E mythos, the Gods were once an unified force that fought against the Primordials. The Gods carried their armies of angels against the Primordials and their armies of titans, in an epic war obviously inspired by Norse mithos' Ragnarok.
I actually feel that 3E angels more bland, because they are damn too similar (again, only by looking at the MM). At least we know that the various "angel types" will have different powers and personalities, and each individual angel has its own goals and motivations, rather than "single-mindedly ..."
Epic level PCs will not only fight "divine minions", but also abominations, horrible aberrations from the Far Realms, plus fey and elemental lords. It would be obviously impossible (and undesirable) to put individual minions for each deity all in the first MM.
But D&D has generally presented its gods as if they were poly-monotheisms. Bane has his church and Pelor has a different church and never the twain shall meet except with bloodshed (or whatever).
Check the "Birth of the Universe" text on Worlds & Monsters (Elemental Chaos chapter).
Gods were, indeed, an unified pantheon before the war against the Primordials from the Elemental Chaos. It was during the war that deity portfolios began to take shape, as the Gods realized that specialization was the key to defeat the Primordials.
The last paragraph of the text also strongly implies that Gods are still capable of allying themselves if a common threat to Creation emerges again. For those who are Blood War fans, it means that it won't be hard at all to put devils and demons fighting again against each other - but now with the angels on the side of the devils, and titans on the side of the demons.
BECMI D&D didn't have the Great Wheel, eladrin, solars, etc etc but it was still D&D.
If you go over to Dragonsfoot, you'll see 3.x referred to as "the edition that dares not speak its name". They hate it. They have all the same arguments against 3.x that people here have against 4e. To them, anyone who enjoys 3.x is a deluded traitor.
My point is that D&D is what you make it.
My point is that D&D is what you make it.
Not, I think, if WotC has their way. IMO the new platform, for all its improvements, is more narrowly defining styles of play.
The thing is, even though people ran different campaigns, D&D had is own "canon lore". Things central to D&D and all the other settings that were always there, are currently there, and should always be there.
Reasons?
To maintain consistency, ease of transition, and respect for the history, lore, and canon D&D has set for 30+ years.
Sure, everyone runs a different game. But whether you did or not, ask any veteran gamer about the difference between an erinyes and a succubi and you'll get the same answer, or ask how long do elves live, or if dwarves can see in the dark. Ask about alignment or what eladrins are, or yugoloths, you will get the same response. Ask about the rise of the multiverse or who the Wind Dukes were or the main lawful critters of Mechanus and so on.
My point is, these were the same and NO ONE had any problems with it. WotC may have had a right to alter these as they see fit, but that does not mean it was the right thing to do nor does it say they have any respect for their customers.
Take Todd Stewart for example. He's a D&D Canon master when it comes to the multiverse and the planes and the other material worlds, especially yugoloths...4E just crapped on his devotion hardcore. I dunno how he feels about yugoloth history getting axed and them now being devilish-demons, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't at least a little peeved.
Take me, with the Forgotten Realms...the Realms got hosed hardcore as well, totally disrespecting and losing any faith I had in WotC.
There was a connection in D&D, no matter what edition of the game you played. A succubus was a succubus and an erinyes and erinyes. Most people quirk confusingly when I tell them,"WotC is saying succubi and erinyes were always the same creature."
Do you want to know the biggest question I hear from most people trying to get into a 3E game?
"Do they still have this?"
"Does this still exist in the game?"
"What about this? Please tell me they left that alone?"
And so on. Many people I have talked to, mostly on DDO, have said Screw 3E" just because it didn't have or screwed with the one thing that should've been left alone.
4E didn't leave ANYTHING alone.
With the destruction of so many sacred cows and D&D canon, you will NEVER get pre-4E and post-4E gamers to agree on anything. You've successfully created a vast rift in the D&D game as a whole, and you're hoping in the long run you'll gain as much new support as you lost the old...
Risky and stupid move on WotC's part. If it works (I believe it truly won't) then they will be as rich as Enron...and will probably eventually go down like them too after a few months and Blizzard pops out a new WoW expansion.
IMO the majority of D&D players wanted some things fixed -- but that's not what WotC did. Instead, they did a near-total redesign, which incidentally does a great job of coercing customers into replacing hundreds of dollars of books with new ones. At the same time they redefine the OGL (or whatever it's called now) in a way that further limits participation by other publishers. I won't even touch the DDI.I'm sure 4/e has lots of good points, but I think why WotC made it and why they say they made it are two totally different animals.
Yes, I'm cynical. Brazen attempts at manipulation by corporations do that to me :/
I think DDI is the only thing that will save them. Even if 4E bombs, if enough people sign up for DDI (and I can see most signing up for a 6-month or yearly subscription), that's enough cash flow to keep WotC hanging and try a different tact. Or maybe with enough of the die-hard 4E fans out there on their DDI, they'll be fine for quite a long time whether 4E makes it big or not.
I truly think if I don't see 4E die out soon, I'll simply state that their DDI has to be keeping them afloat.
The thing is, even though people ran different campaigns, D&D had is own "canon lore". Things central to D&D and all the other settings that were always there, are currently there, and should always be there.
Reasons?
To maintain consistency, ease of transition, and respect for the history, lore, and canon D&D has set for 30+ years.
So, it had an implied setting because it had an implied setting?
Sure, everyone runs a different game. But whether you did or not, ask any veteran gamer about the difference between an erinyes and a succubi and you'll get the same answer, or ask how long do elves live, or if dwarves can see in the dark. Ask about alignment or what eladrins are, or yugoloths, you will get the same response. Ask about the rise of the multiverse or who the Wind Dukes were or the main lawful critters of Mechanus and so on.
Actually, not every veteran gamer DOES know odd facts like those because not every veteran gamer gets into those things or bothers to commit them to memory. They buy the books, play their own games, and don’t give a crap about the “official” stuff like the rise of the Wind Dukes. See, I’ve been playing D&D for over a decade now and I thought Paizo made up the Wind Dukes. I recognized Miska in the Age of Worms story stuff, and the rod of seven parts, but I figured that Wind Dukes were their own bit.
As for Mechanus? Gee, I thought it was the modrons, but since 3rd Edition it’s been the formians (or whatever the heck those bug things are called).
My point is, these were the same and NO ONE had any problems with it. WotC may have had a right to alter these as they see fit, but that does not mean it was the right thing to do nor does it say they have any respect for their customers.
Some people did have problems with some of those things, and some of those same people likely kept their mouths shut because they weren’t forced to use that stuff, just as you aren’t forced to use the stuff laid out in 4th Edition's implied setting. Not everyone liked everything about 3rd Edition's implied story, and them inventing a new one (not changing the old one) is not about respect at all.
Take Todd Stewart for example. He's a D&D Canon master when it comes to the multiverse and the planes and the other material worlds, especially yugoloths...4E just crapped on his devotion hardcore. I dunno how he feels about yugoloth history getting axed and them now being devilish-demons, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't at least a little peeved.
I don’t know who Todd Steward is, and I frankly don’t care. The fact is that he (apparently) is a master of a version of core D&D cosmology. Not Eberron, not Forgotten Realms, not Dark Sun, and certainly not the original campaign settings of thousands of other DMs out there. He knows a lot about the 3rd Edition stuff, and that’s good for him, but that’s not a reason to just have a static implied setting between editions.
I myself got really into the Planescape campaign setting and studied it quite a bit, but I didnt rant and rave when 3rd Edition came out. Back then, I didnt have official rulings on portals, planes, all the races (like genasi or bariaur), green steel, and other things like that.
I didnt have prestige classes or mechanics for all the factions (Planewalker's Handbook did mention some basic perks for belonging to a faction). Those were all mechanics issues, which are much harder to deal with. Its very easy for me to make a basic, Greyhawk world with the same routine cosmology, I dont need Wizards to tell me that "thats how it is".
Take me, with the Forgotten Realms...the Realms got hosed hardcore as well, totally disrespecting and losing any faith I had in WotC.
Well, it’s one of countless reasons that you don’t respect them. Given your track record I’m surprised it took them this long to lose you.
I played Forgotten Realms in 3rd Edition when it came out. Or, at least I tried to. I could still run it in the same time period, I just have to tell my players ahead of time that I'm doing it then. Again, not hard.
There was a connection in D&D, no matter what edition of the game you played. A succubus was a succubus and an erinyes and erinyes. Most people quirk confusingly when I tell them,"WotC is saying succubi and erinyes were always the same creature."
Not here.
Do you want to know the biggest question I hear from most people trying to get into a 3E game?
"Do they still have this?"
"Does this still exist in the game?"
"What about this? Please tell me they left that alone?"
And so on. Many people I have talked to, mostly on DDO, have said Screw 3E" just because it didn't have or screwed with the one thing that should've been left alone.
The question I get asked is either what the game is about, how its played, or what the general play-style of my group is. Once I get someone interested, assuming they’ve played before, its more mechanics questions. They don’t seem to be so picky about whether something still exists or not.
4E didn't leave ANYTHING alone.
With the destruction of so many sacred cows and D&D canon, you will NEVER get pre-4E and post-4E gamers to agree on anything. You've successfully created a vast rift in the D&D game as a whole, and you're hoping in the long run you'll gain as much new support as you lost the old...
It left a lot of basic concepts alone, though since it’s a new edition some mechanics were lost/upgraded. Elves are still agile, and now they are better with bows than they ever were. Dwarves are still tough, capable warriors. Halflings make dexterous rogues. Sounds like many things were left as-is.
From the many, many positive reviews, it sounds like they aren’t losing as much support as you think.
Risky and stupid move on WotC's part. If it works (I believe it truly won't) then they will be as rich as Enron...and will probably eventually go down like them too after a few months and Blizzard pops out a new WoW expansion.
I fail to see how Blizzard releasing a new game or expansion is going to affect D&D anymore than it might now. I mean, I like playing games from time to time that are not D&D, but I still play it on a routine basis.
The thing is, even though people ran different campaigns, D&D had is own "canon lore". Things central to D&D and all the other settings that were always there, are currently there, and should always be there.
Reasons?
To maintain consistency, ease of transition, and respect for the history, lore, and canon D&D has set for 30+ years.
The point is, perhaps WotC felt that the "30+ years of D&D history, lore and canon" was a barrier to attract new generations to the game.
Sure, everyone runs a different game. But whether you did or not, ask any veteran gamer about the difference between an erinyes and a succubi and you'll get the same answer
I believe most gamers I know will either not know the answer, or say "Uh... erinyes are devils, succubi are demons?". Perhaps that's a cultural difference between american and brazillian players but... even OOTS ironized the similarity between both monsters.
Ask about the rise of the multiverse or who the Wind Dukes were or the main lawful critters of Mechanus and so on.
Who are the Wind Dukes?
My point is, these were the same and NO ONE had any problems with it. WotC may have had a right to alter these as they see fit, but that does not mean it was the right thing to do nor does it say they have any respect for their customers.
No one had problems with it, but a lot of people didn't like it and didn't use it. The same thing may happen with the new edition.
People who never used the old fluff perhaps will begin using the new fluff (I'm one of these).
People who dislike the new fluff may continue using the old fluff.
WotC is trying to the satisfy the majority of its "potential customer base" ("potential customer base = current customer base + potential new customers").
This is obviously not the same as trying to satistify the majority of its "current customer base", which is probably what you wanted. But from a commercial point of view, it makes a lot more sense.
Risky and stupid move on WotC's part. If it works (I believe it truly won't) then they will be as rich as Enron...and will probably eventually go down like them too after a few months and Blizzard pops out a new WoW expansion.
I would say that 4th edition either works or it doesn't work. DDI is not like an MMORPG in any sense. If DDI can attract customers from MMORPGs, Blizzard can't take these customers back unless it makes another innovative game system.
I truly think if I don't see 4E die out soon, I'll simply state that their DDI has to be keeping them afloat.
A bit convenient, right? If 4th edition doesn't work, you will say that it was because it sucks. If 4th edition work, you will say that it was only because of DDI.