|
Retrieved from http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=171129 (posted in 2006)
----
Ryan Dancey
[...]
With so much of the 30+ year legacy D&D game in the SRD, I believe it is impossible to ever make a game that would be accepted by the fans as "D&D" without it being possible to alter whatever is necessary to make the Open Game version of D&D compatible with whatever product is being currently sold as "D&D" by WotC. A game divergent enough to break that legacy with the SRD is simply not going to be tolerable to anyone vested in the D&D player network. Such a radical break would almost certainly result in a 3rd party version of the game, published under a new brand name, becoming the de-facto inheritor of the D&D player network externality, coming into direct competition with whatever faux "D&D" product is being marketed, and probably crushing it.[...]
----
So far, some of the predictions have a chance of becoming a reality:
1. 4th Ed. is seen as breaking the legacy.
2. We have a strong 3rd party version (Pathfinder RPG) in the works.
Questions:
1. Will the product currently sold as "D&D" by WotC be accepted by the fans as "D&D" over the coming two year periods (after the launch-induced excitement dies down)?
2. If not, will Pathfinder become the de-facto inheritor?
3. Is anyone creating an OGL version of the 4th Ed. game mechanics?
Note: Has anyone access to the Open Gaming Foundation listservers or to copies of the messages? I tried to subscribe but they seem to be MIA.
1. Will the product currently sold as "D&D" by WotC be accepted by the fans as "D&D" over the coming two year periods (after the launch-induced excitement dies down)?
Yes.
2. If not, will Pathfinder become the de-facto inheritor?
No, especially once they switch to support 4e.
3. Is anyone creating an OGL version of the 4th Ed. game mechanics?
Not that I am aware of.
There is absolutely no reason for any 3rd party company to switch to 4e - most especially Paizo - WotC has made it abundantly clear that they want full control of anything produced under the 4e banner, and no company in its right mind will agree to that, considering that at least ½ the current fanbase intend on sticking with 3e.
Why SHOULD companies switch, when there is still a great deal of money to be made with 3e? Because they 'owe' WotC some sort of loyalty? Why beg for table-scraps when you can be your own master?
The OGL is Open Source, and there is no way they are ever going to stuff that genie back into its tiny little bottle.
I see 4e D&D being a lot like Games Workshop's Mordheim - it made a huge splash and everyone was playing it... and then a year later you couldn't find anyone running a game. Another example would be Necromunda (also by GW) - both were games based on tactical-level combat between small groups... sound familiar? 4e is a 'flash-in-the-pan', and it will do quite well... for a little while. 3e has staying power, as evidenced by the fans here and the eight years it's had to grow into an incredibly robust system.
My guess is both 3.X and 4E will have plenty of staying power. They're very different games in many ways, so each is going to have at least a portion of the market that doesn't overlap with the other. Then there are people like me who will play both. I'll support 3PPs who continue to put out 3.X material.
I see 4e D&D being a lot like Games Workshop's Mordheim - it made a huge splash and everyone was playing it... and then a year later you couldn't find anyone running a game.
Mordheim was a really bad knock off of Necromunda. Sort of Necromunda without any of the atmosphere, cool locations, etc.
A Necromunda game is a strategy game based on laying down suppressive fire with weapons and knowing when and where to commit hand to hand combatants (if you have them - hand to hand combat is fast and extremely brutal, range combat much less so unless you are using lost 'tech or a heavy weapon) and where it won't work 'cause you'll be pinned down before you get anywhere. Skill really matters in Necromunda and the more you play it the more that becomes clear. Site lines are important, terrain plays a critical role, you need to work with concepts like fire bases and understand what your gang can, and just as importantly can't do. If you have a good strategy you can beat a more powerful gang by figuring out how to maximize your strengths while minimizing your opponents.
I learned this the hard way when one player in our league began to win again and again. Sure luck played a role but his win rate got really lopsided and I made a point of going to watch him play another player in our league (that is going to hang out even though I was not going to play) and realized he was very careful in his set up, he was really evaluating terrain and setting up things like choke points and places where crossfire made areas of the map impossible for the enemy to attack over. He knew his gang members - who could do what and what their job was and he deployed and used them to make the most of that role, even if it was to just add minor harrasing fire as the piece was a pistol armed Juve. I started to do the same, to treat this as a strategy game and really pay attention to tactics and my win rate jumped dramatically.
Necromunda had some cool support articles as well. Stuff that made playing each of the different core gangs unique, from getting more money to being able to recruit an Ogre depending on which gang you played.
Necromunda also really supported adding house rules to bring in other elements of the Warhammer 40K universe. We eventually had Chaos Cults dedicated to each of the 4 major Chaos Gods, mostly really wimpy guys that got cool mutations (but had a bad habit of mutating into spawn) and you could summon Demons - I once killed a Pink Horror with a Cawdor gang through good tactics. I placed the guys with the Jump Back Skill nearest the Demon - drew it out into the open and jumped back out of contact with it and then just lay down so much fire bolter fire that, eventually , something got through - it was so cool. We even made rules for Imperial Guard and Space Marine detachments and we created some wicked terrain to play on.
Mordheim has none of that. I made a gang of human mercenaries and they got ripped up by some big beasties. Arrows don't do jack against most enemies. Frustrated I went and made the nastiest Chaos gang I could. No strategy at all - just charge and rip the enemy apart. I won every game from that point on. Thinking is a big mistake in Mordheim and playing anything but Chaos is just dumb.
So yeah - Mordheim looked cool and some of the table top role playing aspects (your gang gets experience and grows over time) are kind of cool - but the game itself, it just sucks and nothing could cover up that reality. Eventually you realize that everyone should just play Chaos and charge each other at game start. After you realize that why play?
Excellent points - I see you're also and old-time GW gamer (I don't bother anymore, but I sill have a Wood Elf army). Another example of a company that completely alienated its fan-base and drove many of them to other venues with its constant rules-updates and price-gouging.
My guess is both 3.X and 4E will have plenty of staying power. They're very different games in many ways, so each is going to have at least a portion of the market that doesn't overlap with the other. Then there are people like me who will play both. I'll support 3PPs who continue to put out 3.X material.
True - I taught my son (19) and his friends how to play D&D, and he plans on running 4e, and I will more then likely play in his game as well.
I never said I disliked 4e, I only stated that 3e is here to stay... like it or not. ;)
1. Will the product currently sold as "D&D" by WotC be accepted by the fans as "D&D" over the coming two year periods (after the launch-induced excitement dies down)?Yes.
2. If not, will Pathfinder become the de-facto inheritor?No, especially once they switch to support 4e.
Not that I am aware of.3. Is anyone creating an OGL version of the 4th Ed. game mechanics?
????
Your opinion is noted Court Fool. I am just trying to understand your train of thought here though. With answer number two, do you mean a time in which Paizo abandons its current ambitions and kowtows to the altar of 4th edition exclusively? Or do you believe that Paizo doing any 4th edition projects will invariably doom Paizo by undercutting the 3.P market? I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. However I would like to expand upon these questions and answers.
1) There will definitely be some people who swing either way. In my opinion, I believe a great deal of WoTCs success at this point will depend on whether they rethink their customer service strategy. I was quite simply and severely turned off to 4th edition because of the poor management of the transition and less than friendly handling of questions during the time leading up to the transition. It wasn't the change to 4th edition that has made me less than enthused about WoTC, it is their attitude and their dismissiveness.
2) If Paizo can continue to do everything they are already doing right so far over an extended period, especially now that we are moving into Pathfinder RPG territory? Yes, I think its certainly possible.
3) On this Court Fool and I agree. No idea.
|
Sooner or later the fundamental flaws with 3e/OGL SRD will make staying with that rules set very very difficult for publishers and players ...
... unless a group of companies bands together to create a single open OGL rules set that breaks the mold and remakes the 3.5 OGL SRD into a streamlined set of rules that plays quickly at all levels, dumps quirky sub-systems, and trims away needless complexity.
As it stand now the third party publishers are all headed in separate directions crafting the OGL to their own particular tastes.
Ryan Dancey's vision of a singular alternative is not going to happen unless cooperation replaces competition and a single set of new core rules can be created and maintained with governance and standards.
I have hope that Pathfinder can be a great leap forward but the goal of "backwards compatibility" will, in my view, ultimately stunt Pathfinder RPG's potential.
As of right now WotC has the advantage. It has deep pockets, media reach, a large variety of product lines and licenses, and most importantly it owns the IP that so many people love. The other advantage it holds is a fractured 3rd party landscape with publishers fracturing the market even more than it was before. There is no counter weight to WotC - as cool as Pathfinder looks it is still just a branch on the OGL family tree and not its trunk.
I would say that, given the current conditions, 4e is where the vast majority of D&D gamers will be investing their time and money. Folks will play OGL and 3.5 games but that will become a side game for most.
Sooner or later the fundamental flaws with 3e/OGL SRD will make staying with that rules set very very difficult for publishers and players ...
... unless a group of companies bands together to create a single open OGL rules set that breaks the mold and remakes the 3.5 OGL SRD into a streamlined set of rules that plays quickly at all levels, dumps quirky sub-systems, and trims away needless complexity.
As it stand now the third party publishers are all headed in separate directions crafting the OGL to their own particular tastes.
Ryan Dancey's vision of a singular alternative is not going to happen unless cooperation replaces competition and a single set of new core rules can be created and maintained with governance and standards.
I have hope that Pathfinder can be a great leap forward but the goal of "backwards compatibility" will, in my view, ultimately stunt Pathfinder RPG's potential.
As of right now WotC has the advantage. It has deep pockets, media reach, a large variety of product lines and licenses, and most importantly it owns the IP that so many people love. The other advantage it holds is a fractured 3rd party landscape with publishers fracturing the market even more than it was before. There is no counter weight to WotC - as cool as Pathfinder looks it is still just a branch on the OGL family tree and not its trunk.
I would say that, given the current conditions, 4e is where the vast majority of D&D gamers will be investing their time and money. Folks will play OGL and 3.5 games but that will become a side game for most.
I more or less agree with CWM. At most 3E/OGL has a few more years I'd guess. Sure there will always be people playing it (people still play 1E, and older!) but I think the system will begin losing popularity as it ages out. Of course we'll see in the coming years.
Cheers! :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I think there's an excellent chance people will follow quality and good customer service, and make Paizo a very strong brand. The RPG industry could use another top-shelf player, and Paizo's well-poised to join those ranks.
As for whether or not WotC can fail - arrogance, poor service, and dictating style of play are part of the sordid tail of the downfall of TSR. So it could happen. But I personally expect them to continue outselling Paizo. Which is fine - if PF RPG got as big as D&D, the company likely wouldn't be as nice to support as it is now.
Sooner or later the fundamental flaws with 3e/OGL SRD will make staying with that rules set very very difficult for publishers and players ...
I don't think there are any fundamental flaws with 3e. There are just fundamental things some people don't like. For those of us who don't mind those things, it will not be difficult to stay with that rules set.
I would say that, given the current conditions, 4e is where the vast majority of D&D gamers will be investing their time and money.
I agree that the majority will invest in 4E. I don't believe that majority will be as vast as you think, though.
The power is definitely in WotC's hands, though. And so far, they've mismanaged it pretty badly.
Uncalled for. Are you vying for the position of 4eRazz?4e is here to stay, I suggest you get used to snivvling derrisivly at it about how no one likes it and its sold no books, except all those people who like it and all those books it sold.
Lgoos
Probably just looking for a vacation from the boards.
Sooner or later the fundamental flaws with 3e/OGL SRD will make staying with that rules set very very difficult for publishers and players ...
I do agree that 3.X has its flaws. But a lot of ppl love the system even with those flaws. Before 4th E was announced and WotC's ridiculous marketing policy of discrediting 3.X began, not many ppl were so adamant about the flaws of the old system. And to be realistic, 4th E is not flawless. Nothing is after all. It will take some time to bring those fundemanetal flaws to surface, but once this happens, why would 4th E be the best alternative (purely at the level of system mechanics)?
As a side note, anyone who reads DnD: 30 years of adventure will find some "interesting" ideas about system change and some big but uncomfortable truths as well. CWM have you read the book?
As for whether or not WotC can fail - arrogance, poor service, and dictating style of play are part of the sordid tail of the downfall of TSR. So it could happen. But I personally expect them to continue outselling Paizo. Which is fine - if PF RPG got as big as D&D, the company likely wouldn't be as nice to support as it is now.
While TSR's customer service tone deafness was a contributing factor in their downfall, it was really bad business decisions that killed it. If there is anything WotC is good at is cutting out a dead game line. If it doesn't make a metric its dead. They probably will not be caught with the huge unsold inventory of crap that TSR accumulated.
~~Saracenus
|
|
Sooner or later the fundamental flaws with 3e/OGL SRD will make staying with that rules set very very difficult for publishers and players ...I don't think there are any fundamental flaws with 3e. There are just fundamental things some people don't like. For those of us who don't mind those things, it will not be difficult to stay with that rules set.
I understand that you do not see the flaws as flaws but many, including the folks that created 3e, have come out and admitted that the flaws exist. Heck - Monte Cook has made a cottage industry out of fixing the game. Pathfinder is based on the notion that 3e needs to have the flaws ironed out.
I am not saying that the flaws cannot be fixed. I think they can be fixed. The problem I see is this - in order for Ryan Dancey's vision of a "real D&D" emerging from the reaction to a radical shift in the official version it will take a collective act of consultative will on the part of the the third party publishers to create a new standard which they will all use as a development platform - essentially a new set of core rules.
I would say that, given the current conditions, 4e is where the vast majority of D&D gamers will be investing their time and money.I agree that the majority will invest in 4E. I don't believe that majority will be as vast as you think, though.
The power is definitely in WotC's hands, though. And so far, they've mismanaged it pretty badly.
If by badly you mean record sales and an increasing number of players adopting the rules then bad would seem pretty good.
|
|
Sooner or later the fundamental flaws with 3e/OGL SRD will make staying with that rules set very very difficult for publishers and players ...I do agree that 3.X has its flaws. But a lot of ppl love the system even with those flaws. Before 4th E was announced and WotC's ridiculous marketing policy of discrediting 3.X began, not many ppl were so adamant about the flaws of the old system. And to be realistic, 4th E is not flawless. Nothing is after all. It will take some time to bring those fundemanetal flaws to surface, but once this happens, why would 4th E be the best alternative (purely at the level of system mechanics)?
It is very true that 4e has flaws. In time they will become as obvious and as problematic as the ones in 3e. For now it's all new and players are still in exploration mode.
As a side note, anyone who reads DnD: 30 years of adventure will find some "interesting" ideas about system change and some big but uncomfortable truths as well. CWM have you read the book?
I have not read it. I think my FLGS still has a copy. I'll check it out.
|
|
If by badly you mean record sales and an increasing number of players adopting the rules then bad would seem pretty good.
I'd like some hard numbers on this. Books sold does not equal adopted the rules. For example, out of four D&D groups at my local club, none are converting. Two have people who have bought the rules but have no interest in playing having read them. That's two sales, no adoptions. I doubt the real figures are quite that badly skewed, but you can't assume all sales=adoption.
And WotC could have handled it badly and still sold well. Brand loyalty and inertia are very powerful forces. Or they could have handled it really badly as far as existing players are concerned but not for new players who don't know, never mind like, the traditions they changed.
1. Will the product currently sold as "D&D" by WotC be accepted by the fans as "D&D" over the coming two year periods (after the launch-induced excitement dies down)?Yes.
2. If not, will Pathfinder become the de-facto inheritor?No, especially once they switch to support 4e.
Not that I am aware of.3. Is anyone creating an OGL version of the 4th Ed. game mechanics?
<Takes sip from cup.>
How's that grape Kool-Aid you got from WotC? Glad you like it. Me, nah, I can't stand the stuff anymore.
<Takes another sip>
1. I agree, 4e will be successful. I think it remains to be seen if it will be "the" version of D&D. I kinda think there's at least a 30% chance it'll be referred to as 4e a year or two from now as well.
<Takes long pull from cup>
2. Well, I suppose anything can happen a few years down the road, but right now it looks like that train has left the station. Too bad for you, it went in the other direction.
<Takes sip.>
What's that? What am I drinking? Oh, this is Paizo Cola, can't get enough of this stuff. No, no Kool-Aid for me, thanks. What if I get tired of Paizo Cola? Well, let's see, I've got Sinister Cherry-Cola (I try not to think about where the red coloring comes from), my Green Ronin sports drinks over there, and some Mongoose's Conan Crush! Root Beer for later.
Hey, don't look sad. I hear they're coming out with some new flavors (FR, Eberron). Yeah, I know, they all kinda taste the same...
<Takes big gulp, then belches contentedly.>
[We now return to your regularly scheduled edition war/debate.]
I understand that you do not see the flaws as flaws but many, including the folks that created 3e, have come out and admitted that the flaws exist.
Can you give the objective definition that differentiates between a mechanic that someone might not like and an objective flaw.
|
|
If by badly you mean record sales and an increasing number of players adopting the rules then bad would seem pretty good.I'd like some hard numbers on this. Books sold does not equal adopted the rules. For example, out of four D&D groups at my local club, none are converting. Two have people who have bought the rules but have no interest in playing having read them. That's two sales, no adoptions. I doubt the real figures are quite that badly skewed, but you can't assume all sales=adoption.
I never said that every sale = adoption. I do know this - prior to June 6th there were zero 4e players. Sales of the books continue. Anyone that was curious and had no intention of actually playing has already downloaded, borrowed, or purchased the game. Then there is the coming RPGA campaign. That will bring more players in. Like it or not the player base for 4e will grow for the foreseeable future.
And WotC could have handled it badly and still sold well. Brand loyalty and inertia are very powerful forces. Or they could have handled it really badly as far as existing players are concerned but not for new players who don't know, never mind like, the traditions they changed.
Yes, they have not had the best PR campaign but frankly there are very few folks outside the hardcore that even care about that. D&D has a huge casual player base. They do not pay attention to message boards or controversy - they just play the game. D&D is a consumer product, and as such relies more on its brand recognition, diverse product offerings, and unique IP to drive interest and sales. D&D is the only RPG that has moved beyond gaming culture and has made inroads in pop-culture. That alone is big enough to keep WotC's official version of D&D going no matter how many old school gamers decide to to play it.
|
|
<Takes sip from cup.>
How's that grape Kool-Aid you got from WotC? Glad you like it. Me, nah, I can't stand the stuff anymore.
<Takes another sip>
Why the adhominem attack? Seriously, the accusation that people who choose to play 4e are some kind of brainwashed cultist is getting old, and frankly it shows a complete lack of decorum.
|
|
I understand that you do not see the flaws as flaws but many, including the folks that created 3e, have come out and admitted that the flaws exist.Can you give the objective definition that differentiates between a mechanic that someone might not like and an objective flaw.
High level play in 3.5 is incredibly slow. That is a flaw created by the mechanics.
High level play in 3.5 is incredibly slow. That is a flaw created by the mechanics.
Why is a slow down a flaw? Couldn't the fact that the low levels are incredibly too fast be considered a flaw? "What you only get to make one roll in a round and if you roll low, you just wasted your turn", be considered a flaw?
Besides which, often the delay is due to a player looking over their options. I would hardly call have more viable options a flaw.
Why the adhominem attack? Seriously, the accusation that people who choose to play 4e are some kind of brainwashed cultist is getting old, and frankly it shows a complete lack of decorum.<Takes sip from cup.>
How's that grape Kool-Aid you got from WotC? Glad you like it. Me, nah, I can't stand the stuff anymore.
<Takes another sip>
Apparently you failed your save vs. sarcasm. BPorter was ridiculing CourtJesters reply to question 2 by the OP. Court Jester definitely came off as a Kool-aid drinking zombie in his reply. He added nothing to the discussion except to support the "One edition to rule them all" mantra repeated by some of the more zealous supporters of 4e.
With answer number two, do you mean a time in which Paizo abandons its current ambitions and kowtows to the altar of 4th edition exclusively?
I mean, in time, I believe Paizo will abandon its current ambitions and kowtow to the market which I further believe will be largely 4e.
Or do you believe that Paizo doing any 4th edition projects will invariably doom Paizo by undercutting the 3.P market?
I do not think Paizo doing any 4th edition projects will invariably doom them. I think it would be smart for them to ride Pathfinder for a few years, then switch to 4e when the rest of the market goes to 4e.
I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. However I would like to expand upon these questions and answers.
I am not saying I know for sure that the market will go to 4e. It is just my opinion based on my own previous experiences. I am, in no way, saying 4e is superior to 3.5. In fact, I prefer 3.5 to 4e. In the past I have felt there were far superior products on the market, but everyone still played D&D. That is why I feel that 4e will once again rule the market despite being an inferior product in my opinion.
How's that grape Kool-Aid you got from WotC? Glad you like it.
Thanks for the giggle.
Court Jester definitely came off as a Kool-aid drinking zombie in his reply. He added nothing to the discussion except to support the "One edition to rule them all" mantra repeated by some of the more zealous supporters of 4e.
Really? I had no idea. Good thing I was not making wilding inaccurate assumptions.
|
|
Heres the issues that I see, and as I put on my Karnak hat and make a prediction....
You have in essence 2 sets of gamers....
1. The Old timers who have the money to support a game system, and have proven a great deal of loyalty to the brand....or to the essence of the brand, and their 'followers' (new players, families and friends)
2. The younger more fickle crowd who jump on the new whatsis and support it til they become bored...the computer generation. A few have the money to support a game system, but by and large they only support one for a short perid of time...until the new flash catches their interest.
Now I am not so naiive to think that there isnt some crossover between the 2 stereotypes...nor am I saying there arent a few other types...but this is the majority of RPG players that have settled on either side of the 4e...3.5 rift.
4e will never catch on as to being called Dungeons and Dragond or D&D by the ones who spread the name...but only be those in category 2...and they will probably call it 4e forever as they like to be diferent.
D&D as a name will fade away into oblivion now....That is my prediction..Its sad, but I believe it to be true. Will pathfinder gain the popularity of D&D...I think yes.
Here's why.
Who made the game a household term? The very people you find on this board. Those of us disenfranchised by the company we gave our loyalty to for so many years. We are loyal buyers of a product. We buy thinks just to read and look at even if we never use them. We like to stay up on the new changes in the rule system so we can have our geeky conversations about character builds and fun adventures.
DDI will never fly as straight as the MMO's, and so its idea to capture that crowd...just wont gain much steam...If WotC had it up and running when 4e was launched, you might have seen the steamroller moving...but by the time its up and running, 4e will have lost its immediate luster.
So in essence we have seen the beginning of the death throes for our old beloved game...and are witnessing the birth of its new life, out of the ashes like the phoenix.
my 2 cents.
Dread
|
|
Apparently you failed your save vs. sarcasm. BPorter was ridiculing CourtJesters reply to question 2 by the OP. Court Jester definitely came off as a Kool-aid drinking zombie in his reply. He added nothing to the discussion except to support the "One edition to rule them all" mantra repeated by some of the more zealous supporters of 4e.
No, I get it. Trouble is that BPorter has reacted that way in the past even when a pro 4e post was well reasoned.
Some folks here just can't tolerate any expression of satisfaction with 4e.
|
Some folks here just can't tolerate any expression of satisfaction with 4e.
And some folks here just can't tolerate any expression of dissatisfaction with 4e.
Why must one side be right? It doesn't matter. It's just a game. Some people enjoy it, some people don't. It's not a big deal.
Note: This is not just a reply to you, I'm saying this to both "sides".
In the end, all that matters is what you enjoy.
Some folks just can't tolerate any expression of satisfaction with an opposing opinion.
Corrected for greater accuracy.
Some folks here just can't tolerate any expression of satisfaction with 4e.
*cough*Razz*cough* Sorry, had a little cough in my throat.
Seriously though, I hope that 4E is working out for its fans quite nicely.
Apparently you failed your save vs. sarcasm. BPorter was ridiculing CourtJesters reply to question 2 by the OP. Court Jester definitely came off as a Kool-aid drinking zombie in his reply. He added nothing to the discussion except to support the "One edition to rule them all" mantra repeated by some of the more zealous supporters of 4e.
Which is hilarious. Because AFAIK Courtfool doesn't like 4e much. His one system to rule them all is Hero. So, BPorter failed his save vs Relevance. Which kinda renders the whole thing moot.
As a side note, anyone who reads DnD: 30 years of adventure will find some "interesting" ideas about system change and some big but uncomfortable truths as well. CWM have you read the book?I have not read it. I think my FLGS still has a copy. I'll check it out.
I am talking especially about the last part, where Ed Stark talks about the change from 2nd E to 3.0 and explains what was happening at the time, what the R&D ppl were thinking, Ryan Dancey's idea about the OGL etc. It is definitely worth reading as it sheds light on several issues that have been discussed in these boards.
|
Sooner or later the fundamental flaws with 3e/OGL SRD will make staying with that rules set very very difficult for publishers and players ...
I'd like to see where this opinion is in the majority (and don't tell me by the number of 4E books that are sold, we've already had that argument rehashed 10x over).
These "fundamental flaws" you speak of are not seen as flaws by a large enough portion of the community that the 3E/4E war is still ongoing (to a degree since the GSL certainly took some wind out of that sail). While you may believe that there are flaws that will chip into the 3E foundation, I could just as easily contend that the GSL and the overly simplistic board-game nature of 4E has turned off a large number of people which will make it difficult for publishers and players.
Deep pockets or not, this industry is a bit different than "normal" industry in that we're all a bunch of fanatics. The 3PPs do what they do yes to make money, but more importantly, because they love the hobby and what they do. You'd be surprised how quickly the second can trump the first.
|
|
High level play in 3.5 is incredibly slow. That is a flaw created by the mechanics.Why is a slow down a flaw? Couldn't the fact that the low levels are incredibly too fast be considered a flaw? "What you only get to make one roll in a round and if you roll low, you just wasted your turn", be considered a flaw?
Besides which, often the delay is due to a player looking over their options. I would hardly call have more viable options a flaw.
I really am not interested in following this line of debate as you are framing it in terms of taste rather than objectivity. Some people enjoy cutting themselves but objectively speaking that is a pathology and not a matter of personal preference.
If 3e was without flaws then we would not have folks going out of their way to design 3.5 OGL games that try to fix them.
You may not see slow high level play as a problem - the fine folks at Paizo do see it as a problem and one of the stated goals of Pathfinder is to speed it up.
|
|
Sooner or later the fundamental flaws with 3e/OGL SRD will make staying with that rules set very very difficult for publishers and players ...I'd like to see where this opinion is in the majority (and don't tell me by the number of 4E books that are sold, we've already had that argument rehashed 10x over).
The evidence is there in the number of publishers trying to fix the SRD with their own flavor of "New Core OGL".
T20, Pathfinder, Iron Heros, and just about everything from Malhavoc Press.
If it ain't broke why are so many trying to fix it?
Again, I do not think the 3.5 OGL is beyond repair. I think that the fractured market will keep any of the patched OGL games from becoming a counter weight to 4e as per Ryan Dancey's vision.
I really am not interested in following this line of debate as you are framing it in terms of taste rather than objectivity. Some people enjoy cutting themselves but objectively speaking that is a pathology and not a matter of personal preference.
I have to object to this argument. Preference and pathology are two separate things. I agree that “broken” is a matter of preference.
|
|
I believe Ryan's predictions have come to pass. PAIZO's PRPG is the defacto successor of dungeons and dragons, inheriting its historic mantle.
THE SECRET:
IMHO, there are two aspects of excellence with regard to the ultimate d&d role-play games, possibly more.
The first (role-play) is the overall excellence of DM & Player quality with respect to storytelling, character development, plot weaving, representing the d & d mileau, the amount of "personal" depth put into the game, and the amount of perceived "personal" revelation received from actual play.
The second is the deep, rich, incredibly sophisticated game mechanics (game) that share the world's history of being the aspect of the "game".
Now, somewhere this decade, the former stewards of this incredible role-play game decided that the second was more important than the first, and have elevated the second aspect above the first. In this way (among many ways) 4e breaks faith with the community. 4e has pretty much become just a game.
Hey - have fun moving your pieces around. I can't fault a generation for playing this game like David Noonan did in his recent video. If that's fun for you - more power to you.
As for the rest of us. WE KNOW THE SECRET. We behold and respect the mysterious connecting principles that tap into our subconcious minds when the game is played. We witness the windows to other planes become open as the characters are played. We tap into what Gygax and Arneson knew. We're playing that powerful experience once called dungeons and dragons. And as we've come to know those who support the game we love, so too now call that roleplaying game, Pathfinder.
|
|
Deep pockets or not, this industry is a bit different than "normal" industry in that we're all a bunch of fanatics. The 3PPs do what they do yes to make money, but more importantly, because they love the hobby and what they do. You'd be surprised how quickly the second can trump the first.
One other note - D&D is not a part of the game industry. D&D transcends the gamer fanatic base. The reason WotC/Hasbro are the 8000 pounds Dire Gorilla of this industry is that they broke through the ceiling of the gamer realm long ago.
Their market is broader, deeper, and more diverse than any other RPG company out there. I don't see that changing any time soon, and frankly I doubt it ever will.
If it ain't broke why are so many trying to fix it?
Could it be that people are trying to tweak it to their preference? Have you never used a houserule?
The evidence is there in the number of publishers trying to fix the SRD with their own flavor of "New Core OGL".
T20, Pathfinder, Iron Heros, and just about everything from Malhavoc Press.
If it ain't broke why are so many trying to fix it?
Perhaps they are trying to add their own flavor? Oh wait, you already answered your question.
Having said that, yah I find 3.5 to be broke at high levels, too.
=P
|
|
I really am not interested in following this line of debate as you are framing it in terms of taste rather than objectivity. Some people enjoy cutting themselves but objectively speaking that is a pathology and not a matter of personal preference.I have to object to this argument. Preference and pathology are two separate things. I agree that “broken” is a matter of preference.
When a critical mass of folks come to the conclusion that something is broken, then it is broken. What I heard from the folks inside the industry at the time 4e was announced and leading up to its release was along the lines of - "Sure 3e is broken but 4e is not the right fix".
I don't see any of the big third party publishers sticking with the "pure" 3.5 OGL.
Nope.If it ain't broke why are so many trying to fix it?Could it be that people are trying to tweak it to their preference? Have you never used a houserule?
Wow. I am duly impressed. In my experience, you are an aberration.
Does that qualify as name calling? No hard feelings, crosswiredmind.
When a critical mass of folks come to the conclusion that something is broken, then it is broken.
At one time, a critical mass of people believed the world to be flat.
|
|
As for the rest of us. WE KNOW THE SECRET. We behold and respect the mysterious connecting principles that tap into our subconcious minds when the game is played. We witness the windows to other planes become open as the characters are played. We tap into what Gygax and Arneson knew. We're playing that powerful experience once called dungeons and dragons. And as we've come to know those who support the game we love, so too now call that roleplaying game, Pathfinder.
Can I get an Amen! ;)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
One other note - D&D is not a part of the game industry. D&D transcends the gamer fanatic base. The reason WotC/Hasbro are the 8000 pounds Dire Gorilla of this industry is that they broke through the ceiling of the gamer realm long ago.Their market is broader, deeper, and more diverse than any other RPG company out there. I don't see that changing any time soon, and frankly I doubt it ever will.
Horse pucky. D&D is a niche game, like all RPGs. Being the biggest piece of rubble in the niche doesn't change that. You're overestimating how much D&D outsells White Wolf, by the way, though it does by a lot - think factor of 4, not factor of 10.
You come across as an evangelist of all things Wizards, rather than someone interested in discussion.
And I do not for a second buy your premise that 3E is flawed, but 4E is not. 4E's flaws will become more obvious as people play it, I'm expecting the first one that people notice to be that the gameplay lacks enough depth to keep it interesting for 30 levels.
Edit: I see you already did address the flaws idea in a later post. My apologies, but your initial posts communicated the idea that "3E is flawed, so it had to go". I expect you'll be on board with 5E on the same premise.
The first (role-play) is the overall excellence of DM & Player quality with respect to storytelling, character development, plot weaving, representing the d & d mileau, the amount of "personal" depth put into the game, and the amount of perceived "personal" revelation received from actual play.
Maybe this is my problem. I never got that from D&D. It was all about killing things and taking their stuff. It was not until I ventured into other games that I found storytelling, character development and plot weaving.