|
This is very true. I don't like 4th Edition, so I don't play it. I also dislike World of Darkness and Palladium. I just ignore and avoid those games. I don't attack them, or start defending Pathfinder when discussion of them come up. Mearls somewhat recently was promoted to his current position, and seems desperate to do damage control without alienating his current audience. Short of an amazing 5th Edition, all he can do is PR work. I agree with other posters that my dislike of 4th Edition is based on a poor marketing and product release strategy than it is on the system itself.
|
PHB1 PG:115
Pathfinder Exploits
Wrong Step Pathfinder Attack 11
Act Together Pathfinder Utility 12To me that's a jab. Clear and simple. No tin foil hat required.
Pathfinder existed as a brand at the time and the writing on the wall was pretty clear Paizo was not jumping on the 4E wagon. No, the PFRPG did not exist yet, but Paizo was continuing on with 3E-OGL work until they sorted out their strategy which became the PFRPG.
I suggest you duck the cuckoo clock behind you is striking twelve.
The gamer community being fractured has far less to do with 4e, and nothing to do with page 114 or 115 of the 4e phb, than it has to do with some people (now and through the history of RPGs) being narrow minded and antagonistic instead of just getting on with playing the games they enjoy.
THIS IS EXACTLY IT!
Mike Mearles, this is the problem with gamer unity. People being too narrow minded and emotionally invested with they game they play. And being too antagonistic instead of just getting on with playing the games they want to play.
Mothman, like I said, this is a deeply personal issue. Thanks for putting my point across in as few words as possible. In other words, we are all acting like near eastern donkeys about our games.
This is very true. I don't like 4th Edition, so I don't play it. I also dislike World of Darkness and Palladium. I just ignore and avoid those games. I don't attack them, or start defending Pathfinder when discussion of them come up. Mearls somewhat recently was promoted to his current position, and seems desperate to do damage control without alienating his current audience. Short of an amazing 5th Edition, all he can do is PR work. I agree with other posters that my dislike of 4th Edition is based on a poor marketing and product release strategy than it is on the system itself.
My dislike of Wizards of the Coast is related to the Copyright vs. the Internet issue.
I Love the OGL, it was a step in the RIGHT direction in my mind. The only way I can have a perfect world for D&D is that Wizards adopt the Creative Commons *PRO* License for all of their games, or even better, COPYHEART all of their games.
D&D would gain so much value as a game it wouldn't even be funny.
(Yes, I hate the current Copyright Laws, can we get back to the topic please?)
Ha! Nice turn of phrase.In other words, we are all acting like near eastern donkeys about our games.
We are the only ones who turned a simple word spoken during Roman times into something offensive.
Okay, I apologize if my last post was an over-reaction (it's too late to edit it). I honestly am a little creeped out by the kind of reaching needed to find an insult there, because to me, someone who can do that (and be so sure of themselves) sounds like they're also capable of seeing much more harmful messages in much more important places. But I shouldn't jump to conclusions about a person based on one opinion that they've expressed on a messageboard.
Besides, some people arrange arbitrary sections of the Bible into character matrices and look for hidden messages like it's a crossword puzzle, and who am I to say that's crazy? I pretend I'm an elf.
As an Iron Heroes fan I remain fairly sympathetic to anything Mearls has to say, and this seems pretty well-intended to me. The whole column does kind of smell like "we have no idea what our fans have to be excited about but We're trying to keep them engaged anyway", but I mean, that doesn't make it wrong. If he's really trying to strike up a dialogue with fans and wants to hear what they think the game is about, I think that's totally awesome, especially if the company's direction from here on might be the tiniest bit influenced by that.
The gamer community being fractured has far less to do with 4e, and nothing to do with page 114 or 115 of the 4e phb, than it has to do with some people (now and through the history of RPGs) being narrow minded and antagonistic instead of just getting on with playing the games they enjoy.
THIS IS EXACTLY IT!
Mike Mearles, this is the problem with gamer unity. People being too narrow minded and emotionally invested with they game they play. And being too antagonistic instead of just getting on with playing the games they want to play.
And this kind of narrow-mindedness is not limited to a certain part of the gamer populace, like supporters of "game A". It runs the whole range.
Stefan
|
As an aside, the RPG designer community is small, and the RPG designer community even smaller in Seattle, where both Paizo and WotC reside. There is a flow of people between the companies too, and Paizo senior management used to work at WotC. In other words, they all know each other. Now, maybe they have sly digs at one another in print, but frankly I think it is much more likely that they are acquaintances and friends who wish each other well in their endeavours. Certainly, the Paizo management have never been happy about the edition wars getting personal (or at all, actually) and don't encourage this sort of thing on their boards. And anyway, this theory holds about as much water as a sieve. Someone needs to get out more.
I think the key to the whole article is a few small words: "3rd Edition and its descendents." The whole "speak of the devil"-ness of the phrase would be funny if it weren't so tragic or maybe vice versa depending on how much sangfroid you like in your diet. Mearls can't even say the word "Pathfinder" directly?
I just attended DunDraCon, going on it's 35th year as an old school gaming convention, with the very obvious name of it being "Dungeons & Dragons Convention." There were of course many different games being played and run, but of note, the RPGA and Pathfinder Society were co-habitting two rooms quite cheerfully. The ratio of games appeared to be about 2 4e games to 5 Pathfinder games, and there were longer waiting lists for the PFS games. Also of note, both groups were using GameMastery maps (including an OOP Tavern map that I coveted) along with D&D minis.
There were also large displays of 4e books for sale in the dealer's room but I didn't notice anyone buying them.
I think the long and the short of it is that 4e is ailing and Pathfinder is on the rise.
I think the key to the whole article is a few small words: "3rd Edition and its descendents." The whole "speak of the devil"-ness of the phrase would be funny if it weren't so tragic or maybe vice versa depending on how much sangfroid you like in your diet. Mearls can't even say the word "Pathfinder" directly?
That jumped out at me too, but I didn't mention it because I couldn't tell whether or not I was being self-important as a Pathfinder fan. After all, there are other OGL games out there that are worth mention (or, well, at least alluding to vaguely). Plus a lot of people are just playing plain old 3.5 and still having a great time.
I went to Snowcon last month, which is an up-and-coming game convention in central Maine, and I'd say that the 4e to 3e ration was about half-and-half (counting Pathfinder games as "3e", which might offend some but is how I look at it. Though, word is getting around here, because there was definitely more actual Pathfinder than last year).
Also, what's up with the pop-up flash adds? I mean, seriously? If I am VOLUNTARILY visiting wizards.com/dnd, do you REALLY need to shove a D&D add up in my face? Aren't you advertising to me just by letting me browse your site? What the heck??
I think the key to the whole article is a few small words: "3rd Edition and its descendents." The whole "speak of the devil"-ness of the phrase would be funny if it weren't so tragic or maybe vice versa depending on how much sangfroid you like in your diet. Mearls can't even say the word "Pathfinder" directly?
No reason to jump on that. There are more 3E descendants than just Pathfinder. D20 Modern and Star Wars SAGA, to name just a couple.
Expecting him to name all of the games building on 3E in mid-sentence seems a bit overly touchy. And expecting him to name only Pathfinder would be unreasonable.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I suppose my reaction might be "I'm not playing Dungeons and Dragons now. I'm playing Pathfinder. You had your chance to keep me as a customer, and you lost me." I agree that there's a lineage there, and I often call Pathfinder D&D when speaking to people outside the hobby. But I also believe the banner has passed to a new company.
|
|
I think the key to the whole article is a few small words: "3rd Edition and its descendents." The whole "speak of the devil"-ness of the phrase would be funny if it weren't so tragic or maybe vice versa depending on how much sangfroid you like in your diet. Mearls can't even say the word "Pathfinder" directly?
No reason to jump on that. There are more 3E descendants than just Pathfinder. D20 Modern and Star Wars SAGA, to name just a couple.
Expecting him to name all of the games building on 3E in mid-sentence seems a bit overly touchy. And expecting him to name only Pathfinder would be unreasonable.
That and it is a bit understandable that he'd have to be coy about it with the corporate office looking over his shoulder.
All that said, I do want my previous edition .pdf's back. There's still quite a bit of that D&D I'd like to be able to discover for less than your typical bloated Amazon/Ebay price.
All that said, I do want my previous edition .pdf's back. There's still quite a bit of that D&D I'd like to be able to discover for less than your typical bloated Amazon/Ebay price.
+1. I don´t buy the piracy argument - how do all the other game companies handle that problem? I guess getting pirated versions of WotC stuff is easy still. Rather, improving the anti-piracy measures would mean quite some work for little gain, and WotC would support OOP versions of the game with it - so, pulling them entirely was easier, and does even make sense from their point of view, I guess. That the move did not sit well with the people who payed for the stuff - well, too bad. These customers probably won´t buy the new edition anyway, so why care? In the long run, it would have been fan service only, with WotC probably even losing money on it.
Stefan
I'm not playing D&D because wotc4e pulled the license for Dragon and Dungeon magazine ...
+1
This still angers me.
And yet, we gave it a fair shot. We converted (what I have since found out) is the longest running convention campaign in the country to 4e. And I found that I just didn't like it.
It's not a bad game - it's just that everything feels the same to me. Just my opinion. I've played some great 4e games, and there's some things that just work better in 4e - I think the minion rules finally allowed a horde of zombies game to be written - but overall I find that the way the rules are written destroys my suspension of disbelief on a regular basis.
And then they went and converted the quite nice character tool to an online only tool. It was bad enough that it was subscription only - now I have to be on the Internet and store all my data "in the cloud?"
I actually wrote in and requested a refund of my subscription (and they did so). So I'm pretty much done.
In fact we're retiring the campaign now, and I half blame the switch to 4e. 3e was still pretty strong, and the rule set switch was the final death knell, I think.
And yes, I don't think Pathfinder existed as a system then.
It existed as an idea, though. The announcement that Paizo will do their own game rather than wait for wotc to release the GSL came a lot earlier than the first 4e core books went to the printers, so it would have been easy to put the jab into the books.
So whether it was a jab or not, it's not impossible.
The Pathfinder RPG Alpha documents were out in April, D&D 4th Ed. launched in August. Plenty of time for that little dig to be added.
The retort came in Shadows in the Sky, the first volume of the Second Darkness AP. A minor crime lord running the "Cheat the Devil! Take His Gold!" tournament has wait-staff dressed as succubi. Even though succubi aren't devils. Which he is to stupid to know and wouldn't care even if told.
I thought the first jab by Pazio was the Rise of the Runelords(I think) with the evil wizards who live on the coast?
My opinion is that Cibet44 is correct in that it was likely a dig. Though I don't think at the RPG, I suspect its really about Paizo launching the Pathfinder brand and sticking with 3.5. The four months to the release date is misleading, they'd be getting very much finalized for print during this period. Its to late to be making a Pathfinder Paragon class and then changing power titles around. More likely the jab was included earlier - that lines up the Act Together power as well and was likely a dig regarding Paizo's decision not to go with the GSL. This would also likely line up with the point when the 4E design team is finishing up the design work on Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies since these are probably some of the last elements completed.
I caught the counter dig in Shadows in the Sky but not the one in Rise of the Runelords. I'm skeptical about any dig in Runelords - those would have been largely created during the final six months of Paizo's license with Dungeon and Paizo probably would not have made a final decision about going with 4E when they made the outline for the first adventure. If its a true jab and not a coincidence then it would mean that Paizo made the first dig. They'd need to have put this element in place before they made a finale decision about 4E and therefore before WotC could have known that there was a Pathfinder brand that was not sticking with the GSL.
Note also that I say WotC but I very much doubt that marketing or brand management new anything about this. I suspect that this would nearly certianly be an 'in joke' among the Dungeons & Dragons design and development teams. Similar to the Captain White Bread theme from 3rd ed.
Be that it is we don't know how well the WotC staff gets along with the Pazio staff...these could be just friendly jabs...or just somewhat friendly ribbing between rivals. Than again it could be that they really hate each other...and pray for Deathmatches between each other...
Paizo staff are on record regarding this on a number of occasions. Usually while trying to cool flame wars. I also think Erik Mona mentions playing the Castle Ravenloft game with the some WotC guys at Gen Con.
As some one else mentioned, Seattle game design scene = not so big.
Hence I think there was a dig and a counter dig, but I suspect that Cibet44 takes this a lot more personally then the Pazio staff do. At this point it seems to me to be little more then some interesting gamer lore.
I'd actually be a tad unhappy if it was shown to be not true. Removes a good story I can regale my audience with when they set me out to pasture in the retirement home (I plan to start a gaming group there by stealing players away from the cribbage club).
What was the counter strike?
Yes. Although it's actually on p114.That was the "Pathfinder" option with the "Wrong Step" power, right?
Paizo's counter strike was funnier! ;-)
In Shadow in the Sky (Part one of Second Darkness), this guy had a "Deal with the Devil" theme going for his casino. The waitresses were dressed up as succubi. The adventure went on to state something like "(The guy) knows that succubi are demons, not devils, but he doesn't care, he only cares about getting more money."
That refers to 4e turning succubi into devils when they're actually demons. (And getting rid of erinyes, since they were too much like succubi as good-looking hell-chicks, nevermind their completely different roles).
This was even confirmed to be a playful jab by someone from Paizo here on the boards. Might have been JJ.
What about the WotC dev on the grassy Gnoll?
Get off the Ashvawg Tamer, you don't know where she's been!
|
|
And yes, I don't think Pathfinder existed as a system then.It existed as an idea, though. The announcement that Paizo will do their own game rather than wait for wotc to release the GSL came a lot earlier than the first 4e core books went to the printers, so it would have been easy to put the jab into the books.
So whether it was a jab or not, it's not impossible.
But bloody unlikely.
"Hey, I've had an idea. On the off-chance that Paizo call their system Pathfinder, let's create a Pathfinder paragon path, and stick in some veiled insults at Paizo. Wrong Step! Yuk yuk yuk. That'll learn'em to take on the mighty corporate behemoth that is Wizards of the Coast!"
I mean, good grief, maybe it's not impossible but it strikes me as very unlikely. If I cared (which I don't) I can probably come up with a load of similar, entirely coinicidental "connection" of dubious relevance if I really wanted to.
Don't get me wrong, when it comes to WotC's marketing and general attitude wrt the change-over from 3e to 4e, I mostly agree with the sentiments above about how cack-handed and (in the case of the OGL/GSL) somewhat mean-spirited they behaved. I was furious about the cancellation of the magazines at the time.
But I'm not really that interested in banging on about years after. Jesus, I had a girlfriend be unfaithful to me and I got over it quicker than some of you guys. Go outside and enjoy the sunshine (OK, it's February, but you know what I mean) and try to think about something else.
Don’t let that details drive us apart when the big picture says we should be joined together.Those are great words.
Now, WotC... can you back up those words with actions?
Can fans of previous editions find a reason to look again to your company? For instance, can you bring back those cheap PDFs, reprinting those classics from the AD&D and BECMI days?
And while you're at it, how about some PDFs from the 3.X years? And I've been wanting to look into Alternity for some time...
(Yes, I know that WotC cited other reasons for taking back the PDFs, namely piracy. Somehow, I never could quite believe that.)
Now THAT would be a REAL call for unity!
(I mean, I assume that this call for unity means that WotC wants more role players under its banner to one extent or another.)
Agreed. wotc burned a lot of bridges. I don't know whether Mearls is a nice guy or not, or whether he agrees with all the crap wotc has pulled off, or whether he means what he says in that column, but I won't support the company either way.
It's up to the company, as a company, to build new bridges.
Bringing back the 3e and earlier PDFs would be a good first step.
As an aside, the RPG designer community is small, and the RPG designer community even smaller in Seattle, where both Paizo and WotC reside. There is a flow of people between the companies too, and Paizo senior management used to work at WotC. In other words, they all know each other. Now, maybe they have sly digs at one another in print, but frankly I think it is much more likely that they are acquaintances and friends who wish each other well in their endeavours. Certainly, the Paizo management have never been happy about the edition wars getting personal (or at all, actually) and don't encourage this sort of thing on their boards. And anyway, this theory holds about as much water as a sieve. Someone needs to get out more.
You get it all wrong. The fact that the game designers are still friends with each other is actually a good reason to assume that those allusions are intentional. They're just not hostile. They're teasing each other in good fun. It probably goes right over the suits at wotc/Hasbro (Paizo doesn't seem to have actual suits), but the people who know about the actual games know about them and laugh over it.
I'm not playing D&D because wotc4e pulled the license for Dragon and Dungeon magazine ...+1
This still angers me.
Well, considering that his was the butterfly that caused the hypercane we call "Pathfinder", I'm not really angry about it any more.
After all, because they did that, Paizo had to look for something else. Pathfinder Adventure Paths (the first product line to be called Pathfinder anything) was the result.
Everything else that came after was a direct or indirect result of that license pulling (or the other way around).
The licenses were pulled because they wanted everything for themselves for 4e, and that attitude continued with the GSL. That stuff lead to PFRPG, since they practically forced Paizo to keep away from 4e.
They further helped Golarion, the place where the Adventure Paths took place, when they killed the Forgotten Realms. I'm sure there are many like me who lost their favourite CS that way, and were looking for something new, and since the APs ran in their own, shiny, new world, it was a logical choice to run with that.
And that made the Chronicles (now Campaign Setting) line, as well as the Companions line, more feasible and popular.
|
I think the key to the whole article is a few small words: "3rd Edition and its descendents." The whole "speak of the devil"-ness of the phrase would be funny if it weren't so tragic or maybe vice versa depending on how much sangfroid you like in your diet. Mearls can't even say the word "Pathfinder" directly?
No reason to jump on that. There are more 3E descendants than just Pathfinder. D20 Modern and Star Wars SAGA, to name just a couple.
Expecting him to name all of the games building on 3E in mid-sentence seems a bit overly touchy. And expecting him to name only Pathfinder would be unreasonable.
That and it is a bit understandable that he'd have to be coy about it with the corporate office looking over his shoulder.
All that said, I do want my previous edition .pdf's back. There's still quite a bit of that D&D I'd like to be able to discover for less than your typical bloated Amazon/Ebay price.
I agree if WotC wanted to generate some good will with lost fans the best way to do it would be to release older editions in PDF format at a reasonable price. Honestly not sure why they don't, I am pretty sure those that are going 4e have went 4e. So the only ones that would buy the older PDF's are those that have no plans to buy 4e stuff. To me it just seems like a way for them to make free profit at this point. But that I mean they made their money once on those products and now putting the PDF's back up would just be extra source of income for very little effort. Not to mention the PR good will.
But bloody unlikely."Hey, I've had an idea. On the off-chance that Paizo call their system Pathfinder
Whether they'd call their system Pathfinder or not, the APs already bore that name. The name itself was there.
I agree if WotC wanted to generate some good will
It seems that to the suits over there, goodwill isn't worth enough.
|
I like what Mike said. Edition wars be damned, we are all gamers!Taking that to it's logical extension, Game Systems be dammed, we're all gamers whether we play something that's D20, derived, GURPS, Storyteller, Champions, or even something completely diceless.
Continue down that path my friend.
Game Mediums be damned, we're all gamers whether we play something table-top, electronic, or even something physical.
|
|
I like what Mike said. Edition wars be damned, we are all gamers!Taking that to it's logical extension, Game Systems be dammed, we're all gamers whether we play something that's D20, derived, GURPS, Storyteller, Champions, or even something completely diceless.
I agree... except for those damn dirty GURPS gamers... don't even get my started on the diceless ones. I mean really gaming with out dice? Pfft... :)
|
|
As an aside, the RPG designer community is small, and the RPG designer community even smaller in Seattle, where both Paizo and WotC reside. There is a flow of people between the companies too, and Paizo senior management used to work at WotC. In other words, they all know each other. Now, maybe they have sly digs at one another in print, but frankly I think it is much more likely that they are acquaintances and friends who wish each other well in their endeavours. Certainly, the Paizo management have never been happy about the edition wars getting personal (or at all, actually) and don't encourage this sort of thing on their boards. And anyway, this theory holds about as much water as a sieve. Someone needs to get out more.You get it all wrong. The fact that the game designers are still friends with each other is actually a good reason to assume that those allusions are intentional. They're just not hostile. They're teasing each other in good fun. It probably goes right over the suits at wotc/Hasbro (Paizo doesn't seem to have actual suits), but the people who know about the actual games know about them and laugh over it.
That may be so, but a few of people on this tread aren't laughing. Which is more my point.
I agree... except for those damn dirty GURPS gamers... don't even get my started on the diceless ones. I mean really gaming with out dice? Pfft... :)I like what Mike said. Edition wars be damned, we are all gamers!Taking that to it's logical extension, Game Systems be dammed, we're all gamers whether we play something that's D20, derived, GURPS, Storyteller, Champions, or even something completely diceless.
Then let us pledge allegiance to our shared pantheon of polyhedrons!
I guess videogames are okay too.
I harbor no ill-will to WotC, although their PDF policy made it so that I can't really be a customer of theirs anymore.
If Mr. Mearls is serious about unity in the RPG industry, pushing for a new OGL would be a gesture I could believe. Otherwise, it's all talk.
|
|
I agree... except for those damn dirty GURPS gamers... don't even get my started on the diceless ones. I mean really gaming with out dice? Pfft... :)I like what Mike said. Edition wars be damned, we are all gamers!Taking that to it's logical extension, Game Systems be dammed, we're all gamers whether we play something that's D20, derived, GURPS, Storyteller, Champions, or even something completely diceless.Then let us pledge allegiance to our shared pantheon of polyhedrons!
I guess videogames are okay too.
Those damn videogame kids and their new fangled stuff can get the hell off my lawn. :)
|
|
I harbor no ill-will to WotC, although their PDF policy made it so that I can't really be a customer of theirs anymore.
If Mr. Mearls is serious about unity in the RPG industry, pushing for a new OGL would be a gesture I could believe. Otherwise, it's all talk.
A new OGL would be nice, but i don't see that happening. I would be content with the older editions being sold as PDF's i would consider that a nice and big first step of good will.
A new OGL would be nice, but i don't see that happening. I would be content with the older editions being sold as PDF's i would consider that a nice and big first step of good will.
And so, absent any additional cause for enmity, this man's words ring hollow in my ears. You can't support a community of different varieties of "D&D" whilst simultaneously insisting that only one version is "True" D&D. The GSL implies that.
Older versions for sale would be something, but the sentiment he expresses in that article looks like nothing more than lip-service to me.
Ha! Nice turn of phrase.In other words, we are all acting like near eastern donkeys about our games.
We are the only ones who turned a simple word spoken during Roman times into something offensive.
Okay, I've racked my brain and even Googled around for a clue, and I still can't figure out the near-eastern part of this. It's going to drive me MAD. Kindly explain joke, plz, kthxbai.
If Mr. Mearls is serious about unity in the RPG industry, pushing for a new OGL would be a gesture I could believe. Otherwise, it's all talk.
What's wrong with the current OGL?
Seems to be working just fine for Paizo. :)
Now, if WotC wants to release more content as open game content (such as, say, beholders, illithids, slaadi, and yuan ti), I'd be fine with that.
Okay, I've racked my brain and even Googled around for a clue, and I still can't figure out the near-eastern part of this. It's going to drive me MAD. Kindly explain joke, plz, kthxbai.Ha! Nice turn of phrase.In other words, we are all acting like near eastern donkeys about our games.
We are the only ones who turned a simple word spoken during Roman times into something offensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Wild_Ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Wild_Ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Wild_Ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Wild_Ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Wild_Ass
Need I go on?
If Mr. Mearls is serious about unity in the RPG industry, pushing for a new OGL would be a gesture I could believe. Otherwise, it's all talk.What's wrong with the current OGL?
Seems to be working just fine for Paizo. :)
Now, if WotC wants to release more content as open game content (such as, say, beholders, illithids, slaadi, and yuan ti), I'd be fine with that.
This is more or less what I meant. Community is about sharing things to the benefit of all.
They can keep their IP races, that's not an issue for me. But they can't spurn the OGL and then claim they're invested in the D&D community.
If Mr. Mearls is serious about unity in the RPG industry, pushing for a new OGL would be a gesture I could believe. Otherwise, it's all talk.What's wrong with the current OGL?
Seems to be working just fine for Paizo. :)
Now, if WotC wants to release more content as open game content (such as, say, beholders, illithids, slaadi, and yuan ti), I'd be fine with that.
This is more or less what I meant. Community is about sharing things to the benefit of all.
They can keep their IP races, that's not an issue for me. But they can't spurn the OGL and then claim they're invested in the D&D community.
mmm...slaads
They can keep their IP races, that's not an issue for me. But they can't spurn the OGL and then claim they're invested in the D&D community.
This is one of the reasons why I joined the Question-Copyright movement.
This article, combined with last year's "We never set out to get rid of our fans!" interview, sound very much to me like:
a) attempts at damage control on a corporate level ("Come back to us, well-heeled grognards!"), and
b) attempts at damage control on a personal level ("For the love of the game, what have I wrought???")
To that extent, I wish him luck in rehabilitating the reputations of both WotC and himself. It's a tough challenge, assuming it's even possible.
Of course, I may be misreading completely; I have never met him and have only the words on the page to go by.
-The Gneech
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Maybe it's the psychadelic toad talking, but part of me read this message as a "So long, and thanks for all the fish."
Or, alternatively, they can kill me, but the war will go on.
This looked to me like a plea to remember the game and keep it going, even though WotC is ready to kill it for good (or switch over to board games altogether). I didn't read it as Mike rallying the troops, I read it as Mike saying "D&D is dead, at least in name, but it can never be killed as long as we keep playing some form of it."
Yeah, I think it's the toad. But part of me still wonders if the end is finally nigh. Particularly if all the D&D chips are bet on the long-heralded VVT, and everyone inside knows that it's as bad as most WotC software...
Yeah, I think it's the toad. But part of me still wonders if the end is finally nigh. Particularly if all the D&D chips are bet on the long-heralded VVT, and everyone inside knows that it's as bad as most WotC software...
It's the brand that's dying, Sebastian.
Pathfinder will keep going as long as the OGL remains.
|
|
Particularly if all the D&D chips are bet on the long-heralded VVT, and everyone inside knows that it's as bad as most WotC software...
If you're referring to the virtual tabletop they are working on, it would be a mistake to move everything to a piece of software that will simply be used to play the actual game.
The actual game has to continue to exist in its releasable form, and continue on. A virtual tabletop is only one means to play a game. It isn't the game.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Particularly if all the D&D chips are bet on the long-heralded VVT, and everyone inside knows that it's as bad as most WotC software...If you're referring to the virtual tabletop they are working on, it would be a mistake to move everything to a piece of software that will simply be used to play the actual game.
The actual game has to continue to exist in its releasable form, and continue on. A virtual tabletop is a way to play a game. It isn't the game.
Agreed - I wasn't trying to make that point necessarily. What I meant was that if they are counting on VTT to get people to give 4e another chance/revitalize it, and it's not very good, Mearls may see the writing on the wall.
Also agreed on D&D being only a brand. That struck me as part of Mike's point too, which is why I was reading as a euology for the name, not for the game.