# Eric Noah's Info



## sfgiants

I must have missed it, but no threads about these nuggest yet? Wow! Anyways, no surprises I would guess as we all knew this was coming. What worries me the most is the note about smaller packets of info... This makes me think, smaller books (maybe multiple PHB or some such) all costing 20 bucks, running the price up significantly...

The scary thing is that maybe 4e will become a self-fullfilling prophecy. Say what I want, I will probably buy it, but as a result I am going to slow down on 3.5 purchases. Causing WotC to see fewer sales and thinking that 4e is more needed than ever. Anyone else feel the same?


----------



## Sammael

If 4E is supposed to be more mini-centric, I won't be buying it (even though I collect D&D minis). I will continue to purchase 3.x products as usual.


----------



## Belen

What you talkin' about, Willis?


----------



## Barak

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> What you talkin' about, Willis?




QFT.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

sfgiants said:
			
		

> What worries me the most is the note about smaller packets of info... This makes me think, smaller books (maybe multiple PHB or some such) all costing 20 bucks, running the price up significantly...




My first thought was "cards."


----------



## ColonelHardisson

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> What you talkin' about, Willis?




Check the front, or news, page of this site.


----------



## DaveMage

I hope the rumors are not true, but something recently occured that has me worried.

The revised Basic Game - originally scheduled to come out this fall - has disappeared from the WotC catalog....

I don't intend to go 4E (and I have been vehemently against it in posts in the past), but I will take a wait and see.

Bottom line, though, is that 3.X will keep me quite satisfied for the rest of my life if need be.


----------



## Sammael

Check the front page, guys.


----------



## pogre

4E is coming and you are going to play 

I welcome the heavier emphasis on miniatures - we'll see about the rest.

3E isn't going anywhere and it is basically open forever, which is very cool.


----------



## Kanegrundar

I'm with DaveMage on this.  Wait and see, but if what little has been said now is confirmed to be true, I'll stick with 3.X but still buy up any minis releases.


----------



## Wanderer20

Well, I really hope Eric Noah has done an April Fool to us; it might be possible . I hope so.

  Anyway, we all know 4E is going to pop up sooner or later, and many rumors said it would have done so at the next GenCon.

  Not writing what I think about 4E since I've been writing it too many times.


----------



## EricNoah

Hopefully folks are taking this all with the grain of salt it deserves.  "Someone I know had lunch with someone he knows and blah blah blah" isn't much to base anything on.


----------



## hbarsquared

If this 4E rumor is true, then I think 3.x D&D is in the unique position of surviving.

A 4E edition of the type stated by Eric would effectively mean the end of producing true pen-and-paper RPGs.  People who want to continue playing in that fashion _will not stop by 3.x products_ as 4E approaches.  The game will continue to be played, I believe, since there will not be much of a push for these people to have their game replaced.


----------



## Belen

Eric Noah said:
			
		

> On a more serious note ... it is ironic that even yesterday I got some major scoops about the future of D&D. It is sounding like some of our most paranoid fears are in fact in the works.
> 
> -4E already in the works? Check.
> -Even more miniatures-centric? Check.
> -Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately? Check.
> -A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC).
> 
> Unfortunately I can't go into how I got the info or who gave it to me. And I don't think even WotC knows when they're going to announce anything. I got the impression that timing such an announcement with GenCon was no longer seen as optimal or necessary. But please take all as unsubstantiated speculation ... as usual!




Well, if this is the case, then I guess I am done.


----------



## Kanegrundar

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Hopefully folks are taking this all with the grain of salt it deserves.  "Someone I know had lunch with someone he knows and blah blah blah" isn't much to base anything on.



 Then I have to wonder why even bring it up if it's that type of information?  Not trying to be a jerk, but you know how 4E talk raises the hackles of just about everyone around here.


----------



## Sammael

I am sure that it's more than just a rumor if Eric posted it himself.


----------



## Arnwyn

sfgiants said:
			
		

> Say what I want, I will probably buy it, but as a result I am going to slow down on 3.5 purchases. Causing WotC to see fewer sales and thinking that 4e is more needed than ever. Anyone else feel the same?



Nope, not even close to the same as you.

3e is our group's last edition. We're older, we have a lot of other things in our lives, and none of my players are even remotely interested in upgrading (it was a fight _five years later_ to get them to go from 2e to 3e, and 3.5 was out of the question regarding them buying 3.5 PHBs - though a couple of the more hardcore ones did).

But then again, I haven't purchased a full-on 'rule' book and/or character option book in a couple of years now (I only purchase FR books, adventures, and easily-insertable-into-FR city-type books), so it's not like it's a big deal. We've been essentially "done" for quite a while now. 3.5 books that meet the above criteria are the _only_ books I'll be purchasing!


----------



## Ilium

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Then I have to wonder why even bring it up if it's that type of information?  Not trying to be a jerk, but you know how 4E talk raises the hackles of just about everyone around here.



 I asumed it was a joke, actually.  Apparently not, but highly unsubstantiated.  I will now stick my head back in the sand until such time as WotC announces something.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

The most interesting - to me, at least - bit is the possibility of WotC selling off the RPG division. That could be the most profound thing to happen to D&D since WotC bought TSR.


----------



## Barak

It's so non-sensical...  

Whatever.


----------



## loki44

So, it seems like we're coming full circle here.....

Is 4E going to be a rerelease of OD&D?
More mini-centric? (Chainmail?)
Smaller packets of information?  (Men & Magic, et al.?)

hmmmm


----------



## JustaPlayer

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Then I have to wonder why even bring it up if it's that type of information?  Not trying to be a jerk, but you know how 4E talk raises the hackles of just about everyone around here.



*raises his own hackles*


----------



## Ilium

Wait a minute...Rumors of WotC selling off the RPG business...meanwhile Monte Cook says he's putting "d20" projects on the back burner...

Nah.  Couldn't be.


----------



## Kanegrundar

Sammael said:
			
		

> I am sure that it's more than just a rumor if Eric posted it himself.



 Probably so, but if Eric himself is telling us to take it with all the grains of salt news like this requires then it can't be that terribly reliable and is therefore not likely any better than any one of us Joes with few to no "industry contacts" posting the same kind of thing.


----------



## EricNoah

It came up in another thread.  I thought it was interesting.  I didn't submit it as a scoop and would be just as happy if it hadn't been posted.  I honestly didn't see it as that big a revelation.


----------



## Kanegrundar

Ilium said:
			
		

> Wait a minute...Rumors of WotC selling off the RPG business...meanwhile Monte Cook says he's putting "d20" projects on the back burner...
> 
> Nah.  Couldn't be.



 I like the way you think...


----------



## Kormydigar

Well if all this actually becomes truth we can always hope that nobody buys any 4E stuff and Wizards sells the D&D license to someone who will produce quality Pen& paper RPGs.

If that happens then rumor has it that:

1) A clear concise ruleset will be published with no forthcoming bloat.

2) supplements will be worldbooks, adventures, and other great fluff.

3) A banishing of the abomination that is D&D plastic minis- return to proper metal.

4) Reality sets in as we all realize that Hasbro would rather die sitting on the D&D license before letting anyone do anything useful with it.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

"A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC)."

if this is true, im never going to buy a wizards of the coast product ever again. Maybe go with white wolf or something.


----------



## Varianor Abroad

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> The most interesting - to me, at least - bit is the possibility of WotC selling off the RPG division. That could be the most profound thing to happen to D&D since WotC bought TSR.




Agreed. It would be consonant with the prior sale of Dragon and Dungeon to Paizo. It's also consistent with Hasbro's company practice. If it does go up for sale, it would be great to see a company with enough capitol to nurture RPGs for the future.


----------



## pogre

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Then I have to wonder why even bring it up if it's that type of information?  Not trying to be a jerk, but you know how 4E talk raises the hackles of just about everyone around here.




You know, this did start out as a 3E rumor site right


----------



## Kanegrundar

EricNoah said:
			
		

> It came up in another thread.  I thought it was interesting.  I didn't submit it as a scoop and would be just as happy if it hadn't been posted.  I honestly didn't see it as that big a revelation.



 Then you're not to one to blame.  Sorry if I came off like a prick or anything along those lines, Eric.


----------



## Scribble

Collectible trading card "feats" (or manuevers)

Spell cards, magic item cards...

Monster stats come with the monsters, so as you buy monsters you get more stats, instead of books.


----------



## Barak

EricNoah said:
			
		

> It came up in another thread.  I thought it was interesting.  I didn't submit it as a scoop and would be just as happy if it hadn't been posted.  I honestly didn't see it as that big a revelation.




So it's basically the same silly stuff rehashed often enough, finally uttered by someone you sorta trust, and submitted by you..  

Yeah, that sounds about right.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Well, 3E won't die, thanks to the OGL. When 4E hits, if there's any warning at all, we'll see the SRD cleaned up, a non-WotC advancement table added, probably some counterparts to the IP creatures and gods added and on sale at the same time.

Unless 4E is very different from what Eric heard, when the Fork comes, I'm taking the OGL/3E path instead. All of my books remain good, my campaigns continue without much of a hitch and, since it's all OGL material, it'll remain in print in some form forever.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

I wonder if they'd sell off (really, license) the RPG portion of D&D and keep the mini and other profitable stuff in their portfolio.  A smaller company could be happy with a return that would make the Hasbro beancounters cry.  Hasbro would still have the RPG driving brand interest and visibility, they'd still have the big-ticket profit items (eg book and movie rights, computer games) to rent out.  By making it a license they'd still have 'editorial' control to some extent.

It would seem to me that there is great potential in alienating two user bases by simultaneously.  First, by making the collectibles game more complicated and more expensive (more, smaller books).  Second by making the RPG less attractive to the core base and also more expensive, especially considering that third-parties could continue to produce 3.x material for as long as the (smaller) market would bear.


----------



## EricNoah

Oh definitely someone I trust and someone who would be in the position to know.  

But really -- nothing all that surprising was said.  I think we all knew that 4e had to be underway now or soon, and that minis were the wave of the future.  I hadn't really considered the possibility of selling smaller "packages" of info, so that was a little surprising, as was the notion that Hasbro or WotC might be interested in letting go of RPGs entirely.


----------



## Einan

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Well, 3E won't die, thanks to the OGL. When 4E hits, if there's any warning at all, we'll see the SRD cleaned up, a non-WotC advancement table added, probably some counterparts to the IP creatures and gods added and on sale at the same time.
> 
> Unless 4E is very different from what Eric heard, when the Fork comes, I'm taking the OGL/3E path instead. All of my books remain good, my campaigns continue without much of a hitch and, since it's all OGL material, it'll remain in print in some form forever.




Look at us.  We're all turning into Diaglo and 4th edition hasn't even been announced yet.  

Ha!

Einan


----------



## sfgiants

Two more interesting notes I thought of. First, how could 4e become more miniature focused? Secondly, theoretically if 4e comes out, one company could make some cash just selling 3.5 stuff, satisfying a sizeable market...


----------



## BiggusGeekus




----------



## MojoGM

Kormydigar said:
			
		

> Well if all this actually becomes truth we can always hope that nobody buys any 4E stuff and Wizards sells the D&D license to someone who will produce quality Pen& paper RPGs.
> 
> If that happens then rumor has it that:
> 
> 1) A clear concise ruleset will be published with no forthcoming bloat.
> 
> 2) supplements will be worldbooks, adventures, and other great fluff.
> 
> 3) A banishing of the abomination that is D&D plastic minis- return to proper metal.
> 
> 4) Reality sets in as we all realize that Hasbro would rather die sitting on the D&D license before letting anyone do anything useful with it.




I'm with you on all counts except #3.  Pre-painted plastic minis are the best thing to ever happen to my game.  I have neither the time nor inclination to paint minis, so this has allowed me to stop using dice or counters on my grid.  

As for 4.0, if it comes, it comes.  My 3.5 stuff is still good enough for me.


----------



## Kanegrundar

sfgiants said:
			
		

> Two more interesting notes I thought of. First, how could 4e become more miniature focused? Secondly, theoretically if 4e comes out, one company could make some cash just selling 3.5 stuff, satisfying a sizeable market...



 I guess 4E could end up becoming a game along the lines of Warhammer Quest...


----------



## shilsen

Personally, I won't believe it till I see it. And after I see it, I very likely will just continue playing 3.5e for a long time, since I like the system. 

What WotC does with D&D doesn't really affect my game(s) once I got the core books. After that, if they put out a book I like, I may get it. And if they put out products I don't care for, it doesn't bother me. The existence, or non-existence, of 4e really isn't particularly important to me.


----------



## sfgiants

Another thought is to look at d20 Star Wars. In the time WotC has had the property it has released: core rules, revised core rules, and now a new rules set. 3 editions in what 5 years. This points to 4e and soon...


----------



## Frostmarrow

Hey Eric! Any word on scratch ticket stats. That would seriously get people's blood pressure up. 

(I'm just glad ENWorld is back to normal. Speculations and rumours is what made this place great in the first place.)


----------



## BadMojo

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> *raises his own hackles*




My hackles are secured firmly in their lowered position.  I'll wait and see what 4E looks like and if it looks fun, I'll buy it.  If not, I'll stick with 3.X or maybe go with True 20 and just convert any new non-crunch that comes out.

It's not like a don't have 10 tons of D20 stuff that I haven't utilized AND other systems I'd like to try.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

EricNoah said:
			
		

> But really -- nothing all that surprising was said.  I think we all knew that 4e had to be underway now or soon, and that minis were the wave of the future.




Agreed. The success of the minis made it obvious that they'd want to try to coat-tail the game on them. And there have been many signs that a new edition has been in the works, or at least has had the ground broken on it. Despite his insistence that they're simply to generate discussion, Mike Mearls' recent website articles on developing some classic critters is one of those signs, I believe.



			
				EricNoah said:
			
		

> I hadn't really considered the possibility of selling smaller "packages" of info, so that was a little surprising, as was the notion that Hasbro or WotC might be interested in letting go of RPGs entirely.




Yeah, both of those were surprises to me. Perhaps the long-standing gripe about the expensive buy-in for the game will be addressed.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

> -Even more miniatures-centric? Check.



Not good, IMO.  I want the opposite, with minis decoupled from the rules (i.e. you could still use them, but the system doesn't assume them).



> -Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately? Check.



Not good, IMO.  Sounds like what I don't like about CCGs and collectible minis games.



> A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC).



This might be okay.  Personally, I'd rather see the D&D brand in the hands of a smaller company.  I know some disagree with me, but I haven't liked the direction WotC seems to be taking the game.

I seriously doubt that I'll buy 4E.  (Heck, I never bought 3.5 -- I just house ruled things like Haste, etc).  I think it's likely that 4E will cause the market to fragment quite a bit, which I don't view as a necessarily bad thing.  I think some will move to 4E, but quite a few will stick with 3E (more than stuck with 2E), and others will gravitate towards OGL systems like True20 and Castles & Crusades.  I think third-party d20 companies see the writing on the wall, and are looking for additional baskets for their eggs.  Green Ronin has MnM and True20, but even their other offerings (e.g. Freeport) are going to be offered with stats separately, so you can use the stats for the system of your choice.  Mongoose is coming out with Runequest.  Malhavoc has AE and Iron Heroes, and now Monte is shipping his magnum opus and moving on to opportunities outside of RPGs; I'd bet that 4E weighed into that decision, to one degree or another.

I guess I "jumped ship" when I didn't go for 3.5, because I think the only WotC product I've purchased since then was Red Hand of Doom (although I bought a LOT of stuff from Necromancer, Malhavoc, and Green Ronin).  These days, my main game is C&C, but I still play 3E, on occassion.  It'll be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Einan

BadMojo said:
			
		

> It's not like a don't have 10 tons of D20 stuff that I haven't utilized AND other systems I'd like to try.




Ain't that the God's Honest truth?

I looked at my game shelf the other day and started ticking off campaigns I WANT to run...  Stargate, Starship Troopers, D20 Modern, Freeport, Ptolus (soon to come), etc...

If they stopped publishing any game supplments tomorrow I might catch up with my purchases in 2015.

Maybe. I'm not taking any bets on it, though.

Einan


----------



## Frostmarrow

Wow, this thread updates faster than I can read!


----------



## EricNoah

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> Hey Eric! Any word on scratch ticket stats. That would seriously get people's blood pressure up.




I'm crossing my fingers for scratch-n-sniff!  

I don't have much more to say -- the words speak for themselves.  As always, remember there's a reason why it's called a "rumor."  I might have misunderstood something.  The person who I spoke with might have misunderstood something.  The person he spoke with might have misunderstood something.  And so on.  

Remember how long it took to develop 3E.  If I'm recalling correctly, the big announcement came well after the new edition was in development, and it was still a year out from there before we saw it.  It could still be a relatively long time before we can know if any of these rumors are correct.  There's no reason to be overly pessimistic -- or optimistic, for that matter.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian




----------



## ColonelHardisson

MojoGM said:
			
		

> I'm with you on all counts except #3.  Pre-painted plastic minis are the best thing to ever happen to my game.  I have neither the time nor inclination to paint minis, so this has allowed me to stop using dice or counters on my grid.




Yeah, those are the same reasons I never used minis in my games. I like the plastic ones...except for the collectible aspect. I don't want to have to start a whole new hobby just to supplement another hobby. I want to be able to buy what I need in my game directly.


----------



## WarlockLord

Scribble said:
			
		

> Collectible trading card "feats" (or manuevers)
> 
> Spell cards, magic item cards...
> 
> Monster stats come with the monsters, so as you buy monsters you get more stats, instead of books.





If this happens, we are alll doomed.

"Whoa! Check it out! I got the Power Attack card!  I just wish i had Fireball for my mage!"

I quit magic because I never had the cards I needed.


----------



## Barak

Anything that has, anywhere as it's base, that M:TG is "profitable" is hugely suspect to me.


----------



## Frostmarrow

It is very fitting that you Eric get to kick things off. We (at least I) realise that it's just a rumor and all and any ideas R&D might have will change shape during the course of development, so nothing is for certain. But I do know one thing; if MM is working on a new edition this is where he'll come for input and ideas.


----------



## Enkhidu

/me wonders if 4e will simply do away with the Monster Manual completely, relying on the minis (and the cards that come with them) to serve that purpose.


----------



## Kanegrundar

pogre said:
			
		

> You know, this did start out as a 3E rumor site right



 Hehehe.  Touche.  

Still, I stand by my point that it wasn't anything more than 3rd hand info that requires plenty of salt to swallow and is therefore pretty useless.  

Ah, the hell with it, I may as well just let the 4E fervor wash over me and carry me away!


----------



## Frostmarrow

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> /me wonders if 4e will simply do away with the Monster Manual completely, relying on the minis (and the cards that come with them) to serve that purpose.




Yeah, but they'll do both.  -Cards first though.


----------



## spectre72

Well I was not surprised at all by anything in the post.

WOTC and many other companies have found that plastic crack, paper crack, and other Collectible items = $$$$

So why would anyone be surprised to see a 4th edition that includes more emphasis on miniatures, and maybe even a card component to add even further to the costs of playing.

If miniatures and Magic are the only thing that is making money (I have heard this quite a few times before from many different sources and it goes back as far as when I was a demo person for WOTC) why not migrate the CCG/miniatures business model to RPG's.

Collectible cards with feats, spells, magic items, ...etc. not available in any book format.

If I break the rules up into smaller components and add more fluff people have to buy more items to play.  Perhaps a smaller book for each core class, one for each race, one for combat,  one for equipment, one for magic, ...etc  

And I have seen posts by several past WOTC employees that a new version = an instant cash infusion because everyone needs new core rulebooks.

Hasbro is all about making money, and a business model where the game has reached a point where only the GM is buying stuff does not equate to as much in sales as several others that I can think of.

Personally I have gone through enough editions that it would not matter what 4e looked like I probably would not purchase anything.

But if done right Hasbro could turn 4e into an accountants (and stockholders) dream and a players nightmare as they made it almost imposible to play without spending a ton of cash, and by adding a collectible component like cards would cause people to keep spending.

But we as gamers (myself included) have shown that we are willing to purchase boxes of Magic cards, cases of heroclix, cases of D&D miniatures, ...etc.  Personally I have stopped all such purchases, but if you read the threads about miniature purchases on this board you routinely hear people saying they have purchased multiple cases of product. Hasbro knows this, and if they want to try and increase profits it is a compulsion that they could try to exploit in the RPG market.

So with all that said I firmly believe that 4e is on the way.

What it looks like will be anyones guess, but I would not be surprised if it was designed to grab even more of our hard earned money away from us and transfer it to Hasbro's bottom line.

The only bright spot for me is that they won't get any of mine. 

Now before anyone blasts away, I DO NOT HAVE ANY INSIDER INFORMATION.

This is entirely opinion and speculation.

I just know the mentality of the people who are in charge and trying to make things look good for the stockholders.  To many of them RPG's are a product line, and every product line is expected to add to the profitability of the company.  If it is not performing to expectations then the product is either altered, dropped, or sold off to get a short term balance sheet boost.


----------



## PatrickLawinger

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Oh definitely someone I trust and someone who would be in the position to know.
> 
> But really -- nothing all that surprising was said.  I think we all knew that 4e had to be underway now or soon, and that minis were the wave of the future.  I hadn't really considered the possibility of selling smaller "packages" of info, so that was a little surprising, as was the notion that Hasbro or WotC might be interested in letting go of RPGs entirely.




Um, so you are basing this off rumors and speculation from someone "who would be in the position to know."??? Wouldn't it have been a bit more "newsworthy" if you checked into it a bit more? So, who is working on it, no, really. Sure, I can come up with names, but names i can come up with are busy on other projects, those names just don't pan out. Things I have heard from "people in the know" indicate it is NOT presently being worked on. This doesn't mean someone couldn't have started in the past few weeks or might start tomorrow.

Based on the planned product release schedule I have serious doubts that 4e is on its way "soon." Is it on the way someday, sure. WotC knows that something like that is going to require more than a few people, it is also going to require extensive playtesting (or better). Any playtesters you know suddenly shut up and start playing games secretively? Knowing they can't effectively keep something like that secret, and that "substantiated rumors" could effectively kill their planned releases for a year and a half means they either have to develop it in complete secrecy (likely without sufficient playtesting) or find a way to hype it without killing their own 3.5 releases.

As for the other suppositions, really, I think that the "delve" format clearly suggests moving to a more mini-centric style book. Pretty easy guess that 4e is going to use minis. Frankly, 3.5 is written as being very "mini-centric" but you can easily blow off using minis. If 4e is an RPG it'll be the same. Otherwise it it'll be a wargame/mini-game and won't change 3.5 sales.

Could your rumors be true? Certainly, but without a timeline they seem more like shots in the dark and should be considered "speculation" not "news." I think it is a real disservice to call these speculations "news."

I am not trying to slam you or anything, really, the tone of the written words here doesn't sound good. I just think that adding fuel to more wonderful 4e rumors without real back-up by calling this "news" simply isn't the way to go.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Ah, the hell with it, I may as well just let the 4E fervor wash over me and carry me away!



Don't you mean the "4E *fetor*"...


----------



## BryonD

EricNoah said:
			
		

> It came up in another thread.  I thought it was interesting.  I didn't submit it as a scoop and would be just as happy if it hadn't been posted.  I honestly didn't see it as that big a revelation.



With great power comes great responsibility.


----------



## WarlockLord

I know I don't want to get 4e because it makes all my books useless.  Still, I could use the SRD instead of core rulebooks (I have a friend who does this).  I just wonder what new classes will be included.


----------



## Jdvn1

Ilium said:
			
		

> I asumed it was a joke, actually.  Apparently not, but highly unsubstantiated.  I will now stick my head back in the sand until such time as WotC announces something.



 Ditto.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> It's also consistent with Hasbro's company practice. If it does go up for sale, it would be great to see a company with enough capitol to nurture RPGs for the future.




Yeah! D&D needs to end up in the hands of a company smart enough to lose money on it.


----------



## Kanegrundar

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Don't you mean the "4E *fetor*"...



 If that's the case, what's washing over me right now smells awful bad....


----------



## WarlockLord

If D&D gets into the hands of a different company, they'd better start charging less for their books.


----------



## Banshee16

More miniatures-centric?  Selling information in smaller chunks?  Starting to sound like my involvement as a WotC customer may be coming to an end.  I've purchased a few packs of minis, but have no need to have one for every creature in the MM.

I think the only positive aspect of those rumours is that they might be selling the game off.  I'm generally happy with what they did with 3E.....but not keen on the future direction they're *hinting* at.  I don't want a CCC business method applied to RPG books.

If they're not finding the game profitable enough, maybe part of the problem is that the margins are so slim on traditional RPGs that a sizeable company such as Hasbro has so much overhead etc. that they can't make a profit without hiking prices to the point that it would kill the game.  A somewhat smaller, trimmer company might be able to fare better...

I guess all we can do is wait for more information....but the hints coming out so far are....disturbing.

Banshee


----------



## Treebore

Your 4E talk is amusing. So what if it is coming? So what if it is going to be more of a miniatures game? So friggin what? The future of your gaming is going to be determined the same way it always has. By your commitment to it. If your gaming hobby dies it is going to be because you let it.

Hey, I play Castles and Crusades as my game of choice. Its going to be my game of choice as long as I play.

 Same thing for those of you who play 3.0, 3.5, True20, etc... Your games are going to continue as long as you make them continue. Whether or not you "convert" to 4E.

Quit being chicken littles!


----------



## frankthedm

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> "A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC)."
> 
> if this is true, im never going to buy a wizards of the coast product ever again. Maybe go with white wolf or something.



 Don't get your breeches in a bind , this was the obvious move for Hasbro. Megacorp$ operate this way. 

i am just glad the RPG end will be sold off, not vaulted like most valuable properties wind up.


----------



## Nightfall

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

>




Not sure it's panic for me as "Annoyed" button.


----------



## arscott

The existence of the Saga Edition Star Wars rules makes me a bit sceptical of the assertion that WotC isn't making any money off of RPGs.  Under the terms of WotC's current license with LucasFilms, they can either make minis or RPG products, and they've been going with minis because they're more profitable.

But with their new license effective 2007, they can now make both RPG and Mini products.  Presumably they're paying LucasFilms extra for the privilige, and I don't think they'd try to do that unless they felt that RPGs were still a valid way to make money.


----------



## Festivus

Scribble said:
			
		

> Collectible trading card "feats" (or manuevers)
> 
> Spell cards, magic item cards...
> 
> Monster stats come with the monsters, so as you buy monsters you get more stats, instead of books.




That's my vision of it too.  You buy the mini's packs now and they have the "roleplay" stats on the back of the cards already.  Fantastic Locations are your adventures.  Spell cards, magic items and feats all seem very logical next steps to get more revenue to come in and keep it coming in.  

MtG has taught you well young jedi.

Edit: The more I think about it, the more I think about what I do now in 3.5ed.  I use spell cards for spells because it takes a lot of time to look up spells during play sometimes, so that would be rather nice.  I use initiative cards to track combat, that too would be nice.  Add to that feat/ability cards and I could see where the rather complex world of 3.5ed D&D could be much easier to explain to the new player.  Here, just use this fireball card...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> If D&D gets into the hands of a different company, they'd better start charging less for their books.




Exactly! I don't care how high the production values are or what kind of economies of scale Wizard$ can muster, I want my books _crappy_ and _cheap!_

The sooner we can eliminate this evil "profit motive" from the publication of RPGs, the sooner they'll _really_ start to flourish.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

And another thing! 

Let's just abandon this whole concept of bringing any kind of mass-market appeal to MY hobby. If I have to engage in _one_ more normal, non-geek conversation with the mundanes I'm currently DMing for, I'm going to throw up.

Plus, really, I could do without the wife wanting to play in my game. Anything we can do to raise the barrier of entry so that she's no longer interested?


----------



## GlassJaw

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I want my books _crappy_ and _cheap!_




"Sure this book is crappy but hey, _at least it was cheap_!"


----------



## GlassJaw

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And another thing!
> 
> Let's just abandon this whole concept of bringing any kind of mass-market appeal to MY hobby. If I have to engage in _one_ more normal, non-geek conversation with the mundanes I'm currently DMing for, I'm going to throw up.
> 
> Plus, really, I could do without the wife wanting to play in my game. Anything we can do to raise the barrier of entry so that she's no longer interested?




Ahh, there's the Ratbane sarcasm we all know and love.   

But in all seriousness, Wulf is right, D&D as we know it still isn't very accessible to the "mundanes".


----------



## Alzrius

1E lasted for fifteen years. 2E lasted for eleven. Maybe this is unrealistic, but we should at least be able to eke out a decade from an edition of D&D!   

I wonder if WotC will make 4E available under the OGL. If not, the market could break from it, trying to sustain the 3.5E rules on its own. However, as much as I'd like to think they'd be able to do so successfully, I don't see that happening. Everything d20 says you need the three Core Rulebooks to use them, and a shift towards using the OGL directly could be costly, as well as confusing, as there'd be no Core Rulebooks to reference anymore, meaning relevant material would have to be reprinted.

However this goes, I know Hasbro wants and needs to make money, but I wish that that wasn't the sole reason for a new edition.  :\


----------



## ColonelHardisson

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I know I don't want to get 4e because it makes all my books useless.




Why would you think that? There are a lot of signs that a potential 4e would be compatible with 3e. Besides that, 4e wouldn't strike your books blank if they aren't compatible. You could still play 3e.


----------



## jgbrowning

arscott said:
			
		

> The existence of the Saga Edition Star Wars rules makes me a bit sceptical of the assertion that WotC isn't making any money off of RPGs.




I'm pretty sure they're making money off RPGs. But I bet that they're making more mony for equal (if not less) effort with the minis.

joe b.


----------



## spectre72

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Exactly! I don't care how high the production values are or what kind of economies of scale Wizard$ can muster, I want my books _crappy_ and _cheap!_
> 
> The sooner we can eliminate this evil "profit motive" from the publication of RPGs, the sooner they'll _really_ start to flourish.




I am thinking you are trying to be sarcastic in these comments, but sometimes things are hard to read on the net.

There are different levels of profit that different businesses are willing to accept.

Personally I would not mind books that do not feel as cluttered as what WOTC puts out if it drove costs down some, but at the same time I understand the need to make a profit.

In my earlier post I was not implying that making money is the root of all evil, but I truely believe that Hasbro has greater expectations for their product lines.

If you compare the profit from a D&D miniatures release and a non-core rulebook I think the profit on the miniatures will be much greater.  If that level is your expectation then D&D in it's current business model will always be a disappointment.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard

Well, just to add fuel to the fire regarding "when" 4e hit, there is this post, from an author's blog.  The blog entry mentions a psionics book, cancelled due to the "upcoming release of D&D 4th edition"--make of that what you will.  (Note the date of the blog entry--December, 2005.)  I am convinced we will get 4e by 2008.

Not sure what a sale would do to plans for 4e.  A company could always buy the rpg and then sit on it, producing nothing for the acquired system, but still producing stuff for their own, competing system.  (I seem to recall a company known for CCGs doing that to potentially "hot properties"--buying up the rights and sitting on them, just so they couldn't be produced to compete with the products they actually did produce.  But doing that with the core product?  Probably (hopefully!) not very likely.)


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Let's just abandon this whole concept of bringing any kind of mass-market appeal to MY hobby. If I have to engage in one more normal, non-geek conversation with the mundanes I'm currently DMing for, I'm going to throw up.




Dear Wulf,

<3

Love Always,
KM


----------



## frankthedm

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> don't want a CCC business method applied to RPG books.



I am sorry, that was doomed too happen when Hasbro bought the company. Pokemoney swelled the company and Hasbro bought it for that reason. Magic was nice, but when pokemoney went bye bye, Hasbro wanted pokemeon level profits to continue out of wotc.







> If they're not finding the game profitable enough, maybe part of the problem is that the margins are so slim on traditional RPGs that a sizeable company such as Hasbro has so much overhead etc.



It is not the overhead. They just demand _nnnnn_ profit from a _nn_ resourse. Wotc bought D&D when they were still a gamer company and called thier own shots. Pokemon is gone and nothing has come close to that yet. Wotc has to give profits to Hasbro or else. Hasbro is now accepting it is time to send in the maketing dweebs.


----------



## pogre

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Hehehe.  Touche.
> 
> Still, I stand by my point that it wasn't anything more than 3rd hand info that requires plenty of salt to swallow and is therefore pretty useless.
> 
> Ah, the hell with it, I may as well just let the 4E fervor wash over me and carry me away!




Thattaway! I've thrown myself in front of the train months ago!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

For those unfamiliar, the RPGA has been doing tradable cards of actions that characters can do during an adventure.  You bring three cards per character, and each card is playable once per adventure.  You get more cards the more RPGA adventures you play.  They have been working for the RPGA for a while, I could see WotC taking this concept, developing it and expanding it into core game.


----------



## Umbran

EricNoah said:
			
		

> But really -- nothing all that surprising was said.  I think we all knew that 4e had to be underway now or soon, and that minis were the wave of the future.  I hadn't really considered the possibility of selling smaller "packages" of info, so that was a little surprising, as was the notion that Hasbro or WotC might be interested in letting go of RPGs entirely.




Well, part of this is a little surprising - you usually don't do development on a product you are planning to get rid of.  Doing so is wasted time, effort, and resources, and that means lost money.  In a business sense, starting design and development on 4e is rather in conflict with the idea that they'd sell it off.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I am sorry, that was doomed too happen when Hasbro bought the company. Pokemoney swelled the company and Hasbro bought it for that reason. Magic was nice, but when pokemoney went bye bye, Hasbro wanted pokemeon level profits to continue out of wotc.




It's sickening.

What we need is more companies willing to go belly-up for the love of the hobby.

Somebody with a much smaller staff, no high-priced "talent," fewer resources, and much less desire (and ability) to market the game as widely as possible. Cut back on some of that crazy OVERHEAD and follow the "small RPG publishing" model that has been so successful so far.


----------



## Kanegrundar

Wulf, you are seriously cracking me up today.


----------



## pogre

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It's sickening.
> 
> What we need is more companies willing to go belly-up for the love of the hobby.
> 
> Somebody with a much smaller staff, no high-priced "talent," fewer resources, and much less desire (and ability) to market the game as widely as possible. Cut back on some of that crazy OVERHEAD and follow the "small RPG publishing" model that has been so successful so far.




Like BadAxe!


----------



## Arnwyn

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> And another thing!
> 
> Let's just abandon this whole concept of bringing any kind of mass-market appeal to MY hobby.



This is, of course, irrelevant to the individual consumer. That's for the businesses themselves to work out.


----------



## Banshee16

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Not good, IMO.  I want the opposite, with minis decoupled from the rules (i.e. you could still use them, but the system doesn't assume them).
> 
> 
> Not good, IMO.  Sounds like what I don't like about CCGs and collectible minis games.
> 
> 
> This might be okay.  Personally, I'd rather see the D&D brand in the hands of a smaller company.  I know some disagree with me, but I haven't liked the direction WotC seems to be taking the game.
> 
> I seriously doubt that I'll buy 4E.  (Heck, I never bought 3.5 -- I just house ruled things like Haste, etc).  I think it's likely that 4E will cause the market to fragment quite a bit, which I don't view as a necessarily bad thing.  I think some will move to 4E, but quite a few will stick with 3E (more than stuck with 2E), and others will gravitate towards OGL systems like True20 and Castles & Crusades.  I think third-party d20 companies see the writing on the wall, and are looking for additional baskets for their eggs.  Green Ronin has MnM and True20, but even their other offerings (e.g. Freeport) are going to be offered with stats separately, so you can use the stats for the system of your choice.  Mongoose is coming out with Runequest.  Malhavoc has AE and Iron Heroes, and now Monte is shipping his magnum opus and moving on to opportunities outside of RPGs; I'd bet that 4E weighed into that decision, to one degree or another.
> 
> I guess I "jumped ship" when I didn't go for 3.5, because I think the only WotC product I've purchased since then was Red Hand of Doom (although I bought a LOT of stuff from Necromancer, Malhavoc, and Green Ronin).  These days, my main game is C&C, but I still play 3E, on occassion.  It'll be interesting to see what happens.




How does the whole OGL/D20 license thing work if WotC changes to 4E?  Can companies like Green Ronin, Mongoose etc. still produce OGL or D20 books based on the 3.5 or 4E rules?  Or is this coming edition change going to kill them?

Frankly, I don't like the direction WotC is taking the game either, and there are several variants of the system that I like better....AE, AGOT, and possibly True20 among others.  And I'm reading Conan, and liking what I've seen so far.  Can those games continue selling?  Or will 4E be their death knell?  I'd likely still be willing to buy products based on the 3.0/3.5 OGL/D20 system, if the third party companies are producing them..

Banshee


----------



## EricNoah

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> Could your rumors be true? Certainly, but without a timeline they seem more like shots in the dark and should be considered "speculation" not "news." I think it is a real disservice to call these speculations "news."




You'll want to take that up with Morrus or whoever decided to post the info on the front page and make a big deal about it.  Certainly wasn't my preference.  With any luck I'll be proven wrong!


----------



## BryonD

How about a great big "So what!!!!" ????

Theory 1) This will impact my current game.
Analysis)  Tons of books on my shelf.  Enough for a lifetime.  Lots more that will drop in secondary market value if I really care to buy them later.
Theory 1 goes down in flames.

Theory 2) This will destroy 3rd party support / open gaming
Analysis) Looks at products that have come out this year.  Correction: Looks FOR products that have come out this year.  Finds the pickings extremely slim.  Notes that everything considered by this writer to be of quality and designed with D&D in mind is at least as much "love of game" as "for profit", therefore will likely continue to trickle out post 4E.
Theory 2 goes down in flames.

Theory 3) Told ya so!!  It is all just a money grab
Analysis) If this rumor turns out to be true, and that is a reasonably big if, then it will be late next year at the very earliest.  So we are looking at 8 years or more.  In this age that is not an unreasonable life span.  Besides, if you discount the people who predict "next year" every year, because they will eventually be right but "so what?", then you are down to the time frame that many people, myself included, have said for some time WOULD be a reasonable time frame for 4E. 
Oh, and god forbid they actually make money.  I mean, heck, that may inspire talented people to work on the thing.  Heaven forbid that.
Theory 3 goes down in flames.

I'm set for life and quite happy.
When 4E does come along I will STILL be set for life.  And I will still eb quite happy.
If 4E is good enough to convert me then that will mean I have an even better game and I will be MORE happy.

What's to fret?


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Ahh, there's the Ratbane sarcasm we all know and love.
> 
> But in all seriousness, Wulf is right, D&D as we know it still isn't very accessible to the "mundanes".




And Magic is?


----------



## Monty Tomasi

I was kind of hoping that they would reintroduce the 'Advanced' part in to the title of D&D again, oh well   

Fourth edition, fifth edition it matters not to me much. As long as I know the basics of the system that I game with then it's OK with me. But if I have to have a whole bag of miniatures, cards and other collectible items then I'm no longer quite so enthused.


----------



## BiggusGeekus

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The sooner we can eliminate this evil "profit motive" from the publication of RPGs, the sooner they'll _really_ start to flourish.




You overloaded my sarcas-o-meter.  You owe me $19.95 for a new one.


----------



## Banshee16

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I am sorry, that was doomed too happen when Hasbro bought the company. Pokemoney swelled the company and Hasbro bought it for that reason. Magic was nice, but when pokemoney went bye bye, Hasbro wanted pokemeon level profits to continue out of wotc.It is not the overhead. They just demand _nnnnn_ profit from a _nn_ resourse. Wotc bought D&D when they were still a gamer company and called thier own shots. Pokemon is gone and nothing has come close to that yet. Wotc has to give profits to Hasbro or else. Hasbro is now accepting it is time to send in the maketing dweebs.




The idea of trying to get nnnnn profits out of the game with nn resources is basically overhead.  They're a bigger company, and their cost to produce it is commensurately higher.

I'd prefer they sell it, rather than either dilute the game, or wreck it by turning it into a CCC model.  I have worried since day 1 when Hasbro purchased WotC.....maybe those fears will now be realized.

I'd like a smaller, competent company to produce the game.....it's just not scaled for a company of Hasbro's size to profit by it.

Banshee


----------



## Ilium

You know, histrionics aside, some people have been quite successful with small PDFs.  I see no reason WotC couldn't use that idea to put out material.  It doesn't _have_ to be collectible just because it's modular.  If WotC had put out, for example, the warlock class and its invocations in a glossy stapled format (basically a comic book) I would have paid $5.00 for it.  I would have paid that for the material in PDF format, in fact.


----------



## BryonD

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> How does the whole OGL/D20 license thing work if WotC changes to 4E?  Can companies like Green Ronin, Mongoose etc. still produce OGL or D20 books based on the 3.5 or 4E rules?  Or is this coming edition change going to kill them?



The OGL is forever.



> Frankly, I don't like the direction WotC is taking the game either, and there are several variants of the system that I like better....AE, AGOT, and possibly True20 among others.  And I'm reading Conan, and liking what I've seen so far.  Can those games continue selling?  Or will 4E be their death knell?  I'd likely still be willing to buy products based on the 3.0/3.5 OGL/D20 system, if the third party companies are producing them..
> 
> Banshee



Well, 3.5 seems to have sent the 3rd party publishers running to the hills.  So regardless of the legal options, I would expect to see 4E make it dry up the rest of the way.
Just my wildly uninformed opinion of course.


----------



## EricNoah

BryonD said:
			
		

> Just my wildly uninformed opinion of course.




That's the spirit!


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

The real rumour I want to hear (or maybe don't) is the future of OGL or its ilk.

4th Ed. with an OGL-equivalent wouldn't bother me too much, as wherever this is a niche to be filled, someone will step in and fill it.  I'd certainly be interested enough to pick up the core books (assuming that term continues to hold any meaning.)

4th Ed. as a closed system holds no interest for me.  (And as I made a typo, I wondered if anyone has started referring to it as $th Ed. yet?  If not, I call dibs   ).


----------



## zoroaster100

If 4e sucks, either because of poor design or because of greedy overpriced marketing/packaging of the game info, I would just keep playing 3.5.  The only things that would spell a tragedy for me with respect to D&D would be:
1) that Paizo might still be forced to publish all Dungeon adventures, especially the wonderful adventure paths, using the new rules; and
2) that WOTC might stop doing miniatures that can be used with 3.5 by changing the size/scale etc. in a bid to get us to re-buy a whole new batch of the same creatures in mini form.


----------



## EricNoah

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> The real rumour I want to hear (or maybe don't) is the future of OGL or its ilk.




Me too.  I'm as in the dark as anyone in this regard.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Amusement at Wulf's comments aside, I'm not convinced that a smaller-than-Hasbro / bigger-than-BadAxe company couldn't find a satisfying middle ground between slavish devotion to stockholders and taking out a second mortgage on your house to cover printing costs.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Treebore said:
			
		

> Your 4E talk is amusing. So what if it is coming? So what if it is going to be more of a miniatures game? So friggin what? The future of your gaming is going to be determined the same way it always has. By your commitment to it. If your gaming hobby dies it is going to be because you let it.
> 
> Hey, I play Castles and Crusades as my game of choice. Its going to be my game of choice as long as I play.
> 
> Same thing for those of you who play 3.0, 3.5, True20, etc... Your games are going to continue as long as you make them continue. Whether or not you "convert" to 4E.
> 
> Quit being chicken littles!




You speak that absolute TRUTH.

This is the second time in a week that I totally agree with you, the world must be ending very, very soon.


----------



## philreed

There's no reason to announce a new edition until the absolute last possible minutes: at the time the book trade needs product info which is typically six months before product release.

I still say that an announcement next week at GenCon for an '07 release wouldn't surprise me at all.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Hey, does this mean the countdown has begun for ENWorld, and we only have 730 days till it has to morph into something else?


----------



## Monty Tomasi

I heard a rumour that the real reason why miniatures are being pushed as the main way to go forwards is not profitability but simply becuase it is something solid that you can hold in your hand. 

The senior management at WotC had been confused for years as to why people bought books and then made up things in their heads for hours at a time. The success of the miniatures has simply been more proof that solid pieces of plastic are a lot saner ways to enjoy yourselves than pure imagination.

Of course it is just a rumour and no solid proof to back it up. Although a counter rumour that I read about recently was that one of the senior managers wanted to get rid of the miniature market entirely after his beloved pet dog almost choked on one. The dog and owner are both fine now.

I do hereby boldly take a 5' step in to the future.


----------



## Razz

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Why would you think that? There are a lot of signs that a potential 4e would be compatible with 3e. Besides that, 4e wouldn't strike your books blank if they aren't compatible. You could still play 3e.




With absolutely no more support for it. No anxiously awaiting the next new Monster Manual, the next new set of spells or whatever. It'd make your budgeting cheaper, but half the fun of D&D was seeing WotC/Paizo produce new material every month.

Well, at least for me and my group.


----------



## philreed

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> The real rumour I want to hear (or maybe don't) is the future of OGL or its ilk.




I don't see any way that WotC would release 4e under the OGL.


----------



## frankthedm

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It's sickening.
> 
> What we need is more companies willing to go belly-up for the love of the hobby.
> 
> Somebody with a much smaller staff, no high-priced "talent," fewer resources, and much less desire (and ability) to market the game as widely as possible. Cut back on some of that crazy OVERHEAD and follow the "small RPG publishing" model that has been so successful so far.



Your sarcasm is not amusing.  I am not jeering Hasbro _for_ seeking profits. I am saying Hasbro _will_ seek profits.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

philreed said:
			
		

> I still say that an announcement next week at GenCon for an '07 release wouldn't surprise me at all.




If you see lots of armed bodyguards milling about, you'll know you're right


----------



## BiggusGeekus

philreed said:
			
		

> There's no reason to announce a new edition until the absolute last possible minutes: at the time the book trade needs product info which is typically six months before product release.
> 
> I still say that an announcement next week at GenCon for an '07 release wouldn't surprise me at all.




Well other than years of industry experience, buisness acumen, and your personal contacts, what do you know of it _buster_?


----------



## SteveC

The thing that I don't get out of all of this is the notion that "minis and magic" are the only thing that's making any money for wotc. I'm going to leave magic out of it, because it really has no bearing on D&D whatsoever, but D&D is the only reason that money is being made on D&D minis.

Perhaps there is this huge group of players that play D&D minis like warhammer and yet don't own a D&D book, but I certainly don't see it. I know there are several prominent posters on the boards who play both minis and D&D, so perhaps they could address it head on: are minis players who use the D&D minis a separate market? I don't see it.

The reason I see for the D&D minis being successful is that 1) people want pre-painted minis for their D&D game and 2) sometimes you just want to play out a more tactical combat only D&D game. I don't see a crowd who buy D&D minis just because they're KEWL. So color me  confused...

If there is not a big market for D&D minis outside of the player base of D&D, gutting D&D would be the same thing as killing the D&D minis market. It just wouldn't make any sense.

Anyone care to comment?

--Steve


----------



## jgbrowning

philreed said:
			
		

> I still say that an announcement next week at GenCon for an '07 release wouldn't surprise me at all.




I'd announce the day after the convention. That way all the hate will be via e-mail. 

joe b.


----------



## Lanefan

That a 4e in some form will come there can be no doubt.

The idea of it going "collectible" worries me a bit.  Yes, I buy the mini boxes in hopes of getting useful pieces to use in tabletop games (I don't play the mini's game), but taking the whole D+D game that direction sounds very messy.

If WotC are planning to sell off the RPG side, I could see a logical sequence of events going something like:
- 2007: release 4e in a blaze of glory, enjoy a nice spike in sales for a year, and make some money.
- 2008: sell the RPG division before the 4e bloom wears off.

I just hope whoever ends up buying it can remain true to the spirit of the game, like TSR was before about 1986.

Lanefan


----------



## DaveMage

Ilium said:
			
		

> You know, histrionics aside, some people have been quite successful with small PDFs.




I'm guessing that my definition of "successful" is different from your definition.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## Barak

I..  I heard that a big internet name was going to oversee the development of 4e.

I can't reveal the name..  but the first name starts with Er, and the last name ends with ah. 

I call him Erah.  Anyway.  Apparently, The PHB was going to be 234 pages.  But..  They'd sell it in random packages of 8 pages.

Really, it's gonna be awesome!


----------



## philreed

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Well other than years of industry experience, buisness acumen, and your personal contacts, what do you know of it _buster_?




I know that any game line is driven by what's selling today. I also know that I've not yet heard of anyone here planning to buy cases of the next D&D book. Minis set, sure. Book, no.

Also, I've never heard of anyone downloading illegal minis from the internet.


----------



## Razz

What's the deal with minis anyway? It's too expensive to get alongside D&D books, and I have a way easier time and more options using programs like CC2 or Dundjinni to make my battlemaps. Also a hell of a lot cheaper, heh. Want to see how we handle battles?

Battle in Nightfang Spire 

Creative aren't I? LOL Little blurry, it's a jpg so eh.

Anyways, as for 4E, I'm done. I'll be playing 3.5E till the day our gaming group dies. Looks like we'll have to be stuck doing the "crunch" creations and playtesting them for our games and relying on unnofficial FR lore. Oh well. 

Kinda funny they're doing a 4E when Eberron was just created rather recently.


----------



## philreed

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If WotC are planning to sell off the RPG side,




I don't think they'll sell it. License, yes.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If WotC are planning to sell off the RPG side, I could see a logical sequence of events going something like:
> - 2007: release 4e in a blaze of glory, enjoy a nice spike in sales for a year, and make some money.
> - 2008: sell the RPG division before the 4e bloom wears off.




Anyone interested in acquiring the RPG side would want to do an Nth Edition as soon as possible, as that's where they will make the biggest and fastest chunk of change.  The potential value to a buyer would decline in the wake of a 4th edition from Hasbro, as the new owner would face considerable risk introducing a new version too closely on its heels.

The RPG package is a lot more attractive to both Hasbro (in terms of selling it) and a potential buyer when the existing edition is approaching its nadir.  Hasbro can get more for it as the new owner can push out the new edition fairly soon, and Hasbro doesn't have to do any of the R&D, etc., to make the money.

I'd think, though, that merely licensing the RPG rights would make more sense.

Edit:  stop reading my mind and then typing faster, Phil.


----------



## Khairn

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I'd announce the day after the convention. That way all the hate will be via e-mail.
> 
> joe b.




Very astute comment.

I'm not too worried about it as I have years worth of great RP'ing on hand even if I never bought another 3.? edition book.  The comment that has me intrigued is the selling off of the RPG's.  Now that could make things very interesting.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

philreed said:
			
		

> I don't think they'll sell it. License, yes.




And that's the real danger to the possibility of a 4th ed. OGL


----------



## philreed

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I'd think, though, that merely licensing the RPG rights would make more sense.




Agreed. The IP is worth too much to sell off any part of it.


----------



## Nellisir

Well, it doesn't matter much to me one way or another.  I'm pretty well set on 3e and 3.5 books, and what I don't have I'll pick up after 4e comes out.  I'll look at 4e, but it'll have to be pretty compatible with existing materials to be worth spending money on.  The collectibles aspect of it doesn't interest me at all -- I realize I'm not hip, but I don't buy the minis for the D&D Minis game, nor do I play Magic, or MMORPGs.  I'll still get the minis for my game, though -- it's not like I use the little cards.

The only thing I'd enjoy speculating on is who might be able to buy D&D, if WotC did indeed sell it, or license the game out:
White Wolf - experienced company, still dabbles in d20;
Paizo - heavily invested in D&D, already linked to D&D, Lisa Stevens has successful track record with WotC and high-end contacts;
Mongoose  - continues to invest in d20 products, invests heavily in licenses, the D&D name would be a huge bonus; 
Green Ronin - still dabbles in d20, would probably love to get the D&D brand name, but already has one certified hit with Mutants & Masterminds and a second potential hit with True20;
Malhavoc - obviously still in d20, but it's really a one man operation, I'm not sure he can easily get the financing;
and finally,
Peter....I'm blanking on the name...WotC's founder and ex-CEO, the man that bought TSR the LAST time...probably has the money, can almost certainly get the money, and I believe is no longer restricted from working in the RPG industry.

I heart the OGL so, so, much.


----------



## SteveC

My other question in this area comes in terms of the OGL. A lot of comment has come around the idea that 4E won't be open any more. I see that as a strong possibility.

My question is that since the OGL is a forever license, wouldn't wotc have to make some pretty serious changes to the game in order to not be using open game mechanics? What I mean by this is that if we use our same ability scores: str, int, wis, dex, con and cha, and the same rating system with a range of 3-18 and ability bonuses, all of that content is open and if joe publisher wants to keep using it, there's nothing that can be done about it.

Now if the change was made to just using ability bonuses, based around a zero average, it's too bad, because those rules are also already open content through third party publishers.

I guess what I'm saying is that if wotc were to want to "close" the system again, they'd actually have to make some significant changes to it in order to do so.

Now they would, of course, have real legal representation on their behalf, but wouldn't enforcing a non-open use of mechanics created under an open source license really destroy the entire industry pretty effectively?

So those more in the know, tell me how I'm wrong...

--Steve


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> How does the whole OGL/D20 license thing work if WotC changes to 4E?  Can companies like Green Ronin, Mongoose etc. still produce OGL or D20 books based on the 3.5 or 4E rules?  Or is this coming edition change going to kill them?



The OGL genie is out of the bottle.  So if your game is only OGL, and not d20, (like Mutants & Masterminds or Castles & Crusades, or even OSRIC, for that matter), a change to 4E will not affect your system.  However, if your game is d20, you're operating under tighter restrictions.  You can't describe the process for creating a character, you can't describe a process for applying the effects of experience to a character, can't include miniatures, etc.  Also, while the OGL explicitly states that you don't have to use the most updated version of the license, the d20 license says that "Wizards of the Coast may issue updates and/or revisions to this License without prior notice.  You will conform in all respects to the updated or revised terms of this License.  Subsequent versions of this License will bear a different version number."  

That said, I would imagine that it's possible to create a non-d20, but OGL rules set that mimics d20 in almost all respects (although it couldn't call itself "d20").  Game rules/algorithms are not subject to copyright law, so as long as you don't infringe on any trademarks, use original or licensed (i.e. OGL) descriptions of game rules/algorithms to avoid copyright infringement, and abide by the terms of any license you do take advantage of (e.g. OGL, again), you wouldn't be breaking any laws.

Take a look at what was done with OSRIC.  It was created using the OGL.  Something similar could be done with a different edition in mind, if the 3E core rules were no longer readily available.



> Frankly, I don't like the direction WotC is taking the game either, and there are several variants of the system that I like better....AE, AGOT, and possibly True20 among others.  And I'm reading Conan, and liking what I've seen so far.  Can those games continue selling?



If they're OGL-based, but not d20 (like True20, for example), then there's no problem at all.  If they're d20 licensed products, then it's a stickier issue.


----------



## Nellisir

philreed said:
			
		

> Agreed. The IP is worth too much to sell off any part of it.




I'd do 4th Edition, link it to the D&D miniatures game as much as humanly possible, license out traditional RPG development rights (using the 4e base ruleset) to a few companies (see my earlier post) , and end the d20 license.

It'd allow WotC to retain IP control, retain the Minis, farm out the low-profit work, eliminate print d20 confusion, and cut the pdf publishers lose to survive on the OGL or their own IP.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Amusement at Wulf's comments aside, I'm not convinced that a smaller-than-Hasbro / bigger-than-BadAxe company couldn't find a satisfying middle ground between slavish devotion to stockholders and taking out a second mortgage on your house to cover printing costs.




Right you are! 

The best thing for Dungeons and Dragons is to get it out of the hands of a company who wants to see it _*wildly*_ successful and back into the hands of someone who is content with _mildly_ successful.

That way we won't have to put up with all the ridiculous 4e changes like more miniatures, or an emphasis on simple _fun_ like dungeon delving, or any of a dozen ways to make it appeal to a new generation of kids raised on video games.

We need to keep this hobby solidly NICHE, just for us grognards, and if that means watching the hobby die, well, I say, SO BE IT.


----------



## Turjan

I think the new version of the Star Wars RPG will point the way. Everything I read about it points into the direction that it will be an attempt to further integrate the Star Wars minis game with the RPG. Let's see how that looks like.

As for 4e: If it's a relatively normal RPG, I will most probably look at it, although I will certainly never ever buy so much again as for 3.x. This is something for the next player generation . If it's some kind of collectible game, I'll give it a complete pass. This is one of the buying principles I strictly follow already now: I don't buy collectible stuff. No cards, no minis, no anything. 4e won't change that.


----------



## Nellisir

SteveC said:
			
		

> My question is that since the OGL is a forever license, wouldn't wotc have to make some pretty serious changes to the game in order to not be using open game mechanics?




WotC can end the d20 license, but not the OGL.  They don't have to use the OGL to use their own material, however -- and everything WotC has done with the D&D name is their material.

Arcana Evolved, Iron Heros, Mutants & Masterminds, and Conan are all OGL games that won't be affected (legally) by 4e.  Conan, Iron Heros, and Arcana Evolved are all very similar to core D&D.

Edit: _And since Mr Pramas is posting, I'll add that while Mutants & Masterminds and True20 are less similar to core D&D as it stands, they are very, very, impressive systems that I really love.  I'd pay serious money to give Steve Kenson a crack at designing the next D&D ruleset._


----------



## ForceUser

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Right you are!
> 
> The best thing for Dungeons and Dragons is to get it out of the hands of a company who wants to see it _*wildly*_ successful and back into the hands of someone who is content with _mildly_ successful.
> 
> That way we won't have to put up with all the ridiculous 4e changes like more miniatures, or an emphasis on simple _fun_ like dungeon delving, or any of a dozen ways to make it appeal to a new generation of kids raised on video games.
> 
> We need to keep this hobby solidly NICHE, just for us grognards, and if that means watching the hobby die, well, I say, SO BE IT.



You are my motherbleepin' rock star.

What's interesting to note, however, is the difference in attitudes this time around. When this was Eric Noah's 3E rumor site and he fed us tantalizing 3E tidbits, the scene was abuzz with excitement. Now, when the same rumormonger we know and love mentions 4E, it's aflame with indignation. I must say that I am amused.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

pogre said:
			
		

> Like BadAxe!



 Et tu, pogre? 

Vicious bastard.


----------



## Pramas

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> How does the whole OGL/D20 license thing work if WotC changes to 4E?  Can companies like Green Ronin, Mongoose etc. still produce OGL or D20 books based on the 3.5 or 4E rules?  Or is this coming edition change going to kill them?




It'd be up to WotC to put 4th edition into the System Reference Document. If they decline to do so, third party companies would have to make do with what's already there (the 3.0 and 3.5 rules, plus d20 Modern). This would not affect games like Mutants & Masterminds and True20, which already stand alone and have their own brand recognition, but would prevent companies like GR from riding the 4E wave.

On another note, all the talk about Hasbro making WotC do this or that is bunk. It's almost always the case that management decisions for WotC are made by WotC. I know it is convenient to blame a big faceless company like Hasbro when D&D goes in a direction you don't like, but I'd be willing to bet any strategic shifts coming down the pipe were conceived at WotC itself in response to problems in the RPG market at large.


----------



## Nellisir

philreed said:
			
		

> I still say that an announcement next week at GenCon for an '07 release wouldn't surprise me at all.




'07 release has my money.  I just don't see anything in the WotC pipeline that looks like a really serious effort; it's all filler.  I'm less sure about Gen Con, but quite possibly.


----------



## EricNoah

ForceUser said:
			
		

> What's interesting to note, however, is the difference in attitudes this time around. When this was Eric Noah's 3E rumor site and he fed us tantalizing 3E tidbits, the scene was abuzz with excitement. Now, when the same rumormonger we know and love mentions 4E, it's aflame with indignation. I must say that I am amused.




The irony is not lost on me at all.   This must be what it was like for a firmly-entrenched 2E community when the 3E rumors were a-flyin'. 

Always makes me wonder what will happen here... will we try to have it "both ways"?  It will likely depend on how cross-compatible the two editions are.  And who knows -- maybe WotC will come up with something so clever that we'll go, "Wow, it really is better than what we currently have."


----------



## Faraer

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The best thing for Dungeons and Dragons is to get it out of the hands of a company who wants to see it _*wildly*_ successful and back into the hands of someone who is content with _mildly_ successful.



I agree with this: the need for high, immediate, and constant profits is no good for D&D, or for the Realms or Eberron.







> That way we won't have to put up with all the ridiculous 4e changes like more miniatures, or an emphasis on simple _fun_ like dungeon delving, or any of a dozen ways to make it appeal to a new generation of kids raised on video games.
> 
> We need to keep this hobby solidly NICHE, just for us grognards, and if that means watching the hobby die, well, I say, SO BE IT.



Wizards is the only company with the resources to mass-advertise D&D -- to adults, as RPGing, not to teenagers as something else -- and thus attempt to spread the popularity of the medium. But they've lacked the vision, thus far, to take that risk. Losing that chance will be worst thing that happens if Wizards moves out of RPGs.


----------



## Turjan

ForceUser said:
			
		

> What's interesting to note, however, is the difference in attitudes this time around. When this was Eric Noah's 3E rumor site and he fed us tantalizing 3E tidbits, the scene was abuzz with excitement. Now, when the same rumormonger we know and love mentions 4E, it's aflame with indignation. I must say that I am amused.



What do you expect? The first time, it was people who were discontent with AD&D 2E. Now, it's people who are largly content with D&D 3.5. EN World may mutate to the Dragonsfoot of 3.x .


----------



## BiggusGeekus

philreed said:
			
		

> I know that any game line is driven by what's selling today. I also know that I've not yet heard of anyone here planning to buy cases of the next D&D book. Minis set, sure. Book, no.
> 
> Also, I've never heard of anyone downloading illegal minis from the internet.




Dude,  these are amazingly good points.  Seriously.


----------



## Barak

I, for one, support Wulf in saying I don't want my wife to start playing D&D.  I also don't want her to become more interested in poker, and am wildliy mad at the upsurge of interest in that game.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Right you are!
> 
> The best thing for Dungeons and Dragons is to get it out of the hands of a company who wants to see it _*wildly*_ successful and back into the hands of someone who is content with _mildly_ successful.
> 
> That way we won't have to put up with all the ridiculous 4e changes like more miniatures, or an emphasis on simple _fun_ like dungeon delving, or any of a dozen ways to make it appeal to a new generation of kids raised on video games.
> 
> We need to keep this hobby solidly NICHE, just for us grognards, and if that means watching the hobby die, well, I say, SO BE IT.




Hasbro has no interest in seeing what most of us consider 'D&D' (or RPGs in general) wildly successful.  Or, rather, while I'm sure they'd love to see it wildly successful, it's been pretty clear for a while that they don't think that's going to happen.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

I'm waiting for Grim Tales 2e rumors and news.  Or maybe Grim Tales: Revised and Expanded.


----------



## EricNoah

Nellisir said:
			
		

> '07 release has my money.  I just don't see anything in the WotC pipeline that looks like a really serious effort; it's all filler.  I'm less sure about Gen Con, but quite possibly.




It would be interesting to compare what was in the TSR pipeline the year before GenCon 1999.  I don't know how much it would help predict a release date, though.


----------



## Beckett

4E is in development is something I can believe.  But, it's a matter of how much development.  With the number of books on the calendar, I'm not sure if they have the manpower available for a full-out, on-the-shelf-next-year development.  But, I can believe that they have a 4E development file where they're starting to collect possible changes to the system.  Those proud nails from Design&Development a few months back, for example.  The Designers find something that isn't working, they put it in the 4E file with a fix.  It's not something they're devoting hours and hours to, but 4E is inevitable, and they're getting ready for what they want to address.

I don't think we'll have an announcement at GenCon, and I don't expect to see 4E next year.  But, I'm going to keep my eye on message boards and news sites next weekend, to see if the news does break.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

ForceUser said:
			
		

> You are my motherbleepin' rock star.
> 
> What's interesting to note, however, is the difference in attitudes this time around. When this was Eric Noah's 3E rumor site and he fed us tantalizing 3E tidbits, the scene was abuzz with excitement. Now, when the same rumormonger we know and love mentions 4E, it's aflame with indignation. I must say that I am amused.




Times change.  In 1999, the RPG community was a lot more fragmented.  I think a lot of people had gotten out of the hobby, TSR was on the rocks, and there was a pervasive feeling of pessimism over the future of the RPGs.  

Now, there are a lot more ways for RPGs to congregate and bitch and moan and pimp and what have you.  A lot of people rediscovered a hobby that they loved.  And there is a general consensus that 3rd Ed. sparked a renaissance in the RPG world.

When you are at the bottom looking up, the possibility of any change looks attractive.  When you feel like you're in the best of all possible worlds, change is scary.


----------



## cthulhu_duck

Turjan said:
			
		

> I think the new version of the Star Wars RPG will point the way. Everything I read about it points into the direction that it will be an attempt to further integrate the Star Wars minis game with the RPG. Let's see how that looks like.




In one of the promotional blurbs for the new version of the d20 SWRPG, I thought it mentioned a simplified skills system - I was surprised to see no discussions of that tidbit on EnWorld at the time.


----------



## Nellisir

EricNoah said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to compare what was in the TSR pipeline the year before GenCon 1999.  I don't know how much it would help predict a release date, though.



Well, there was the 7-month shutdown that culminated with TSR's being bought.  As I recall, though, it was alot of Planescape stuff - the astral plane, the ethereal plane, the elemental planes, Chris Pramas's books on demons and devils; the Player's Options rules at some point; Birthright might have been trickling to a close; the Diablo accessory; and...Lands of Intrigue in FR.  Also the Greyhawk Returns line.

Edit: _Also alot of compendiums.  Spell compendiums, magic item compendiums..._


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Hasbro has no interest in seeing what most of us consider 'D&D' (or RPGs in general) wildly successful.




Hasbro's benchmark for success ($) and my personal benchmark for success (more people to play D&D with) are not actually divergent.



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for Grim Tales 2e rumors and news.  Or maybe Grim Tales: Revised and Expanded.




It's miniatures based.

But it's GRIM miniatures. They're made from depleted uranium.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for Grim Tales 2e rumors and news.  Or maybe Grim Tales: Revised and Expanded.




Not me.  I hear it'll just have a little coin-box that you have to keep feeding money into every 15 minutes to play, and that the miniatures will be made out of sugar so that they'll have to be replaced every time it rains or someone gets hungry.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Hasbro's benchmark for success ($) and my personal benchmark for success (more people to play D&D with) are not actually divergent.




But if D&D evolves into a game you don't like, you're going to have lots of people playing something you don't want to play.


----------



## EricNoah

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> the miniatures will be made out of sugar so that they'll have to be replaced every time it rains or someone gets hungry.




Um, scary -- one of my groups literally almost played D&D with gummi bears instead of minis the other night.  

See, now that's what WotC needs to get into.  Edible minis and maybe edible rules printed on fruit roll-ups!


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

The real bellwether of 4th Ed will be when you see current WotC employees putting their houses on the market in anticipation of the inevitable purge.


----------



## Faraer

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Hasbro's benchmark for success ($) and my personal benchmark for success (more people to play D&D with) are not actually divergent.



Wargames and RPG-wargame hybrids aren't more popular than RPGs, they're just more expensive and thus more profitable per player.


----------



## SteveC

Nellisir said:
			
		

> WotC can end the d20 license, but not the OGL.  They don't have to use the OGL to use their own material, however -- and everything WotC has done with the D&D name is their material.
> 
> Arcana Evolved, Iron Heros, Mutants & Masterminds, and Conan are all OGL games that won't be affected (legally) by 4e.  Conan, Iron Heros, and Arcana Evolved are all very similar to core D&D.




That's certainly true. What I'm thinking is that unless 4E is VERY different from 3.5, there is nothing that wotc can do to stop people from making OGL products that are compatible with the new edition. Unless there are some serious changes coming in 4E, the odds that the content in it would not be based on current open content somewhere are long. Change the ability scores to bonus only and make combat options all skills? There are already multiple open products out there that do just that.

So if I'm putting out Steve4E, the new OGL property, the odds that I can't make it computable with the *real* 4E and be in perfectly good legal standing are long. Now I can't advertise it as such, but the worst we could do is get back to the situation with Mayfair games from years back.

That's the thing I'm wondering about: ultimately does it matter if D&D 4E is open or not? If I can make an OGL game that's computable with it, I don't think that it does matter what wotc does at all.

--Steve


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

SteveC said:
			
		

> What I'm thinking is that unless 4E is VERY different from 3.5, there is nothing that wotc can do to stop people from making OGL products that are compatible with the new edition.



I think you're correct.


----------



## philreed

SteveC said:
			
		

> That's the thing I'm wondering about: ultimately does it matter if D&D 4E is open or not? If I can make an OGL game that's computable with it, I don't think that it does matter what wotc does at all.




You can release a game that's compatible with any other RPG on the market today -- game rules cannot be copyrighted, just the exact expression of those rules.

The challenge is in how you promote your product to the right crowd.


----------



## Sammael

Beckett said:
			
		

> With the number of books on the calendar, I'm not sure if they have the manpower available for a full-out, on-the-shelf-next-year development.



Most of those books list freelancers as authors. Also, the lack of editing quality and playtesting in recent (last 2 years or so) WotC titles indicates that their editing and playtesting resources may have been reassigned to other projects. Finally, Mearls was brought over to R&D as a developer, and he's hinted about the amount of time he spends developing miniatures and miniature-related products (Fantastic Locations, etc.).

As for SteveC's question about the minis market, there are actually three overlapping markets for D&D miniatures: role-players, collectors, and skirmishers. I know only one single person who buys minis and doesn't play the RPG. On the other hand, I know lots and lots of people who buy minis _only_ to use as RPG props and have zero interest in skirmish. In fact, there is one really solid proof about the skirmish game not being popular enough for WotC's liking: rather than pushing DDM any further as a tournament game, WotC is introducing a new miniatures game - Dreamblade - as their future tournament flagship, with a $20,000 tournament going on at GenCon this year. DDM has *never* had that much prize support. In fact, prize support for DDM this year has been reduced from last year.

There is one other strong argument that can be made *against* the prevalence of minis in 4E: D&D miniatures quality is on the decline. Heavily so. There have been problems with sculpts, paintjobs, illegaly leaked information and photos, packaging, randomness issues, typos on cards, typos on posters, torn maps, maps with erros, and so on, and so fourth. Furthermore, the booster price is set to increase next Spring, and many serious collectors have stated that they plan to reduce their purchases. Minis are too expensive for kids to buy as is; I firmly believe that it is the multi-case-buying collectors who have been driving the market, and if they stop buying, the game is dead. 

Finally, previous DDM lead designer Mike Donais and other members of the team have been moved to the Dreamblade team, with Stephen Schubert taking the lead role of DDM. I very much doubt that they'd change the leadership and downsize the team if they were putting so much focus on minis as Eric's initial post implied.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens

IF there is a 4e soon, and IF it isn't OGL, and IF you're not going to switch, AND if you need an influx of professional, balanced game content to keep enjoying your existing 3/3.5 games, you still need not fear.

I'll happily write and sell them to you. 

Owen K.C. Stephens
d20 Triggerman


----------



## RangerWickett

Consider these points:

1. No WotC staffer has stepped in yet to comment that this is 'just a rumor.'

2. Piratecat stopped posting updates to his storyhour, which would make sense if he was playtesting again and didn't want to leak possible rules changes.

3. Wulf Ratbane is awesome.

4. A new edition would give me a chance to be at the cutting edge of adventure design, which I really want to do. WotC, if you're reading this, check out my storyhour and see that I'm the type of writer who you want working on your 4e adventures.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

I'll keep taking my dose of salt until the sky starts falling, thank you.  Personally, while I'd believe note-taking is underway for 4E at some level, I have a hard time buying the rest of the rumors.

I assume WOTC isn't run by idiots (possible, but not likely).  Ergo, RPGs aren't losing money.  They may not be making as high a profit as they would like, but I'm certain they aren't losing money for the company -- since you can only survive selling at a loss to try and "make it up in volume" for so long before you wake up and realize you just have to stop.  Now it may be that D&D has taken a down-turn into money-losing territory and they want to sell it -- but I have a hard time seeing selling D&D while trying to retain the (apparently quite profitable) minis side of the license.

4E is coming some day, but for the time being I'm going to play the game I've got (and I was a big proponent of 3.5, so I'm not opposed to change -- but I don't see a particular reason to change from a game standpoint, 'cause I don't think 3.5 is broken), wait 'til "rumor" becomes "news", and judge on the new game.  Who knows, maybe 4E will be OK.

@Wulf -- LOL.  You have an open seat at my game, anytime.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It's miniatures based.
> 
> But it's GRIM miniatures. They're made from depleted uranium.



Heavier than lead... sweeeeet.  Minis that don't tip over at the slightest adjustment of the mat!


----------



## philreed

Sammael said:
			
		

> WotC is introducing a new miniatures game - Dreamblade -




I think this has more to do with the fact that WotC has been trying for years now to find a successful replacement for Magic. All indications are that Magic sales are down. As a large company, WotC must always be working to find the next "hot" game.

Witness last year's Hecatomb and how quickly it was dropped when it didn't perform. I suspect that WotC looked at CCGs, looked at CMGs, and decided that CMGs are where the money is at in the future. Why?

Toy value. Geeks the world over can collect cool plastic, pre-painted minis and display them in offices. It's not as easy to display cards.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> And Magic is?



When I was in Bosnia in '97, they held weekly Magic tournaments at Eagle Base. So, yes, it's accessible to a wider audience.

And no, there were no 2E games held in public spaces with public sign-up sheets.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Razz said:
			
		

> With absolutely no more support for it. No anxiously awaiting the next new Monster Manual, the next new set of spells or whatever.




Are you a collector or a player? I don't know how many WotC 3e books have been released, or how many thousands of third party products have been released, but if you can honestly claim you and your group have already run through all that, then my hat's off to you. Most everybody else couldn't use all the material that's available in 3 lifetimes. Plus given the fact that 3e allows for the energetic and industrious DM to easily create his own stuff, I don't see how one could run out of new material ever.



			
				Razz said:
			
		

> It'd make your budgeting cheaper, but half the fun of D&D was seeing WotC/Paizo produce new material every month.
> 
> Well, at least for me and my group.




Nice qualifier at the end. I'm not worried about my gaming budget. I don't spend so much on gaming that I feel the need to scale back. 3e/d20/OGL material is so voluminous, and lately so good, that I can easily pick and choose. If 4e came along and wasn't compatible with 3e, I'd still have tons of 3e material to buy that would be new to me, assuming I didn't like 4e.


----------



## Sammael

philreed said:
			
		

> Toy value. Geeks the world over can collect cool plastic, pre-painted minis and display them in offices. It's not as easy to display cards.



Miniatures lack the portability that made Magic popular. You can't just carry your minis around in your back pocket and have a quick game of Skirmish whenever you feel like it. Thus, miniatures will _never_ be as popular in this matter as Magic was.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

philreed said:
			
		

> You can release a game that's compatible with any other RPG on the market today -- game rules cannot be copyrighted, just the exact expression of those rules.



Incidentally, that's one reason the OGL makes it easier to produce a compatible product.  A legal challenge over copyright would hinge on whether or not Game A's "artistic presentation" of the rules was substantially similar to Game B's "artistic presentation."  In that kind of situation, you could argue that terminology (e.g. Armor Class), etc. is part of your artistic presentation of the rules/algorithms.  By explicitly licensing you to use certain terms and descriptions (i.e. open game content), the OGL makes this type of thing much more open-and-shut.  You could create a compatible game without using the OGL, but the OGL makes it a lot easier and safer, legally.

If WotC changes 4E so that open game content terminology and descriptions from the SRD are no longer applicable, it would still be possible to create a compatible system, but it would be much more difficult, and the legal questions would be less objective and more open to interpretation.


----------



## philreed

Sammael said:
			
		

> Miniatures lack the portability that made magic popular. You can't just carry your minis around in your back pocket and have a quick game of Skirmish whenever you feel like it. Thus, miniatures will _never_ be as popular in this matter as Magic was.




I disagree. From discussions with others it appears that Star Wars minis, for instance, are primarily purchased by collectors and they aren't played with. I suspect that this is part of the reason why Dreamblade minis are a larger scale -- bigger toys are cooler toys.


----------



## Sammael

Star Wars minis are bought primarily by Star Wars fans and their popularity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Star Wars Miniatures game, which is hardly played at all. Dreamblade minis are pretty unattractive and bizarre, and the game was designed with tournament play as its basis. Furthermore, for the price of one Dreamblade booster, you can buy two (much larger) McFarlane toys, which look a whole helluva lot better on your hypothetical cubicle/executive office desk. Dreamblade minis lack the recognition factor of Heroclix, D&D miniatures, and Star Wars miniatures. A geeky co-worker who looks at your desk and sees the pair of boots from Dreamblade isn't going to go "OH WOW I FOUGHT ONE OF THOSE IN 1987 AND SLICED ITS HEAD OFF WITH A VORPAL SWORD" or make a Yoda-speech joke.


----------



## painandgreed

philreed said:
			
		

> I still say that an announcement next week at GenCon for an '07 release wouldn't surprise me at all.




Funny enough, the people I played games with last Tues, who used to work at WotC and are still in the gaming industry, said the same thing. Although they thought it might be announced in '07 for a '08 realease as the quick release of 3.5 messed up the timetable they were familiar with while working at WotC.


----------



## Jdvn1

Five pages in two and a half hours.


----------



## Jan van Leyden

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Times change.  In 1999, the RPG community was a lot more fragmented.  I think a lot of people had gotten out of the hobby, TSR was on the rocks, and there was a pervasive feeling of pessimism over the future of the RPGs.
> 
> Now, there are a lot more ways for RPGs to congregate and bitch and moan and pimp and what have you.  A lot of people rediscovered a hobby that they loved.  And there is a general consensus that 3rd Ed. sparked a renaissance in the RPG world.
> 
> When you are at the bottom looking up, the possibility of any change looks attractive.  When you feel like you're in the best of all possible worlds, change is scary.




Nevertheless, a lot of comments in this very thread sound a lot like what people were spreading in newsgroups and mailing lists back then: 'I'll never, ever change to 3e!', 'WotC will face a serious drop in sales', etc. pp.

Roleplayers tend to see the end of the world coming whenever a change is announced. As an ex-publisher I'm of the firm oppinion that any change that brings new blood into the hobby is good. It doesn't matter what the old geezers are telling you: overhaul the game to make it palatable to the teens, whatever it takes. If something like HeroQuest is the way to do it, go this way! If you can sell an extremly simple Barbie RPG to the girls of the world, do it!

The industry leaders are the ones who can attract new folks to the hobby. And new folks in the hobby is good news. Look at it this way:

Hasbro sells 4e to 10 Million people, worldwide.

Two years later, 10% of those people still play D&d4e.

Two years later 10% of those people are looking for other RPGs.

And 1% of those people buy a game from [insert your favourite publisher here].

This means 1.000 additional sales from your favourite other publisher! I think baiting a second or third tier publisher with 1.000 additional sales will turn her into a drooling fanboy of 4e.

My numbers may be off as they are based on my experiences here in Germany, but the idea remains the same: we should wish Hasbro all the best with their new edition, wether it suits our fancy or not, because they are the people responsible for keeping our hobby alive.

Huldvoll

Jan van Leyden


----------



## Geoffrey

_-4E already in the works? Check. 
-Even more miniatures-centric? Check. 
-Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately? Check.
-A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC)._

I wouldn't be surprised if WotC simply renamed "D&D Miniatures" to "Dungeons & Dragons". Done. D&D would be even more miniature-centric, it would be sold in much smaller bundles, and it wouldn't even be a RPG. This would fit all the above points to a T.

And if you wanted to play a RPG, you'd have to either play an out-of-print game or a game with a name other than Dungeons & Dragons.


----------



## helium3

Sammael said:
			
		

> D&D miniatures quality is on the decline. Heavily so. There have been problems with sculpts, paintjobs, illegaly leaked information and photos, packaging, randomness issues, typos on cards, typos on posters, torn maps, maps with erros, and so on, and so fourth.




Most of that has to do with problems with the overseas production facility not following specification or WOTC employees putting out poorly written specifications, I'd imagine.


----------



## Evilusion

Ok I do not post much but this topic I have to post on. 

4e will more than likely be complete miniature game(IMHO). I can not see them doing otherwise. All stats on a card, everything is nice and balance. Plus you could buy extra cards(ala M:TG). I personally have been telling my group that is what 4e is going to be. It is my firm belief that 3.x is the last we will see of a true DnD rpg(were all you need was pencil and paper).

I do believe most of the stuff said on this board does make perfect sense to WOTC. That being.
1. Change the rules in 4e so people have to repurchase.
2. More minis. Once again you need the new mini since the old one are not compatible.
3. Sell of the RPG line(this is a big maybe) I see them sitting on it myself.
4. Make cards for the minis like M:TG for more options. Once again more money.

I'm just highlighting the points that I took off the board. Personally I hope none of this come to past. But as one great person said "I have a bad feeling about this" 

Evilusion


----------



## Belen

I had not heard of a price change with the minis.  What will the new price be?


----------



## Henrix

Of course they are planning a 4e, and that it is getting near the time to do that ought not to be any big surprise.


But if they tie it too tightly with the miniatures I think they'll be doing themselves a disservice. Collectible games tend to have have a fairly distinct rise and fall curve, which isn't really true for RPGs.

And I predict the D&D Minis are going to start going down soon. A lot of people have a lot of minis already, and will buy less with each new expansion. (There's a diminishing return when you have minis that'll do fine as proxies - the large red, blue or green dragon will do rather nicely for a large black for instance.)

And it makes sense for Hasbro/Wotc to license D&D out. RPG books are generally more expensive to produce (take more time to write, edit, check for errors, etc.) than fiction, and don't sell enough to make it up.
They can probably make more money by producing other things.


----------



## Erik Mona

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> Agreed. It would be consonant with the prior sale of Dragon and Dungeon to Paizo. It's also consistent with Hasbro's company practice. If it does go up for sale, it would be great to see a company with enough capitol to nurture RPGs for the future.




Someone else has probably posted this downthread, but Wizards of the Coast did not sell Dragon and Dungeon to Paizo. Paizo licenses the right to publish the magazines from Wizards of the Coast, who retains ownership of the trademarks (and of everything we publish).

I now return you to your regularly scheduled meltdown. 

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC


----------



## Sammael

helium3 said:
			
		

> Most of that has to do with problems with the overseas production facility not following specification or WOTC employees putting out poorly written specifications, I'd imagine.



Whatever the reason (and I know you are right about at least one of the listed problems), it shows an overall lower level of quality control, and a decline in the miniatures' line quality. There didn't use to be problems of that magnitude with previous sets.


----------



## Sammael

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I had not heard of a price change with the minis.  What will the new price be?



$15 ($14.99 or whatever) per booster, beginning with Unhallowed (although I fully expect them to retro-apply the change to Blood War as well, as they once did with Archfiends).


----------



## DungeonmasterCal

Yay!  4E is coming and I can get all the 3.5 books I want CHEAP!  Yay!


----------



## LostSoul

I'm pretty excited about the whole thing.

Anyone else feel that way?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> But if D&D evolves into a game you don't like, you're going to have lots of people playing something you don't want to play.




Sure. I think reasonable people can differ as to what 4e is likely to evolve into.

I personally doubt that it is going to be so radically divergent from 3e as to be unrecognizable (let alone OGC incompatible).

It would be a pretty radical strategy to make the game unrecognizalbe and unappealing to the existing fan base-- which is also why I think that 4e will either be Open, or _de facto_ Open simply because it would be almost impossible to move away from something that is clearly derivative of OGC.

I don't think Hasbro has any interest or necessity to foul the waters for 3rd party publishers, even if they don't necessarily have any interest in making 4e as open and accessible as 3e was. 

Anyhow-- back on point-- even if 4e did diverge radically from the game I love and want to see succeed, it would still be Dungeons and Dragons, and thus a 'gateway drug' into a game more to my liking.


----------



## helium3

Sammael said:
			
		

> Whatever the reason (and I know you are right about at least one of the listed problems), it shows an overall lower level of quality control, and a decline in the miniatures' line quality. There didn't use to be problems of that magnitude with previous sets.




It's certainly an interesting problem.

I'm pretty confident that whatever WOTC/Hasbro does, the end result will be fun to play. They'd be pretty stupid to make a game that most people dislike.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

ForceUser said:
			
		

> What's interesting to note, however, is the difference in attitudes this time around. When this was Eric Noah's 3E rumor site and he fed us tantalizing 3E tidbits, the scene was abuzz with excitement.




Well, no one was particularly in love with 2nd edition.  I, for one, didn't really realize how much I needed 3rd edition until I got it, and could see it.  4th edition doesn't have the same kind of appeal to me right now, although who knows?  Like I said, I didn't see how much I would like 3E until I tried it.

Phil Reed makes a couple of great points regarding licensing, and regarding minis - minis can't be turned into free PDF's on the net.

We'll just have to see how it goes.

On the subject of selling/licensing D&D the RPG - my question is who could afford to do it, and do it justice?  I'd venture a guess that all the non-WotC RPG companies all put together couldn't buy it.  Who could?  Peter Adkison, where are you?


----------



## DaveMage

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Five pages in two and a half hours.




When E.F. Hutton, er, Eric Noah talks, people listen.


----------



## DaveMage

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I had not heard of a price change with the minis.  What will the new price be?




$14.95 starting with Unhallowed in March '07.


----------



## Sammael

helium3 said:
			
		

> I'm pretty confident that whatever WOTC/Hasbro does, the end result will be fun to play. They'd be pretty stupid to make a game that most people dislike.



*shrug*

They managed to pretty much break the Epic (500 pt) DDM format by undercosting the Aspects of Bahamut and Tiamat in War of the Dragon Queen. Most people who don't build their Epic warband around one of these two minis are screwed in tournament play. Plus, the set contained only one or two minis that are actually of any use in 200 pt games. I don't think any set's been this bad for Skirmish since... Deathknell?


----------



## Shemeska

War in the middle east, global warming, peak oil looming, and even more mini influence in 4th edition? Yay apocalypse! Whee!


But on a less jaded note, if half of those 4e rumors are true, it's not 4th ed DnD, they'll be pushing Advanced DDM. Count me out, and count me cheering for a sale of the RPG division if they make a decision that boneheaded and actually run with it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

I have to say, I suspect Star Wars Saga is going to be picked up by a lot of curious/nervous D&D DMs ...


----------



## Animus

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I'm pretty excited about the whole thing.
> 
> Anyone else feel that way?




Excited? No. Optimistic? Yes.

I don't believe the sky is falling like some on this thread has proclaimed. Right now, the rumors are just that--rumors. No official news yet. If 4E, whenever it comes, brings kids into my hobby, then that's a _good_ thing. The next generation has to be taken into account. 4E _has_ to appeal to them. The kids that get into RPGs are our lifeblood; they are into different things than we are. We gripe and complain about them, but did not the last generation do the same about us? 

It is my belief that WotC will not overlook this fact.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> On the subject of selling/licensing D&D the RPG - my question is who could afford to do it, and do it justice?  I'd venture a guess that all the non-WotC RPG companies all put together couldn't buy it.  Who could?  Peter Adkison, where are you?




Licensing is essentially free (compared to producing your own entire product line).  If Hasbro has decided that the RPG line isn't worth continuing, than any money from licensing that exceeds the  policing costs is gravy.  Requiring more money for the license than anyone could afford to pay would make no sense.

Obviously, they have to take care that mishandling of the license doesn't dilute the value of the brand as a whole, but that's what lawyers are for.


----------



## Kunimatyu

I don't think most of the changes EN talked about could be the end of the world.

It's a simple fact that our hobby needs high-school age kids to survive. Most highschoolers aren't going to drop $34.95 on the latest beautiful WotC hardcover. They might drop money into core rulebooks, but I guarantee you that future cash would be directly diverted to the D&D Minis line, if at all.

Therefore, instead of selling a $35-40 Complete Warrior, why not price some minibooks at 10-15 and gear them specifically towards player wants? A Paladin player might not buy Complete Divine -and- Complete Warrior at $70 just to get a few new options for their character, but they would buy a small softcover "Uber Paladins" for $10-15. And it's a lot less attractive to pilfer a $12.95 book over the internet -- especially if the PDF version of that same book was availablef for $5. 

On the monster side of things, I'm not sure I'd mind some smaller books -- instead of Monster Manual IV, we could have *Savage Humanoids*, featuring orcs, gnolls, giants of varying types and classes and *Spawn of Tiamat*, draconic-themed monsters, unique dragons, and Tiamat herself. Each book release would also coincide with the latest minis set, so you could buy all the monsters in the book in a collectible plastic format (or not, if you're shemmie)

On the rules side of things, I'd like to point out just one thing -- if you take a look at 1E/2E stats and a DDM card, guess which side looks more like the old stats? It isn't the roleplaying side, that's for sure. Some streamlining of the class/monster rules could work out well for everyone, even those who don't use minis.


----------



## BluSponge

SteveC said:
			
		

> That's certainly true. What I'm thinking is that unless 4E is VERY different from 3.5, there is nothing that wotc can do to stop people from making OGL products that are compatible with the new edition. Unless there are some serious changes coming in 4E, the odds that the content in it would not be based on current open content somewhere are long. Change the ability scores to bonus only and make combat options all skills? There are already multiple open products out there that do just that.




I need clarification on this point.  Didn't WotC remove a number of monsters from the OGL around the time they released 3.5?  The yuan-Ti, beholder, and a few others they claimed were trade dressings?

How does that jive with them not being able to change the OGL?

Any legal beagles want to take on this one?

Tom
who thinks 3.5 already wants to be Warhammer Quest, so going the full mile is no big stretch


----------



## EricNoah

I can't remember exactly, but for a long time the publishing community was relying on a "draft" of the open game.  Did the "closed" monsters come out before the draft was "final"?


----------



## loki44

This thread is out of control!  Whatever will be will be.  This is some of the most banal discussion I've ever wasted my time reading.  

Sorry, just had to insert that, carry on.....


----------



## Ravellion

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It's miniatures based.
> 
> But it's GRIM miniatures. They're made from depleted uranium.



I hope you are having fun with this thread. I know I am. 

Rav


----------



## kigmatzomat

Meh.  I'm less than panicky.  The OGL ensures that the D&D I currently play will stay in production.  I have the core system in digital format and tons of PDF products I can acquire online.  Remember, those PDF files will probably remain on sale for as long as the distribution system remains in place simply b/c there is no incentive NOT to leave it up for sale.  Hard drive space is _cheap._

So even if I fear for the worst  unlike 2e, I don't have to worry about the books vanishing as they go out of print.  

4e will probably be like 2e, redesigned for a mass-market approach that will be too bland to capture anyone's attention.  The fans will buy it out of curiosity but interest will wane.  I was left unsatisfied with 2e and thoroughly displeased with player's options.  I was ecstatic at 3e and only mildly disappointed in 3.5, which kind of parallels my AD&D joy followed by the OA/UA rules tweaks that harshed on my happy.

If we are lucky, for 5e WHasbrotC will license it out to a fairly good sized organization, hopefully one that consists of experienced designers that team up with the specific purpose of making 5e.  WotC was a young company with innovative staff (seerimal Order) that had been prevented from making RPGs but landed neck deep in cash with the MtG craze.  They had the energy, creativity, and drive to break free of the old tropes and recast the game into something that was significantly different but still true to concept.  

We can only hope the 5e licensee will have the same verve and drive to do more than pay lip service to the rewrite and the willingness to make 5e feel like D&D.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I don't think Hasbro has any interest or necessity to foul the waters for 3rd party publishers, even if they don't necessarily have any interest in making 4e as open and accessible as 3e was.




It is generally safe to assume that people will act in their own best interest.  The dangers lie in assuming you both agree on what their best interests are.  If their calculations show that enough existing players will buy the base product line (out of curiosity if nothing else) to offset quitters, than who knows what they'll do.  I don't think they'd do anything to intentionally drive people away for the sake of doing so, but if they consider the 'old school' crowd to be a lost cause anyway, then it would be rational on their part to write them off.



			
				Wulf said:
			
		

> Anyhow-- back on point-- even if 4e did diverge radically from the game I love and want to see succeed, it would still be Dungeons and Dragons, and thus a 'gateway drug' into a game more to my liking.




I guess that's the $128 question (or one of them).  In my admittedly limited experience, I've not seen a lot of cross-over between the collectibles crowd and RPGs.  There is certainly some overlap, but I'd be surprised to learn it was very big.  20 years ago, there were those that made the same arguments about classic (AH-style) wargames and RPGS, and now the classic wargame market is almost non-existant.  

(If I win the lottery, the first thing I'm going to do is hire a prank-monkey.  The second thing I'm going to do is hire a bunch of researchers so that when I want to know the answer to a question, I don't have to guess.)


----------



## BluSponge

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Funny enough, the people I played games with last Tues, who used to work at WotC and are still in the gaming industry, said the same thing. Although they thought it might be announced in '07 for a '08 realease as the quick release of 3.5 messed up the timetable they were familiar with while working at WotC.




No doubt.  I fully expect WotC's roll out of 4e to mirror the job they did with 3e.  That was a year of snippets in Dragon magazine.  And IIRC, the reason so many people switched gears from 3rd edition haters (you'll never make me spend money again!!!) to 3e lovers (I bought 20 copies of the PHB.  How many did you buy?) was that WotC listened to their audience.  I expect the same with 4th edition.  Will they catch lightning in a bottle a second time?  Who knows.  What I do know is that this forum is atypical of the whole gaming audience, and there are many people who will switch because it has DnD on the cover, regardless of what the game is like.

And who knows.  It might even be fun.  Lord knows 3.5 isn't (for my circle of gamers anyway).

Tom


----------



## ColonelHardisson

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I can't remember exactly, but for a long time the publishing community was relying on a "draft" of the open game.  Did the "closed" monsters come out before the draft was "final"?




Yeah, that was the "Gentleman's Agreement." As I recall - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - some of the critters WotC eventually made closed content were used by some publishers. They didn't have to pull the products that had been produced under the "Gentleman's Agreement," but once the OGL and the SRD were finalized, those monsters could no longer be used.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

BluSponge said:
			
		

> What I do know is that this forum is atypical of the whole gaming audience, and there are many people who will switch because it has DnD on the cover, regardless of what the game is like.




I don't know that anyone can say the former with any degree of certainty.  While people that post here are certainly a minority, its impossible to know what the lurkers think, and no way to know what the man on the street thinks about the RPG.  What little market research has leaked isn't definitive, and if Hasbro knows more (and presumably they do) they aren't talking.  

As to the latter, I don't think anyone has made the assertion that anything in the works re: 4e will kill the D&D *brand*.  Most of the concern seems centered on whether the game will mutate so much as to be unrecognizeable or unpalatable to the existing player base.  As long as we're speaking anecdotally, most of the gamers in my circle of friends couldn't care less whether a game had D&D on the cover.  They play what someone will DM.


----------



## Ravellion

Just had an idea:

Gygax plays wargames.
Gygax starts rolepaying with wargame.
Brings out realtively simple game to roleplay.
Several more editions come out in a span of 30 years, each one more customizable and arguably more complex.
Game owning company brings out a wargame.
Game owning company might bring out a game with wargaming roots that allows you to roleplay your character, nmoving up a simple step from the wargame.



Rav


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

I do wish, Eric, that you'd waited ten days to whisper your rumors in our panicky little ears.  It would have been nice to attend my first GenCon without having everyone all abuzz about impending doom!


----------



## Turjan

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I can't remember exactly, but for a long time the publishing community was relying on a "draft" of the open game.  Did the "closed" monsters come out before the draft was "final"?



That's correct. The final version of the SRD didn't contain those monsters, only the draft.

Edit: I shouldn't post when the board is slow - and the posters are fast .


----------



## Lanefan

For what it's worth, I have no doubt I'll treat 4e - whatever form it takes - much like I did 2e and 3e, at least to start: pick up the core books and see what good ideas they may have that I can incorporate into my own game. (assuming, of course, it's different enough from 3e so as not to be just a 3.75e)

Whether I'd switch wholesale to 4e would depend on what it has as a system, but it'd have to knock my socks off. 

Lanefan


----------



## EricNoah

As much as people talk about a d20 glut, I think I'd have a hard time going back to a "closed off" game that didn't have 3rd party publishers of some stripe...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

EricNoah said:
			
		

> As much as people talk about a d20 glut, I think I'd have a hard time going back to a "closed off" game that didn't have 3rd party publishers of some stripe...




I agree, but I doubt WOTC will have the same reservation.


----------



## RangerWickett

Hey Eric, I'm trying to get a job writing cartoons. Could you think of some way to use your phenomenal rumor-leaking power to increase my chances? *grin*


----------



## Mark CMG

I'm thinking we're going to see new products along the lines of -

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060317a

- packaged with the appropriate miniatures and broken out by ELs or CRs.  Very modular, smaller packages that have a component that appeals to collectors.  As they get a better picture which ELs and CRs are being most used, they can focus on churning them out.  Larger packages would put strings of such encounter packages together.  They can handle the core books and collectable stuff themselves and license out the stuff that doesn't move in great volume, the niche stuff that 3.x third party pubs have been doing through this edition.

Anyway, that's my guess at one possible scenario of what WotC might do with the future of D&D.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

BluSponge said:
			
		

> I need clarification on this point.  Didn't WotC remove a number of monsters from the OGL around the time they released 3.5?  The yuan-Ti, beholder, and a few others they claimed were trade dressings?



My understanding is that those monster names were never released as open game content.  So they weren't "removed" they were just never "opened."  And now they are explicitly claimed as "product identity."



> How does that jive with them not being able to change the OGL?



They *can* change the OGL and release an updated version (and have done so), but no one is obligated to use the updated version.  So even if they produced a wildly restrictive OGL 2.0, no one would have to use it.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Don't get your breeches in a bind , this was the obvious move for Hasbro. Megacorp$ operate this way.
> 
> i am just glad the RPG end will be sold off, not vaulted like most valuable properties wind up.




i misunderstud i guess. I thought sell off was a way of saying get rid of or stop, not literaly sell that portion of the company. if they sell it to someone who will love it, then that makes me hopefull. if they lock it up though i will be ok with that as well. they cant take my imagination.


----------



## BryonD

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Yeah, that was the "Gentleman's Agreement." As I recall - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - some of the critters WotC eventually made closed content were used by some publishers. They didn't have to pull the products that had been produced under the "Gentleman's Agreement," but once the OGL and the SRD were finalized, those monsters could no longer be used.



I'm not certain, but I seem to recall that Unveiled Masters and Slayers Guide to Yuan-Ti both came out AFTER the Gentleman's Agreement was pulled.  WotC allowed the publishers to have a highly limited license to use those monsters as non-OGC.

I'm pretty sure at least.  I know Unveiled Masters makes a big point of saying that Mind Flayers are NOT OGC.


----------



## Snapdragyn

> And it's a lot less attractive to pilfer a $12.95 book over the internet -- especially if the PDF version of that same book was availablef for $5.




I truly believe you fail to grasp the 'napster' mindset here. Music can be purchased for download for $1 a song, but people still download illegally. Why, then, would you think that someone inclined to illegal downloads would pay $5 for a PDF?

The point is not how much it costs, nor how the legal cost compares to some perceived 'risk'; the point is that there are people who truly feel entitled to _take_ any intellectual property they can get their greedy virtual hands on.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

BluSponge said:
			
		

> No doubt.  I fully expect WotC's roll out of 4e to mirror the job they did with 3e.  That was a year of snippets in Dragon magazine.  And IIRC, the reason so many people switched gears from 3rd edition haters (you'll never make me spend money again!!!) to 3e lovers (I bought 20 copies of the PHB.  How many did you buy?) was that WotC listened to their audience.  I expect the same with 4th edition.






			
				BluSponge said:
			
		

> And who knows.  It might even be fun.  Lord knows 3.5 isn't (for my circle of gamers anyway).



Why would it not be true for 3.5 but be true for 4E?


----------



## el_skootro

> Despite his insistence that they're simply to generate discussion, Mike Mearls' recent website articles on developing some classic critters is one of those signs, I believe.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Also check out Mearls' livejournal. He seems to be thinking about new ways to take rpgs ... 4E ways?
> 
> El Skootro


----------



## blargney the second

I'm really curious to see which sacred cows keep on mooing, and which ones become hamburger.


----------



## Darrin Drader

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I'm really curious to see which sacred cows keep on mooing, and which ones become hamburger.




I'll have a two sets of numbers for ability scores sandwich, with a side of hit point rings, please.


----------



## Kunimatyu

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> I truly believe you fail to grasp the 'napster' mindset here. Music can be purchased for download for $1 a song, but people still download illegally. Why, then, would you think that someone inclined to illegal downloads would pay $5 for a PDF?
> 
> The point is not how much it costs, nor how the legal cost compares to some perceived 'risk'; the point is that there are people who truly feel entitled to _take_ any intellectual property they can get their greedy virtual hands on.




Yeah, I've met that type before, but they tend to have a history of not using any of the stuff they take, because they're so obsessed with the taking. However, I don't think they're a majority, even among the high-school-to-college crowd.

In my game group, some people are just cheap -- unless they know they're going to use the big awesome book, they opt to download it, and maybe print out the one page with the feat they want.(Others have bought $200+ in books just because of my game, so it's definitely not true for everyone) I've had to institute a policy of "if you want to use it at the table, somebody in the group better own a copy". And while I don't condone copyright infringement, particularly for a company I want to see stick around for many years to come, the players do often have a point -- is $35 really a fair price for the two feats they're going to use? Specific, reasonably-priced player option books are probably the way to go.


----------



## Kunimatyu

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'll have a two sets of numbers for ability scores sandwich, with a side of hit point rings, please.




Can I supersize that and get a spellslot shake?


----------



## Umbran

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> The idea of trying to get nnnnn profits out of the game with nn resources is basically overhead.




No, it isn't. "Overhead" is your cost of doing business.  Higher overhead means you need greater gross income to cover costs.  Since profit is what you get _after_ you cover your overhead, it doesn't need to be bigger.



> They're a bigger company, and their cost to produce it is commensurately higher.




In a sense, you've got it backwards.  In absolute terms, a larger company does have greater overhead, yes.  But in relative terms, per product, a successful company can take advantage of economy of scale, and have _less_ overhead per unit.

In general, companies are in the business of making money.  If they aren't making use of their available economy of scale, they aren't making as much money as they could.  There's no reason for them to do that.  Rather than support poor earners, they'll seek larger earners.

Traditionally, RPGs have been a niche market - they don't sell enough units to take real advantage of the economy of scale Hasbro has available.  So they are a poor fit for the company.  They'd prefer to invest in something that can make real use of their massive production and distribution, like Pokemon and Magic cards could.

I don't agree with Wulf, insofar as I don't think matching a smaller product with a larger company will tend to be a winning proposition for either.  For best results, the product line ought to seem big for the company that owns it, rather than small.  That means the company will be more likely to have the good of the product foremost in it's mind.  Our favorite thing really needs to be someone's favored baby, not the weakling stepchild that never measures up to it's siblings


----------



## qstor

Pramas said:
			
		

> On another note, all the talk about Hasbro making WotC do this or that is bunk. It's almost always the case that management decisions for WotC are made by WotC. I know it is convenient to blame a big faceless company like Hasbro when D&D goes in a direction you don't like, but I'd be willing to bet any strategic shifts coming down the pipe were conceived at WotC itself in response to problems in the RPG market at large.




I find it hard to believe that all of the decsions are made by WOTC alone. Kinda like making the RPGA the marketing arm of WOTC someone in Hasbro had to say...whats this group and WHAT are we getting out of it? Why run Shadow run games (like was done under TSR) lets kill that or anything that is fun....

Sorry...feeling a little jaded now.

Mike


----------



## Xyanthon

Wow, this thread has been growing faster than I can read it!  Anyway, I think that I will probably pick up the core book and preuse them and see if I really like what is there.  Really though, I've got more than enough gaming material to ever really use all of it so even if I don't like 4e whenever it eventually comes about, I can play OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3.x, C&C, OSRIC, etc...  You know, OSRIC has respawned my interest in working on new material for an older system.  So I guess even if all of the talk about 4e is true and the talk about the impending doom of the RPG industry is true, there are still plenty of gamers who love the game and will continue to create their own support for it not for any monetary gain, but because they have a passion for it.


----------



## BiggusGeekus

blargney the second said:
			
		

> I'm really curious to see which sacred cows keep on mooing, and which ones become hamburger.





I want to make this clear:


The rust monster's rust attack should be permenant and not just a pansy 10 minutes!!!!

Thank you.


----------



## Klaus

The whole "smaller packages of rules" strike me as very reminiscent of the OD&D books-by-level.

So you'd play Basic D&D (levels 1-5), Expert D&D (levels 6-10), Master D&D (levels 11-15), Grand Master of Flowers D&D (levels 16-20) and Epic D&D (levels 21+).

That'd be a way to sell smaller packages of info. Plus, you gave a larger print-run on the Basic booklet, and decrease as you go up, adjusting by the demands of previous books.

And maybe the books also go paperback?


----------



## BryonD

qstor said:
			
		

> I find it hard to believe that all of the decsions are made by WOTC alone. Kinda like making the RPGA the marketing arm of WOTC someone in Hasbro had to say...whats this group and WHAT are we getting out of it? Why run Shadow run games (like was done under TSR) lets kill that or anything that is fun....
> 
> Sorry...feeling a little jaded now.
> 
> Mike



I know zero about WotC, but am familiar with other multi-unit mega-corps and Chris' assessment is dead on with my experience.
The parent company's attitude is "If you are doing your job right, it'll show in the returns you send me.  If you don't send me the returns I expect I'll replace you or sell your unit outright.  Don't bother me with the details, just be worth my funding."


----------



## BryonD

Umbran said:
			
		

> In a sense, you've got it backwards.  In absolute terms, a larger company does have greater overhead, yes.  But in relative terms, per product, a successful company can take advantage of economy of scale, and have _less_ overhead per unit.



You'd be surprised.


----------



## skippy_the_witch

*4th Edition cannot come soon enough for me!*

The absolutely best thing that could happen to me and my homebrew campaign (and even my players) would be the introduction of 4th edition D&D, especially if it is mini-centric as expected.  And why would I be doing a snoopy dance of glee when the official anouncement is made?  Because I have no self control and really really like cool new options to add to my game.  This means I have rarely found a supplement (especially such things as the race books, complete books, and the tomes) that I didn't like.  And I am DROWNING in too much information.

4th edition would stop the flow of NEW stuff, which would give me time to actually finish the incorporation of all of the info I currently got and give my game some real stability.  Especially if thrid party publishers continue to release pdfs here and at such sites as rpgnow.  That is the only real downside to me, the loss of such great third party products that people such as Ari, Phil Reed, Monte Cook, etc produce.  And, I will eventually be able to allow my subscription to Dragon to lapse.  I have already sworn that if THREE issues in a row contain ANY APPRECIABLE miniatures articles, then I will NEVER subscribe again.  I may still buy an issue or two, but that would be it.

Lastly, I do not see the fascination with D&D miniatures.  I know some people like vanilla ice cream, but please, at least add hot fudge or something to it.  And D&D miniatures is as vanilla a "war" game as you can get.  If I was even vaguely interested in playing a miniatures based game, I sure wouldn't pick something as flavorless as DDM.  I would choose Warmachine, Hordes, or even the old stand-by Warhammer 40k.  But, then again, I only use miniatures on the battle mat when one of my players brings them in.  I am just as happy using quarters with white duck tape on them with written letters and numbers to stand for everything.  

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

skippy
The GM of the Cursed Earth Campaign


----------



## Animus

Klaus said:
			
		

> The whole "smaller packages of rules" strike me as very reminiscent of the OD&D books-by-level.
> 
> So you'd play Basic D&D (levels 1-5), Expert D&D (levels 6-10), Master D&D (levels 11-15), Grand Master of Flowers D&D (levels 16-20) and Epic D&D (levels 21+).
> 
> That'd be a way to sell smaller packages of info. Plus, you gave a larger print-run on the Basic booklet, and decrease as you go up, adjusting by the demands of previous books.
> 
> And maybe the books also go paperback?




I _love_ that idea!


----------



## The Lost Muse

If they do go level by level, I hope they put out a 4e Rules Cyclopedia at the end.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Updating 2e to 3E was brilliant, as it welcomed back into the fold a whole generation of gamers who had drifted awy from 1e and 2e.

It was TIME to change to 3E from a demographics, marketing and design perspective.  There was absolutely ZERO reason to stick with 2e.

This time - it is wholly different. 

This isn't about 3.5 needing revision; this is about planned obsolesence to sell more core rules.

Good luck with all that.  The problem with hardcover rule books is the same one you have with older published adventures and lead pewter figurines:

They don't suddenly stop working because you would find it convenient to your bottom line if they did.

It's too soon. This will destroy the brand.

If they had half a clue, they would instead reconceive the D&D basic game as something in small original D&D style books and sell it with the miniature line - with the miniature cards servigin as the monster manuals.

THAT would make sense as an introductory game. But 3.5 itself isn't broken. It doesn't need replacing. Not even if you really, really wish it did.


----------



## dvvega

First up, I don't think Mr Noah would blindly post what he did without checking and getting some information - so I'm believing it.

Second - every company who is trying to make money is always looking at their future. Look at Microsoft and the countless versions of Office that are created and how the most recent versions treat the user pretty much like an idiot. However their file formats haven't changed dramatically (so 4e might be 3.5e with changes instead of completely new).



My personal opinion about the smaller packages harks back to a post I made pre-crash.

It will be centered around game functions. So you would get a small booklet on combat (and they would print various types of optional combat rules as well), a booklet on magic (and alternatives) and so forth. These would be based around different concepts: really involved combat for those people who want to take time over their tactical choices, a fast and furious system for those who want more roleplaying.

This way a DM/group could just go and pick up the rulesets he wishes to combine into his version of 4e.

Possibly lead to a booklet per class so the DM can truly limit what his players can play by only okaying the fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue booklets. Each of those booklets would have feats and skills appropriate for that class (reprinting of feats/skills might occur) and you are limited to only using what is in a booklet. This would be very miniature like as well - most miniature games have a limited set of upgrades for heros in their games etc.

Anyway, after all is said and done, I'm sure everyone, no matter how vehemenently opposed to it you are, will look at 4E and most likely buy it.


----------



## Enkhidu

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I'm thinking we're going to see new products along the lines of -
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060317a
> 
> - packaged with the appropriate miniatures and broken out by ELs or CRs.  Very modular, smaller packages that have a component that appeals to collectors.  As they get a better picture which ELs and CRs are being most used, they can focus on churning them out.  Larger packages would put strings of such encounter packages together.  They can handle the core books and collectable stuff themselves and license out the stuff that doesn't move in great volume, the niche stuff that 3.x third party pubs have been doing through this edition.
> 
> Anyway, that's my guess at one possible scenario of what WotC might do with the future of D&D.




It occurs to me that if something like that were to take off, it would only be a matter of time before they came out with $250 super sets as adventures, or even TOEE size products (split up in 4 or 5 packs, of course).


----------



## OptionalRule

I'm not really up in arms about this altogether.  I am not interested in a mini centric RPGish wargame, so if that's what 4th edition is I wont be picking it up.  

This had to happen sometime though, 3E was a fantastic bump for the hobby but people lost sight of it as a hobby and began to treat it as a whole "industry".  Table top RPGs have always, and will always be a hobby and we're going to have to innovate as hobbiest to keep it alive.

There are other great games out there and a significant subpopulation of gamers are turning away form the simulationist thinking or trying to produce RPGs that compete with computer models.  We were never going to have an industry save us.

My biggest hope is WOTC sell off the rpg division as quickly as possible.  If someone like Mongoose or Green Ronin were to head it up it could be something spectacular.  Still a hobby but spectacular.


----------



## Nellisir

dvvega said:
			
		

> Anyway, after all is said and done, I'm sure everyone, no matter how vehemenently opposed to it you are, will look at 4E and most likely buy it.




I'll look at it.  I'll probably buy the first core book.  But after that?  Don't bet on it.  It's not bitterness or something, it's reality.  I just finished selling my 2e material last year.  I've got several thousand dollars worth of 3e material.  I'm happy with the ruleset.  The OGL allows me to self-publish until I'm dead.  And I've got other things to spend money on.


----------



## Phoenix

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Your sarcasm is not amusing.  I am not jeering Hasbro _for_ seeking profits. I am saying Hasbro _will_ seek profits.




_I vote for highly amusing._


----------



## Imperialus

When I first read the announcement I panicked a bit.  Once I got my heart rate down and read the thread though the doom and gloom feelings I was having began to subside.  I'll probably end up buying 4th ed and playing it.  I'm a geek like that.  If the hobby suffers as a result it probably wont' affect me that much either.  Like other posters have said I have a lifetime worth of D20 books that scarcely have their spines cracked.  I'm not ready to give up on 4th ed either though.  I remember back when I first heard about 3rd ed rolling my eyes and saying something along the lines of "well this is coming from the company that has put 5 editions of magic out in as many years, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me."  Turns out that it's the best thing to have happened to my gaming.   No matter what, the hobby is going to survive and even if I'm still playing 3rd ed and OGL produced stuff 6 years from now I'll still probably be perfectly happy.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

BluSponge said:
			
		

> I need clarification on this point.  Didn't WotC remove a number of monsters from the OGL around the time they released 3.5?  The yuan-Ti, beholder, and a few others they claimed were trade dressings?



No.  WotC removed those monsters from the SRD (System Reference Document).


----------



## Greylock

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> ...There was absolutely ZERO reason to stick with 2e.
> 
> This time - it is wholly different.
> 
> This isn't about 3.5 needing revision; this is about planned obsolesence to sell more core rules....




I left DnD when it went to 2nd Ed, and came back with 3.x, so I agree with your remarks fully, and serve myself up as an example.


----------



## Steverooo

BluSponge said:
			
		

> And who knows.  It might even be fun.  Lord knows 3.5 isn't (for my circle of gamers anyway).
> 
> Tom




And LA isn't, for me & mine, Tommy-boy!


----------



## Brian Gibbons

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Sure. I think reasonable people can differ as to what 4e is likely to evolve into.
> 
> I personally doubt that it is going to be so radically divergent from 3e as to be unrecognizable (let alone OGC incompatible).



Part of the problem is that, without the game becoming radically divergent from 3e, I'm not sure how you can sell it as a brand new edition.  (Conversely, I think people are sufficiently happy wth 3e as to reject changes of the magnitude of the 2e->3e change.)

Personally, I'd be surprised to see 4e actually labelled as such.  My expectation is that they'll drop the version numbers and call it something like "Dungeons & Dragons Expanded".


----------



## Aus_Snow

DungeonmasterCal said:
			
		

> Yay!  4E is coming and I can get all the 3.5 books I want CHEAP!  Yay!



Hehe. My thoughts exactly. . . except it's more like "*When* 4e does actually arrive, in 2010 say, I can get all the 3.x books I want CHEAP! Yay!"

Or something.


----------



## Dire_Pug

Best. Thread. Ever.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> No.  WotC removed those monsters from the SRD (System Reference Document).



And, to clarify, they removed it from the *Draft* SRD. Prior to the final release, some publishers had a "Gentlemans Agreement" with WotC that allowed them to use content from the draft SRD, with the understanding that they would revise and update their products (or make other licensing arrangements) to conform to the final, official release of the SRD and OGL.

So the combination of Gentlemans Agreement + Draft SRD *did* have a "you must update to conform to changes" arrangement.  Open game content released under any of the final versions of the OGL aren't subject to anything similar.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Steverooo said:
			
		

> And LA isn't, for me & mine, Tommy-boy!



I think Tom's more into Savage Worlds than LA, these days.


----------



## Greg K

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'd pay serious money to give Steve Kenson a crack at designing the next D&D ruleset.[/I]




I was thinking the same exact thing.


----------



## genshou

I'm not too worried.  If 4E is something I don't like (I consider this the most likely outcome), I won't play it, but hopefully the RPG market will stay alive and all those teenagers will like their game.  I can keep playing my 3E regardless of what happens, so let the dice fall as they may.

Still, when Eric Noah posts, I listen.


----------



## Wrathamon

Greylock said:
			
		

> I left DnD when it went to 2nd Ed, and came back with 3.x, so I agree with your remarks fully, and serve myself up as an example.




I did the same... so I echo this.


----------



## coyote6

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> I did the same... so I echo this.




Yeah, much the same here, except I'd actually quit playing AD&D before 2e came out (or was even announced). IIRC, the last time I played AD&D was just about the time the second of the Wilderness & ungeoneer's Survival Guides came out.


----------



## Vigilance

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Updating 2e to 3E was brilliant, as it welcomed back into the fold a whole generation of gamers who had drifted awy from 1e and 2e.
> 
> It was TIME to change to 3E from a demographics, marketing and design perspective.  There was absolutely ZERO reason to stick with 2e.
> 
> This time - it is wholly different.
> 
> This isn't about 3.5 needing revision; this is about planned obsolesence to sell more core rules.
> 
> Good luck with all that.  The problem with hardcover rule books is the same one you have with older published adventures and lead pewter figurines:
> 
> They don't suddenly stop working because you would find it convenient to your bottom line if they did.
> 
> It's too soon. This will destroy the brand.
> 
> If they had half a clue, they would instead reconceive the D&D basic game as something in small original D&D style books and sell it with the miniature line - with the miniature cards servigin as the monster manuals.
> 
> THAT would make sense as an introductory game. But 3.5 itself isn't broken. It doesn't need replacing. Not even if you really, really wish it did.





Except based on the Star Wars revision, and 3.5, the market has been showing it most decidedly WILL accept a faster edition/revision schedule than in the past.

This is a new business model for WOTC, one they have been experimenting with, successfully, since the Revised Star Wars game. It's a model White Wolf basically perfected called "revise, reset, resell".

I think after two rounds of this with Star Wars and D&D 3.5, WOTC has an idea of what the market will DO regardless of what a certain segment will SAY. 

Chuck


----------



## helium3

Sammael said:
			
		

> *shrug*
> 
> They managed to pretty much break the Epic (500 pt) DDM format by undercosting the Aspects of Bahamut and Tiamat in War of the Dragon Queen. Most people who don't build their Epic warband around one of these two minis are screwed in tournament play. Plus, the set contained only one or two minis that are actually of any use in 200 pt games. I don't think any set's been this bad for Skirmish since... Deathknell?




Oh. Uh. I have no idea what you just said.


----------



## A'koss

> -A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC).



Now this strikes me as odd... 

We've been hearing from for months and months from the WotC staff that business, if anything, is _great_. Now this rumor that only _their minis lines and Magic _ make them any money? That doesnt' sound right. 

Now while WotC _is _ very probably developing 4e I think this does cast some doubt on the particulars of these rumors.


----------



## pogre

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Et tu, pogre?
> 
> Vicious bastard.




guilty.

   

Hey, just 'cause I agree with you doesn't mean I cannot poke ya'!


----------



## Moon-Lancer

haha i wonderd how those two minies would play. I dont play d&d minies but i did ask myself how many points they were and how that could be done. I see now, you have to have one of those two minies to compeat. its like nukes.


----------



## Steel_Wind

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Except based on the Star Wars revision, and 3.5, the market has been showing it most decidedly WILL accept a faster edition/revision schedule than in the past.
> 
> This is a new business model for WOTC, one they have been experimenting with, successfully, since the Revised Star Wars game. It's a model White Wolf basically perfected called "revise, reset, resell".
> 
> I think after two rounds of this with Star Wars and D&D 3.5, WOTC has an idea of what the market will DO regardless of what a certain segment will SAY.
> 
> Chuck




I have a shelf with thirty+ 3.x hardcovers on it that says: "Dream on".

That's a circumstance that does not prevail with respect to any of your suggested "models".

If your market is casual gamers only - it might work. Lifestyle gamers will resist bitterly.

What's WotC going to do? Not release any more 3.5 rules? I have more rules that I could read in a lifetime.

Not release any adventures? They've been pretty much carrying out that threat since 2000, rather handily. I have not been detered from 3.x yet.

Tell Paizo to cover only 4E in Dragon and Dungeon? They may well do exactly this. I expect them to.  And I expect that Paizo will walk away when the magazines threaten to go under.

They are out of bullets this time Chuck. There is no threat of any consequence that will make me do this.  They need to make me WANT to do this.

And I have yet to see a single reason listed in this thread as to why that should be so. Why do I want a 4E at this time, when I have spent thousands - and continue to do so - expanding that 3.x collection?

Why?

In five years time? I might be bored enough to do it. But right now?

Not a snowball's chance.


----------



## Dark Psion

I have a question, if  "all the money" comes from Magic: The Gathering and Miniatures;

Where are the M:TG miniatures?


----------



## pogre

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I have a shelf with thirty+ 3.x hardcovers on it that says: "Dream on".
> 
> That's a circumstance that does not prevail with respect to any of your suggested "models".
> 
> If your market is casual gamers only - it might work. Lifestyle gamers will resist bitterly.
> 
> What's WotC going to do? Not release any more 3.5 rules? I have more rules that I could read in a lifetime.
> 
> Not release any adventures? They've been pretty much carrying out that threat since 2000, rather handily. I have not been detered from 3.x yet.
> 
> Tell Paizo to cover only 4E in Dragon and Dungeon? They may well do exactly this. I expect them to.  And I expect that Paizo will walk away when the magazines threaten to go under.
> 
> They are out of bullets this time Chuck. There is no threat of any consequence that will make me do this.  They need to make me WANT to do this.
> 
> And I have yet to see a single reason listed in this thread as to why that should be so. Why do I want a 4E at this time, when I have spent thousands - and continue to do so - expanding that 3.x collection?
> 
> Why?
> 
> In five years time? I might be bored enough to do it. But right now?
> 
> Not a snowball's chance.




And, you are not the market where the $ is at I'm guessing.


----------



## pogre

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> I have a question, if  "all the money" comes from Magic: The Gathering and Miniatures;
> 
> Where are the M:TG miniatures?




I'm assuming you know there was a line and are just pointing out that Magic the Gathering miniatures line failed.

However those minis were _unpainted_ and that is kind of like judging the potential success of D&D Miniatures on the Chainmail line. Pre-painted minis are a whole different ball-o-wax.


----------



## Steel_Wind

pogre said:
			
		

> And, you are not the market where the $ is at I'm guessing.




Big money? No.

But the problem with hardcore gamers is that while you hate them - if you lose em? You are *screwed*. 

We are not the people who permit a company to make big money.  We are the people, however, that represent longterm recurring sales after the casual sales boom and bust peters out.  Above all - the hardcore gamer represents a guaranteed minimum sales base for all products.

Ask Paizo how wise they think it is to alienate the hardcore gamer? Mona will tell you: *damned stupid*.

Lose that? You just lost the line on your balance sheet that says "goodwill" and you increase - substantially - the risk associated with every product you release.

If they seriously thought the hardcore would abandon them - they would blink.

I conclude that they believe the hardcore will blink instead.  I happen to think they have a good chance of being wrong.

Again - Why do I want 4E?


----------



## Eytan Bernstein

From my point of view, as a current freelancer for WOTC, it'd be easier (for me) if 3.5 continued for years.  It's just simpler to design using a ruleset with which you are extremely familiar.  That said, I have learned other rulesets in the past quite well - Shadowrun 1E, 2E, 3E, planning to read up on 4E, World of Darkness in its various incarnations, Palladium, etc...

If 4E is being planned for 2007, I certainly haven't heard anything about it.  As recently as the last few months, I've been working on project(s) slated for 2007 (some confirmed by the catalog).  It's certainly possible that 4E is coming - I wouldn't be among the early people to know about this by any means.  I hope that if it does come along, the current freelancers (including myself) will continue to work on the new edition's books.

 It'd be real nice if in the big change, there was room for more full time positions, but I don't do my design work under that assumption.  While it would keep me (and many other designers) in a comfort zone if 3E/3.5 continues, I am ready, if need be, to move on to a new edition.  This is the reason that my company, Silven Publishing, along with many other small press companies, is trying our hand at putting out supplements that are not D20 based (sometimes not setting based at all).  We are still doing some d20 content - which is our bread and butter and the focus of our upcoming several book print run - but we are diversifying so that we can make the transition when it happens.


----------



## Jondor_Battlehammer

Well, for what its worth a co-worker of mine was a former WoTC employee, and he confirmed thet 4E was moving in the direction stated on the front page. He did not have a clear time line, but he said it was in the works when he left, which was about a year ago now.

Just an expansion on an earlier thought, maybe 4E will not be called 4E, but something else, and will be more of a table top stratagy game made from the ground up to be just that. They could run both side by side for a while, and then drop active 3.5E production if it isn't profitable. Might lessen customer resentment.


----------



## Nightfall

Not for me. I'm already resentful enough. My avatars prove that.


----------



## Banshee16

pogre said:
			
		

> And, you are not the market where the $ is at I'm guessing.




Why not?  Plenty of us who have spent $100's of dollars, or $1000's will be unwilling to change without good reason.  We're not the market?  Most gamers don't spend nearly that amount on games.

The only thing this might do, is cause me to update my core rulebooks to the 3.5 printings, as my 3.0 versions are starting to get old and beaten.

Banshee


----------



## Pants

What's with all the people coming out of the basement and saying they *know* WotC employees who have confirmed the existence of 4e? Did I just miss them all in previous threads or is this a recent thing? 

As for my opinion:
Wait and see.


----------



## Nightfall

Banshee,

yeah but consider how much some kids that were our ages are now shelling out on console video games, cell phones, etc...and then there's RPGs. So yeah we're not a market any more. Since now these kids are taking it from us!   *is being slightly sarcastic*


----------



## rounser

> Just an expansion on an earlier thought, maybe 4E will not be called 4E, but something else, and will be more of a table top stratagy game made from the ground up to be just that. They could run both side by side for a while, and then drop active 3.5E production if it isn't profitable. Might lessen customer resentment.



Extremely unlikely, IMO.

It would confuse newcomers about their brand, and split the market, which is why WOTC dropped the D&D/AD&D distinction and the majority of campaign settings, from what I gather.


----------



## Nightfall

Pants said:
			
		

> What's with all the people coming out of the basement and saying they *know* WotC employees who have confirmed the existence of 4e? Did I just miss them all in previous threads or is this a recent thing?
> 
> As for my opinion:
> Wait and see.




Yeah but see if Eric has the rumor, some of us are inclinded to believe it.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> I have a question, if  "all the money" comes from Magic: The Gathering and Miniatures;
> 
> Where are the M:TG miniatures?



And the M:TG D&D setting, sourcebook and monster book.


----------



## Banshee16

Umbran said:
			
		

> No, it isn't. "Overhead" is your cost of doing business.  Higher overhead means you need greater gross income to cover costs.  Since profit is what you get _after_ you cover your overhead, it doesn't need to be bigger.




Profit is your difference between your revenue and your costs...correct.  But profitability targets are set by Hasbro management, who are responsible to Hasbro's shareholders, who really don't give two figs about D&D, as long as it makes them money.  That being said, the overhead in a larger company such as Hasbro means that they have to do *that much* better, to make a profit.

A smaller, leaner company, with lower expenses, could generate a higher profit.  That's what I'm getting at.

It's basic for business.  As businesses grow, some things that they used to do become harder and harder to do cost-effectively enough to generate a profit.

Hasbro might have all kinds of things that smaller companies don't need to worry about....higher salaries, more generous vacation and time off policies, health plans, share purchasing plans, higher rent for their offices etc.  All of these cost money, and are less likely in smaller companies...hence, lower overhead.

If you can only theoretically sell a D&D book for $35, and it's costing you $20 to make it, and another company will sell it for $30, but only take $10 to make it because they've got fewer staff, employees are working during their time off to make a project succeed etc. then the smaller company will be more successful at publishing that book.  Maybe not more successful as a company, but more successful with publishing that type of product.  It just becomes a matter of the company's expenses outgrowing the product line.





			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Traditionally, RPGs have been a niche market - they don't sell enough units to take real advantage of the economy of scale Hasbro has available.  So they are a poor fit for the company.  They'd prefer to invest in something that can make real use of their massive production and distribution, like Pokemon and Magic cards could.
> 
> I don't agree with Wulf, insofar as I don't think matching a smaller product with a larger company will tend to be a winning proposition for either.  For best results, the product line ought to seem big for the company that owns it, rather than small.  That means the company will be more likely to have the good of the product foremost in it's mind.  Our favorite thing really needs to be someone's favored baby, not the weakling stepchild that never measures up to it's siblings




Correct.  I think Hasbro is too big for D&D.  The game doesn't garner enough attention, and they either need to yank prices to the point that sales start dropping, find some way to cut costs maybe by using cheaper printers, outsourcing the writing to India, or revising their business model to make it more like CCGs, in order to generate the profit they want.  In so doing, they  might irreparably damage the game.  It is a gamble.  Hence, I'd prefer they sell it to a smaller, financially stable company, who will treat it as their most important job, instead of job #314.

Banshee


----------



## Wereserpent

Hmmm, the poster who mentioned that they might actually sell the different classes in separate books had an interesting idea.  I can imagine that they might also produce two sets of players rules if you went along this line.  Meaning that they would have one "lite" players book, and one heavy players book.  The lite one would remove a lot of the rules that people have said make combat take forever like AoOs and other such things.  The combat rules in the book would be designed to make it go as fast as possible.  There overall would not be as many rules in it, and the focus of the book might be more oriented towards roleplaying.  The heavy book would have tons of combat options and rules. and just more rules for different checks in general.

This idea could be interesting for supplement products as lets say you liked Pact Magic in the Tome of Magic, but not Truename Magic.  Well, instead of putting them all in one book they could sell smaller booklets with just one magic system per booklet.  Same thing for new base classes.  This way people who like one system of magic, but not the other, and who would not buy a book that is 30 dollars just for one system of magic will buy something.

The DMG would be the only book that would remain similar to how it was in previous editions.

As for price, I think it would be better if the books were all softcover, and maybe the Players Handbooks could be 20 dollars each, same with the DMG.  All the class booklets could be 5 dollars.  Supplement booklets could be around the same price, maybe a little more expensive.


----------



## William Ronald

I could easily see more products that work with miniatures along the lines of Dungeon Delve, as they are modular and might be fairly easy to adapt.  Cards, similar to the ones the RPGA uses in Living Greyhawk, are something that I could see being used in a new edition.  (Generally, these cards represent some sort of bonus or ability for characters for a limited duration.)  

However, part of me suspects that a new edition -- if one is coming out in the next year or so -- probably will have many similarities to D&D 3.5.  It would make little sense to create a product that will not attract an existing customer base.  However, we might see more ways of incorporating miniatures into the game, but I suspect that miniatures will probably never be fully required for a game.

To me, one of the more interesting aspects of Eric's rumor is the possible sale/licensing of the RPG division.  I would hope that a new company would try to listen to customers.  I would also hope that the 3rd party companies and PDF publishers would still be able to put out comparable product.  The OGL may become even more important with the advent of a new edition.  My only hope is that if the RPG brands are separated from WoTC, that a company with experience in gaming and a passion for gaming takes over from WoTC.


----------



## Banshee16

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Banshee,
> 
> yeah but consider how much some kids that were our ages are now shelling out on console video games, cell phones, etc...and then there's RPGs. So yeah we're not a market any more. Since now these kids are taking it from us!   *is being slightly sarcastic*




I'm not sure if they're ever going to be able to get those days back.

I know I've purchased more products than probably 4-5 of the players in my group put together.  I would think then, that out of those 5-6 people in my group (including me), it would be my money that WotC would be chasing the most.

Personally, when I was a kid, my allowance was like $5/week, so I didn't buy nearly as many books as I have as an adult.  Maybe that's just me though.

Banshee


----------



## pogre

Jondor_Battlehammer said:
			
		

> Just an expansion on an earlier thought, maybe 4E will not be called 4E, but something else, and will be more of a table top stratagy game made from the ground up to be just that. They could run both side by side for a while, and then drop active 3.5E production if it isn't profitable. Might lessen customer resentment.




Totally makes sense. Hardcore RPG gamers are not where the big money is at - and like any good company that's what WOTC is after. I do hope the new "4E" is a gateway for a whole new generation of gamers.

Collectable feats, miniatures, perks, would make for a cool game. I'm pretty stoked they are headed in this direction. It does not mean I will abandon my 3E campaign material, but as a Dad of young children I see huge potential for going this route for the younger folks.


----------



## lior_shapira

I want to take the "ostrich way" in this issue, I really prefer to put my head in the sand and ignore it. I like 3rd edition and the OGL market too much too try and ponder about 4th edition. Just thinking that perhaps in 3-4 years the whole market will be different is giving me the heebie-jeebies (a.k.a the creeps).

I want to believe that at least a part of the driving force for 4th edition is a desire to improve upon 3rd edition, but somehow I'm skeptic. Especially with these rumors about RPG's not being profitable, my concern is that business considerations will take first place.

Moreover, I'm almost 30 and although most of the gamers I know are grown ups, I have the feeling that Hasbro and WotC are going to aim a bit lower this time, and perhaps come out with something that simply won't appeal to me

Oh well, head back into the sand   

lior


----------



## Nightfall

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if they're ever going to be able to get those days back.
> 
> I know I've purchased more products than probably 4-5 of the players in my group put together.  I would think then, that out of those 5-6 people in my group (including me), it would be my money that WotC would be chasing the most.
> 
> Personally, when I was a kid, my allowance was like $5/week, so I didn't buy nearly as many books as I have as an adult.  Maybe that's just me though.
> 
> Banshee




Maybe but then again there is this age of piracy too. So who knows? In any case I know I feel the same as you in that I've spent more money now than I did 6-8 years ago on 2nd edition.


----------



## BluSponge

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Why would it not be true for 3.5 but be true for 4E?




Who can say.  I'm speculating here, but I expect there will be some streamlining and probably some significant changes in certain areas of the game to make it more accessible and easier to manage.  Maybe it will even become more modular, allowing those who want the crunch to have it while keeping the core game pretty simple (for those who just want to break out the minis and go).  There's really no telling.  I didn't expect 3e to deviated from AD&D as much as it did, and it wouldn't surprise me if 4e were to go just as far.

So I remain cautiously optimistic.  I have plenty of other RPGs that I enjoy.

Tom


----------



## Darrin Drader

lior_shapira said:
			
		

> Moreover, I'm almost 30 and although most of the gamers I know are grown ups, I have the feeling that Hasbro and WotC are going to aim a bit lower this time, and perhaps come out with something that simply won't appeal to me




Yeah, that's why I have an extensive collection of D&D/AD&D books from all editions. I also run the game and provide the books for my players. I could start a new 1E campaign tomorrow and we'd still be having fun regardless of what WotC decides to put out.

I have so many 3E/D20 books + Dragon and Dungeon magazines stuffed into my poor bookshelves that I really shouldn't need to buy any more gaming materials for the rest of my life. I'll have plenty to keep me and my players happy forever.

However, since I have a professional interest in the hobby, I'll probably be forced to keep up. Which one I play will depend greatly upon which one I actually prefer.


----------



## BluSponge

Steverooo said:
			
		

> And LA isn't, for me & mine, Tommy-boy!




'sall well and good.  Different strokes and all that.  

Play what works for you.  DnD doesn't for me.  But I do like Greyhawk and Eberron.

EDIT: I suppose I should add that I really like what I've read of Castles and Crusades and True20.  I like the core of d20 and 3e, I just don't like all the crap that's heaped on top of it.


----------



## BluSponge

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I think Tom's more into Savage Worlds than LA, these days.




I like both, but Savage Worlds definitely has the leg up.  I've basically converted a lot of LA stuff over to SW and even use the Lejendary Earth campaign setting.  Best of both worlds IMHO.

But that's neither here nor there in regards to this thread, other than to second what a lot of people have said: if 4e doesn't do it for me, its not like there aren't plenty of alternatives.


----------



## Frostmarrow

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> 4. A new edition would give me a chance to be at the cutting edge of adventure design, which I really want to do. WotC, if you're reading this, check out my storyhour and see that I'm the type of writer who you want working on your 4e adventures.





I think you will find what they are looking for in terms of modules in this series of articles:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ab/20060728a

My guess is Wizards will release the next DDM as Dungeons & Dragons. It will be a collectible skirmish game, of course. On the side they will release D&D RPG which will handle the roleplaying aspect of D&D.

Have a look at French company Rackham. They make minis that can be used in a battle game, a skirmish game, a dungeon game, and now a roleplaying game. The rpg is called Cadwallon - A tactical RPG or some such. That's the way to do it.

Still what Rackham does is just pennies compared with what Wizards is capable of. You need to sell the same minis for different purposes. Why couldn't DDM be used as the tactical engine of a role-playing game? It could certainly work if it was designed to support both from the start.

Besides why is it that a rpg character is valued on both combat and social interaction? Only combat matters when it comes to the cost/value of a certain character/mini. You could just pick a cleric of Pelor mini and say this is me and I have my combat stats on this card. -Moreover my cleric is called Justin and he spent is youth in a library so he is well versed on the subjects of religion and heraldry and is also known as a good judge of character. -I certainly could play a campaign of D&D with such a character.


----------



## arscott

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> I have a question, if  "all the money" comes from Magic: The Gathering and Miniatures;
> 
> Where are the M:TG miniatures?



Dreamblade is, for all intents and purposes, an M:tG miniatures game.  While they obviously don't have the same art style, Dreamblade seems to be designed specifically to replicate the feel of the magic CCG in a minis game.


----------



## Soel

Well, I've no interest in minis (haven't used them ever as a dm, in any edition,) but if the ideas are good, and spark creativity, then maybe 4e will be something I can use. 

I also hope for a backwards compatibility at least as close as 3.0 to 3.5.

Wizards design/development have been thinking more outside the box lately, so its probably the best time to develop a new edition.

Who knows? Eric might simply have been the victim of a smart viral-esque developmental/marketing campaign. This very thread could be a part of 4e's development.

If that's the case, HEY GUYS, GIVE THE CLASSES MORE FEATS OR SIMILAR OPTIONS!


----------



## catsclaw227

I can't believe I read the whole thing...  It was like eating too much and it hurts for like an hour afterwards.



			
				Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> My guess is Wizards will release the next DDM as Dungeons & Dragons. It will be a collectible skirmish game, of course. On the side they will release D&D RPG which will handle the roleplaying aspect of D&D.




My thoughts... almost.  I think they'll develop an enhanced DDM game, based around Dreamblade (if it's sucessful) and then sell/license the RPG off to another group.  The RPG will be required to use the same dictionary of terms and general rules, but can be designed to the different playing styles:  low/high magic, tactical/rp combat, gritty/epic play.

my 2 cents...


----------



## Echohawk

EricNoah said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to compare what was in the TSR pipeline the year before GenCon 1999.  I don't know how much it would help predict a release date, though.



Let's see....

September 1998
Paladin in Hell
Star Cairns (Greyhawk)
Wizard's Spell Compendium, Volume Four

October 1998
Crypt of Lyzandred the Mad (Greyhawk)
Dawn of the Overmind
Faction War
Jakandor, Land of Legend
Calimport (Forgotten Realms)
Seeds of Chaos (Dragonlance Saga)

November 1998
Children of the Night: Werebeasts (Ravenloft)
Doomgrinder (Greyhawk)
Demihuman Deities (Forgotten Realms)

December 1998
Inner Planes (Planescape)
Lost Shrine of Bundushatur
Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume Four
Destiny of Kings

January 1999
Shattered Circle
Demihumans of the Realms (Forgotten Realms)

February 1999
Dungeons of Despair
Van Richten's Monster Hunter's Compendium, Volume One (Ravenloft)
Sylvan Veil (Dragonlance Saga)

March 1999
Scarlet Brotherhood (Greyhawk)
TSR Jam 1999
Accursed Tower (Forgotten Realms)

April 1999
Axe of the Dwarvish Lords
Dungeons and Dragons Game

May 1999
Children of the Night: The Created (Ravenloft)
Priest's Spell Compendium, Volume One
Dragonlance Classics: 15th Anniversary Edition

June 1999
Return to the Keep on the Borderlands
Skullport (Forgotten Realms)

So there were a couple of "nostalgia" products (_Dragonlance Classics: 15th Anniversary Edition_ and _Return to the Keep on the Borderlands_), several compilations (_Wizard's Spell Compendium, Volume Four_, _Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume Four_, _Van Richten's Monster Hunter's Compendium, Volume One_ and _Priest's Spell Compendium, Volume One_), a rerelease of the basic game, and lots of adventures.

Comparing that with the release schedule from August 2005 through to July 2006 is interesting. We have a couple of nostalgia products (_Expedition to Castle Ravenloft_ and _Expedition to the Demonweb Pits_), two compilations (_Spell Compendium_ and _Magic Item Compendium_), a release of the basic game, and lots of adventures.

Hmmmm...


----------



## librarius_arcana

Sammael said:
			
		

> If 4E is supposed to be more mini-centric, I won't be buying it




Totally   

And if they get rid of BAB (the real system breaker,) I'll buy two copies of the core rules!!


----------



## librarius_arcana

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Check the front, or news, page of this site.





If that was true.......someone must DIE,


----------



## Frostmarrow

*Product Speculation*

This is what I expect to see in the 4E product line.

** Collectable Miniatures*

Lots of different models in the entire range of sizes. Expect to see old minis return since the casts never wear out. Maybe the bases will be different.

** Deluxe Miniatures*

For RPG characters; you can see what you buy.

** Stat cards for miniatures*

There will be one rule set. Not one setup for DDM and one for D&D. The same tactical combat stats apply to all games.

** Scratch ticket stats * 

For RPGs; i.e a lottery ticket with stats to replace the random dice roll and/or point buy. Not a very popular product with the grognards but if it sells it sells. There is something special about officially sanctioned stats for your character. Perhaps the different stat series will be named in some way so that a particularly powerful row of stats can become legendary such as the Black Lotus and Moxes of M:TG and appear on E-Bay.

** Tactical combat maps * 

Modular. The gamer will be expected to own at least a core few of these and they will be necessary to use "bonus" parts of Fantastic Locations scenarios and high profile boxed sets.

** Fantastic Locations * 

Including a 16 page RPG scenario and tactical combat maps.

** High profile boxed sets * 

Including maps, scenarios, and minis. Almost a game in itself. Will be reusing famous dungeon names.

** Players Role-playing handbook * 

Fluffy details to add to your character. Role-playing tips. Adds skills to your character that have no use in the tactical combat part of the game. This is going to be a labour of love authored by someone with a mission to save RPGs as we know them.

** Class books*

Including crunch such as advancement, spells, skills and feats. Perhaps a miniature or two. 3 books per class so they can keep adding feats and stuff to a class long after first release.

** Dungeon Master Guide 	*

For the RPG. Expect a smallprint-run.

** Tactical combat book*

Basically the combat and spells chapters out of PHB 3.5 and the conditions from DMG 3.5. But you already get the small font basics in the miniature boxes.

** Monster compilation books * 

Released six months after minis and stat cards.

** Treasure book*

Magical items and stuff for your game. Will list the special items of named characters.


----------



## Henrix

Oh, well, all endless speculation so far. *Sigh* It is bothersome not knowing anything, but I guess we'll know more after GenCon.

Hope it'll turn out well, and there are still enough people at Wizards who love D&D to keep my hopes up.

And I hope this is the job at Wizards Eric Mona just couldn't say no to (after the fiendish codexes). I'd really like him to have a lot of influence on the next edetion.


----------



## librarius_arcana

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> If this 4E rumor is true, then I think 3.x D&D is in the unique position of surviving.
> 
> A 4E edition of the type stated by Eric would effectively mean the end of producing true pen-and-paper RPGs.  People who want to continue playing in that fashion _will not stop by 3.x products_ as 4E approaches.  The game will continue to be played, I believe, since there will not be much of a push for these people to have their game replaced.




I totally disagree, I can't disagree more, that would be a really bad idea, and they would loose a massive amount of sales as many people would just stick to 3.5 and not feel any need to shell out to get all of 4th as it doesn't support roleplay  


we are talking about the iconic figure head of RPG's here,

wouldn't it be ironic if it had no RPG elements at all?, 

If fact it should sway more towards RPG, and have follow up books to cover mini type play,


----------



## blargney the second

Frostmarrow, your list may be wild speculation, but it doesn't stray too far from where things stand right now.  I give you a solid six on the plausibilometer.

Even better, there are actually parts of that that I can see would be desirable. 
-blarg


----------



## Spell

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Exactly! I don't care how high the production values are or what kind of economies of scale Wizard$ can muster, I want my books _crappy_ and _cheap!_
> 
> The sooner we can eliminate this evil "profit motive" from the publication of RPGs, the sooner they'll _really_ start to flourish.




ehm...
sorry, i know that RPG books are luxury items, and that production prices has gone up, blah blah blah...

i would *still* rather buy a black and white book than a full colour one.

i would *still* rather buy a single normal-paper 34$ book (actually, 22$ from amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...5614/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-6294374-4839044?ie=UTF8) that gives me a complete game, than 3 "deluxe" glossy-paper books, at 30$ each (again, amazon has them for around 20$).

i would *still* rather buy a game that is really 100% modular (GURPS, hero), or much simpler (C&C), or that is written in a less academic fashion (WoD books), or that gives me something more than the dry rules and a couple of hints about a generic setting that is not supported outside RPGA or magazines (WHFRP). even if the cost the same.

the evil "profit motive" as you call it, is there because some companies are not attentive to the needs of their customers. let's name names. palladium: how many times have you heard people demanding a umber of fixing to their system? wotc: they produce the 3.5 to incorporate errata and "get the system better" and then they produce a new errata within a month the new core books are out.

everyone has their own opinion about the market, their own gripes about this or that publisher, and their own tastes. running an RPG company doesn't give you the right to make bitter would-be-ironic comments about what a single customer wants.
the guy wants cheaper books. i want them, too. and, from what i hear around various forums, we're not alone.

now you, as a publisher, can:
1. do what you can to produce cheaper books.
2. ignore that request, and hope that your production values will make us shell our hard earned money (we work to pay our bills, too, you know? it's not like my mum buys me an RPG book for christmas).
3. make out-of-place comments to show to the world how cool you are and lose customers for good.

should i assume you made up your mind already?

just a couple more thoughts.

when people complained that 3e was too complex for what it offered, on these boards, the vast majority of the replies were rather offensive. you couldn't discuss the merits of the system without some smart ass coming and starting an edition war, or something like that.

i can't remember how many times i've read that these demands couldn't be sustenable because "the market is buying D&D" ans so "the market wants complexity". then C&C comes out. surprise! maybe it's not doing as well as D&D (how couldn't, realistically?) but it's doing well enough for third parties producing stuff for it. maybe, then, the whole market didn't want 354 expensive deluxe books filled with new exciting feat and new mind blowing spells.

maybe part of the market wanted an updated simple version of the game they have been playing since 1974. one that made those old books usable without hours of conversion work. one that could be grasped by a 5 year old in 3 minutes of explanations. one that could allow you to create a character and start playing in 20 minutes, rather than 1 hour.

i'd like to think that there is a lesson here. unfortunately, from what i have seen dealing with various publishers for requests, or clarifications, or orders, the lession has been already learnt long long ago by those who didn't really need it.


----------



## green slime

I think Frostmarrow's compilation is highly credible. 

Not that it'll get my money, I have been considering reducing spending on this hobby now for some months. The arrival 4e will save me a lot of money, I hope.

On the other hand, should my son get interested, and switch his sensors from Warhammer 40K to 4e, then I guess I'd have to stick around a while longer...


----------



## Spell

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I'd announce the day after the convention. That way all the hate will be via e-mail.
> 
> joe b.




please, can you tell me what filter spam you use? i might want to buy it!


----------



## The Cardinal

remember that one important aspect of all "gaming crack" stuff is not just collectibility but also POWER INFLATION...
...so, 4E might feature:

level-linked books - you want to level up? Buy more books!
e.g.: DMG4E, D&D4E-Rulebook, PHB4E-Level1-5, PHB4E-Level6-10, PHB4E-Level11-15, PHB4E-Level16-20, PHB4E-Level21-25, MM4E-Level1-5, MM4E-Level6-10, MM4E-Level11-15, MM4E-Level16-20 etc.

Equipment and Spells - beyond a "common" set provided with the rulebook - are sold as cards in booster packs. Casting a spell or using a special item requires the player to "play" the equivalent card. The "treasure" gained in game are cards the DM actually has to give to the players.


----------



## Vigilance

Spell said:
			
		

> ehm...
> sorry, i know that RPG books are luxury items, and that production prices has gone up, blah blah blah...
> 
> i would *still* rather buy a black and white book than a full colour one.
> 
> i would *still* rather buy a single normal-paper 34$ book (actually, 22$ from amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...5614/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-6294374-4839044?ie=UTF8) that gives me a complete game, than 3 "deluxe" glossy-paper books, at 30$ each (again, amazon has them for around 20$).




But the market has already shown that you're in the minority. Remember the ooos and ahhhs over M&M's "production values"? 

A lot of that was knockout art, in full color on glossy paper. 

Marquee books, at marquee prices, get priority dollars. They get bought first, the books made on the cheap, eh, maybe folks get them when they get them. 

Color art, glossy paper and high visibility licenses are the signs of companies competing in an ever more competitive marketplace over an amount of money that has been, frankly, shrinking. 

We might wish it wasn't this way. But it is. 

Chuck


----------



## Frostmarrow

green slime said:
			
		

> I think Frostmarrow's compilation is highly credible.
> 
> Not that it'll get my money, I have been considering reducing spending on this hobby now for some months. The arrival 4e will save me a lot of money, I hope.
> 
> On the other hand, should my son get interested, and switch his sensors from Warhammer 40K to 4e, then I guess I'd have to stick around a while longer...




By the time of 4E there is always 40KRP.  

Needless to say the scratch ticket stats aren't all that plausible. But I do think the rest is.


----------



## philreed

A'koss said:
			
		

> We've been hearing from for months and months from the WotC staff that business, if anything, is _great_. Now this rumor that only _their minis lines and Magic _ make them any money? That doesnt' sound right.




And I _still_ say that if D&D as an RPG was doing as well as the company continues to claim then Charles Ryan would still be brand manager. I can't see how, if things were so great, the company would want to dump the person in charge of the brand.


----------



## Spell

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But the market has already shown that you're in the minority.




i know that. fair enough.

what i don't know, and don't understand, is how this makes ok for what really is a random publisher by my book to throw  in my face like that.

he doesn't want my money? good. it's not like i came rattling my bones in his house or something. damn, these are GENERAL boards! not company related.

there's another thing i don't understand. i read the first three pages of this thread. lots and lots complaining about the "smaller packages" and the miniature focus.

if you accept wulf's idea that what's best of D&D is to become "bigger than jesus", then you have to welcome a warhammer-quest type of game. miniatures are cool. miniatures are collectible. miniatures catch the imagination of young kids.

smaller packages: why spending 90$ today and play for a lifetime, instead of spending 20$ on the basic book, and then buying the "advanced procedures" books when and *if* i want to play with more options? why do i need 300+ monsters, if i can play just as well with 50? heck, those rare monsters's miniatures are hard to find!

moreover, who wants to read an encyclopaedia to start playing? us old players are, in fact, the minority. people wants something immediately rewarding, something that can be played after reading 10-20 pages.

campaign setting? to the hell with it! a couple of notes, and here we go! more power to the DM who wants to customise the campaign! more power to try other settings, taken from novels or films! less useless information to read (who wants to know about Waterdeep if i want to play in mulhorand?), more space for rules and, most importantly, art!

now, don't get me wrong. i don't advocate that WotC will do all of this, nor i think that the average gamer would be happy to play what really becomes a game where you "play with soldiers" as "mundanes" would say (besides, who invented the term "mundanes2? is the most elitist head-up-our-arse term that i ever heard coming from a cultural niche group).

but if you firmly believes that bigger D&D = good, then so be it. leave to smaller companies the doubtful privilege of catering to the needs of smaller markets.

personally, i believe that there is a way to make everyone happy. in a way, it's a business designed that TSR created in the 1980s.
have a basic D&D game aimed at younger players. with smaller books. with miniatures. with easier rules.
then create and advanced D&D game for those who want to buy 3 core books, who want more detailed rules, more flexibility, and so on.

but of course TSR is evil and stupid because it ran out of business and wanted D&D small, and i am stupid and deprecable only to suggest that.

naah, better poking fun at me and pretending that i am too much of a small part of the market to even care. you know, that is actually the truth. compared to the millions of young kids buying magic cards, or duel master cards, or miniatures, me, you, and all of the people on these forums are nothing. if we all stopped playing D&D today, wizards would probably care very little, as long as they can replace us with someone else.

but then, why care? why reading these posts? why bothering with a reply?


----------



## Aaron L

Well, the idea of it being more minis focused makes me think Im not going to want anything to do with it.  I dont use minis, and I never will.  The bits of info from the rumor make it sound like its going to be a collectible minis/RPG hybrid. 

Ill wait and see, but the phrases "even more miniatures-centric" and "Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately" by themselves are enough to make me run screaming from any game.  3E is as miniatures-centric as I can tolerate in a role-playing game.

If it makes them more money then I wish them luck, but I probably wont be along for the ride.  I switched from 1E to 3E because it was such an improvent in flexibility and rules standardization.  I have 3.5 now, and I dont need an upgrade unless its as vast an improvement over 3.5 as 3E was over 1E.


----------



## Dinkeldog

*Moderator's note:

Please remember during these discussions that we're really all aiming for the same thing--good games to play.  If we disagree on what constitutes a "good game", then please do so respectfully.


----------



## BryonD

Spell said:
			
		

> naah, better poking fun at me and pretending that i am too much of a small part of the market to even care. you know, that is actually the truth. compared to the millions of young kids buying magic cards, or duel master cards, or miniatures, me, you, and all of the people on these forums are nothing. if we all stopped playing D&D today, wizards would probably care very little, as long as they can replace us with someone else.




It appears you are taking it personally and that is causing you to miss the point.
It has nothing to do with you.
The ideas you have promoted lend themselves to a game with with less overall market appeal.
Or maybe a better way to say it is the ideas that others have presented are intended to appeal to a larger market.

That is a good plan if you like it.
That is a good plan if you hate it.

And yes, there is a word for losing 1,000 players and gaining 1,001: "progress".


----------



## MerricB

philreed said:
			
		

> And I _still_ say that if D&D as an RPG was doing as well as the company continues to claim then Charles Ryan would still be brand manager. I can't see how, if things were so great, the company would want to dump the person in charge of the brand.




After the astonishingly successful release of D&D 3E, Wizards saw fit to lay off a large number of staff, several behind the design of 3e.

These things don't always make sense to us.

Cheers!


----------



## philreed

MerricB said:
			
		

> After the astonishingly successful release of D&D 3E, Wizards saw fit to lay off a large number of staff, several behind the design of 3e.
> 
> These things don't always make sense to us.




I would have dumped all but one or two administrators, licensed out the D&D brand to a couple of larger companies (like White Wolf) and then kept just the core books in print. Let others create official support and invest time in approvals and licensing the brand out to other markets.


----------



## DaveMage

Well, if nothing else, those of you going to Gen Con will have a nice topic of conversation...


----------



## philreed

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Well, if nothing else, those of you going to Gen Con will have a nice topic of conversation...




I feel sorry for any WotC staff at the con. Especially if no announcement is made.


----------



## Henry

ForceUser said:
			
		

> What's interesting to note, however, is the difference in attitudes this time around. When this was Eric Noah's 3E rumor site and he fed us tantalizing 3E tidbits, the scene was abuzz with excitement. Now, when the same rumormonger we know and love mentions 4E, it's aflame with indignation. I must say that I am amused.




Were you frequenting the newsgroups rec.games.frp.dnd and the newsgroups over at WotC in 1999? Back then, the newsgroups primarily served the functions that message boards have for the past 5 years or so. The rumors flying then had many negative reactions associated with it. Anyone remember Synaptic Dragon?

_*flails about to make the point*_


Many people were freaked over some announced changes at the time -- myself included. 

_"A Hit Die every level?!?! PCs are going to be like freakin' unkillable super-heroes!!!"_

So the reaction to a rumor, and one that takes the game in a supposedly disliked direction, is not that far-fetched. The only difference is, WE are the rec.games.frp.dnd in question. The real measure of how it shakes out, if anything, is in how it actually pans out.


----------



## ShadowDenizen

> This is a new business model for WOTC, one they have been experimenting with, successfully, since the Revised Star Wars game. It's a model White Wolf basically perfected called "revise, reset, resell".




Well, "Star Wars" isn't exactly the top-lne seller fro them that it shoud have been.
I don't have $$$ figures, but it seems that canceling a line after the revised Corebook isn't what I personally would consider sucessful.

And White-Wolf?
Shot themselves in the foot, at least with me.
I have pretty much everything they printed for the orginal "World of Darkness" line (barring "Demon: The fallen", which I hate with a passion.)  

So, when they "revamped" the WoD, I said "Enough"; I voted with my dollars, and WW will not get a red dime from me for the newWoD.  Does it hurt them finanically? Not at all, I'm sure.

But, if a whole bunch of gamer felt the way I do, maybe it DID hurt them.  WHo knows?

Now, they're goign the same way with Exalted.  (After teh 2E rulebook, they're reprinting and revising "The Dragon Blooded".)

And after sticking through 3(and a half) editions of D+D, I (and my group) are ready to call it quits.  We're NOT upgarding to 4.0.  (Hell, my "Shackled City" campaign probably won't be over by the time 4.0 comes out!!)


----------



## Vrecknidj

Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance...

Dave


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Spell said:
			
		

> what i don't know, and don't understand, is how this makes ok for what really is a random publisher by my book to throw  in my face like that.




If you had ever purchased a single product from this random publisher, you'd realize that my prices were always well below the market average, despite the fact that the quality was well above average. 

The success of this strategy speaks for itself.


----------



## el-remmen

as long as whatever form the 4E core book takes is sold at a lead loss so I can pick it up relatively cheap and see if I like it for myself, I don't care. .


----------



## Vrecknidj

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> I have a question, if  "all the money" comes from Magic: The Gathering and Miniatures;
> 
> Where are the M:TG miniatures?



http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dbm/welcome

Dave


----------



## Vigilance

ShadowDenizen said:
			
		

> Well, "Star Wars" isn't exactly the top-lne seller fro them that it shoud have been.
> I don't have $$$ figures, but it seems that canceling a line after the revised Corebook isn't what I personally would consider sucessful.




Yeah, the revised SW game was such a failure their revising it AGAIN. What does that tell you about how it went last time for them?

And as for doing less SW rpg books, that's in favor of miniatures. See a trend here? 



> And White-Wolf?
> Shot themselves in the foot, at least with me.
> I have pretty much everything they printed for the orginal "World of Darkness" line (barring "Demon: The fallen", which I hate with a passion.)




Maybe, but the original world of darkness line was the beginnings of the "revise, reset, resell" strategy, not the "new world of darkness". 



> So, when they "revamped" the WoD, I said "Enough"; I voted with my dollars, and WW will not get a red dime from me for the newWoD.  Does it hurt them finanically? Not at all, I'm sure.
> 
> But, if a whole bunch of gamer felt the way I do, maybe it DID hurt them.  WHo knows?
> 
> Now, they're goign the same way with Exalted.  (After teh 2E rulebook, they're reprinting and revising "The Dragon Blooded".)




You seem to be missing the bigger picture here. If they continue to "go the same way" with game line after game line, would you say that's a sign that it works for them financially or that it doesn't work? 



> And after sticking through 3(and a half) editions of D+D, I (and my group) are ready to call it quits.  We're NOT upgarding to 4.0.  (Hell, my "Shackled City" campaign probably won't be over by the time 4.0 comes out!!)




That might be true for you. Past experience has shown that most gamers do in fact get the new edition when it comes out. While I think there will be some reticence... there was reluctance to adopt EVERY new edition yet gamers continue to upgrade.


----------



## ashockney

*Gen Con?*

The only thing that is throwing me off is the fact that this isn't going to be announced at Gen Con.  I think we've pretty much laid out an infallible argument that it is in development, right?  Why wouldn't they announce it?

Also, Eric if you didn't think that your speculation carried any more weight around here, I've got one question for you:

What's the name of this site, and why was it developed? 

As it relates t my specific gaming experience, my group (together since 1986) hasn't played D&D in almost two years. We still get together every month, and we play games like Settlers and Magic.  We all now have children, nieces, and nephews, and they're showing an interest in our games.  We also all have played MMORPG's for the last few years together.  We had a blast on NWN and WOW.  I hope that 4e will be able to play on the best of these things.  As demonstated by this site' WOTC has a tremendous opportunity to capitalize on an entire generation of die-hard grognards such as us who would love nothing more than to introduce this wonderful game to a new generation of players.

The only question in my mind now, is which game will all these old grognard's play in he retirement home?


----------



## Clefton Twain

*4e? Meh*

I know I'm late to the party on this but here are a few quick thoughts.

I don't really think 4e is needed. Not for a long time. I know WotC needs to have a profitable product but I think they will alienate more D&D fans with 4e so soon than anything else. I think their time would be better spent increasing the quality of their 3e products rather than just making a whole new edition.

I can't say I'm thrilled with the prospect of a 4th edition after I've sunk lots of money into 3e, then of course repurchasing a few books for 3.5 and having some of my old 3e books simply go obsolete. I think I'm still a little bitter about the way 3e/3.5 was handled in the first place. Not to mention the fact that I have spent all this time making custom documents and references for my own benefit.

Currently I'm very happy with the current edition. I never really got tired of 2nd edition. And though it was obviously flawed, 3rd edition is much more tight. True, it's getting bloated, but I tend to simply not use said bloat and just move on.

I use minis in my game. I don't play the minis game itself but I buy a box occasionally because I like to have decent representations of what the PCs are actually fighting (we use all sorts of other "placeholders" including Homies and cut-out representations from Dungeon). I can easily *not* buy minis but, to me, they add a little flavor and sometimes make record-keeping easier. Whether they do the same for my players, I don't know, but it doesn't matter. Obviously these things are money-makers, being collectible, and I admit that many of them look really cool. I just hope they don't try to milk the minis line while neglecting everything else because the bottom could fall out at any time.

Ah well. I guess we'll have to just see what happens. I'd be a fool to think that 4e wouldn't happen at some point, but I was really just hoping it wouldn't be for quite a while yet. On a positive note, I might be able to pick and choose a few things and make them compatible with 3e...maybe WotC will finally make the 20-level spell progression.

--CT


----------



## thundershot

1E
2E was basically an upgrade of what 1E was already heading toward.
2.5E Skills & Powers
3E was a fresh revamp
3.5E updated a few things, most notably, the whole ECL system
4E, in theory, should be an upgrade of 3.x, rather than a whole new revamp, especially with so little time between products (compared to the others).


----------



## Razz

Echohawk said:
			
		

> So there were a couple of "nostalgia" products (_Dragonlance Classics: 15th Anniversary Edition_ and _Return to the Keep on the Borderlands_), several compilations (_Wizard's Spell Compendium, Volume Four_, _Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume Four_, _Van Richten's Monster Hunter's Compendium, Volume One_ and _Priest's Spell Compendium, Volume One_), a rerelease of the basic game, and lots of adventures.
> 
> Comparing that with the release schedule from August 2005 through to July 2006 is interesting. We have a couple of nostalgia products (_Expedition to Castle Ravenloft_ and _Expedition to the Demonweb Pits_), two compilations (_Spell Compendium_ and _Magic Item Compendium_), a release of the basic game, and lots of adventures.
> 
> Hmmmm...




That's pretty freaky if you ask me. It seems we're all speculating a lot, so the only thing we can do is wait till Gen Con and see if the bad news is true...


----------



## JustaPlayer

I believe the "nostalgia" releases were the undisputable sign it's coming soon.  When I first saw _Expedition to Castle Ravenloft_, my first thought was _House of Strad_.

3.5e is where I get off.  I have more than enough 3.x material to cover 10 lifetimes of play. I also like to play with less minis.

That and the fact that great games based on d20 OGL will more than likely continue to be published just means Wizards loses my support.


----------



## EricNoah

You know what I hope?  I hope WotC doesn't listen to our babbling too closely.  Because I'm not sure "we" really know what "we" want.   They should do what they think is best for the game.  If they can come up with a clever way to have their cake and eat it too, more power to them.  I'm sort of realizing that no matter what direction they take, a) I'm pretty satisfied with the game I have, and the scads of supplemental and third-party materials I have; and b) I will watch with great interest what they do next because I'm simply curious about it.  Who knows... maybe a year or two from now I'll be playing the latest and greatest D&D with or without their hardware and having a blast.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Vigilance said:
			
		

> That might be true for you. Past experience has shown that most gamers do in fact get the new edition when it comes out. While I think there will be some reticence... there was reluctance to adopt EVERY new edition yet gamers continue to upgrade.




Looking at the Games Workshop business model is instructive. EVERY edition is met with wailing and gnashing the teeth. They blithely ignore the grognard and their retail business model focuses on teens and under.

It's not a perfect analogy because the actual bulk of a player's investment is in the miniatures, and the miniatures can be used from edition to edition; but the rulebooks themselves... revise, reset, resell. 

Like clockwork.

Let's benchmark the GW business model against the 4e rumors:

-New edition already in the works? Check.
-Miniatures based? Check.
-Smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately (codexes)? Check.
-Outsourcing the RPG? Check.


----------



## Umbran

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> A smaller, leaner company, with lower expenses, could generate a higher profit.  That's what I'm getting at.
> 
> It's basic for business.  As businesses grow, some things that they used to do become harder and harder to do cost-effectively enough to generate a profit.




Which is, I suspect, exactyly why Hasbro itself does not meddle directly in WotC production.  By all reports, Hasbro is not involved in the day-to-day operation and decisions.  Thus, whatever higher overhead that Hasbro has does not directly impact WotC products.  They get to keep their small-company efficiency and make use of Hasbro's economy of scale at the same time.  I don't doubt this has helped the short-term sales of the game considerably.  But it does make the game vulnerable to things like we are worrying about now.

While there are certainly exceptions, I'm going to have to disagree with the "harder to do cost-effectively enough to generate a profit", unless you're talking about a company that is on the whole moribund and ready to die.  The problem is not in generating profit - by all reports, the D&D brand, and RPG products in general, are generating profit.  We have no indication that Hasbro is losing money on rpg products in an absolute sense.  

The question facing Hasbro is not, "is D&D profitable?"  The question is, "Is D&D as profitable as other things we could do with the same resources?"  Which is a better bet for them, giving operating budget to D&D, or Monopoly, or any one of over 130 other brands they own.  In economic terms, while D&D isn't actually losing money, it may be a form of opportunity cost for Hasbro.  

Wulf is correct that D&D needs to be with a company that wants it to be wildly successful.  What he seems to miss is the difference between companies for whom that wild success would only bring the brand up to par with normal everyday business for them, and companies for whom wild success would be... wild!


----------



## Vigilance

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Looking at the Games Workshop business model is instructive. EVERY edition is met with wailing and gnashing the teeth. They blithely ignore the grognard and their retail business model focuses on teens and under.
> 
> It's not a perfect analogy because the actual bulk of a player's investment is in the miniatures, and the miniatures can be used from edition to edition; but the rulebooks themselves... revise, reset, resell.
> 
> Like clockwork.
> 
> Let's benchmark the GW business model against the 4e rumors:
> 
> -New edition already in the works? Check.
> -Miniatures based? Check.
> -Smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately (codexes)? Check.
> -Outsourcing the RPG? Check.




Yeah, WOTC didn't come up with this busniess model out of whole cloth. A lot of RPG companies have been adopting it because it's like, you know, a REAL business model, as opposed to the old-school RPG company way of doing things which seemed to be "maybe we can stay in business 6 more months". 

Also, any gnashing of teeth about frequent updates of information in small doses... um... would that be like getting only the info to run levels 1-4 and only DM advice/monsters for Dungeons in a little blue box? 

Sounds familiar to me.

Also sounds like a better business model already, since the players are also effectively buying the DMG and the MM.


----------



## Spell

doh! sorry!


----------



## EricNoah

I know Ryan Dancey is lurking around here somewhere.  I'd be curious to hear what he as to say about a 4th edition w/regards to a) the rollout (i.e. should 4E's rollout be done the same way 3E's rollout was done -- a big announcement, a year of releasing info in digestible chunks, three main books over three months, etc.), and b) the OGL/d20 thing (does he think 4E will still essentially be "the d20 system" and has it accomplished what he thought it would -- extending the network of players and DMs).


----------



## BryonD

thundershot said:
			
		

> 1E
> 2E was basically an upgrade of what 1E was already heading toward.
> 2.5E Skills & Powers
> 3E was a fresh revamp
> 3.5E updated a few things, most notably, the whole ECL system
> 4E, in theory, should be an upgrade of 3.x, rather than a whole new revamp, especially with so little time between products (compared to the others).



I'm still not ready to jump to any conclusions.  It could certainly happen.  But it could still easily be 2 or even (I kinda doubt) 3 years off.  

But, if it does happen soon my guess is that it will be a re-tool of 3X much more comparable to the 1E to 2E change than the 2E to 3E change.

For one, if they want 4E to draw away from 3E, the bar is set very high.  
For another, I agree that minis is a big big part of the overall strategy.  Not just RPG, but wider than that.  And I don't think they plan to re-tool DDM any time soon.  So I bet DDM will stay the same and a hypothetical 4E will still offer cross-over appeal with this existing product.  

I'd think they would significantly re-tool stuff, but it would have a clear resemblance.
Toss out a core race or two.  Add in a race or two.
Re-work core classes.  Make classes a lot more customizable, for example.  
Maybe toss the monk or the paladin (over to PClass) and add scout and/or warlock.
Tweak spellcasting and BAB progressions.  Tweak spells and feats.  Whatever.
A bunch of simple stuff that could make it a clear new edition.  (for example, people do nto confuse AE with 3X, but clearly they are the same fundamental game)

Anyway, this would be much bigger changes than 3.5 was.  And 3.5 allowed them to start over re-cycling all the standard splat books and supplements.  Six months after 4E you get the FR and Eberron handbooks with the worlds re-visioned to include the new versions of wizards and the inclusion of warlocks as a core base.  For example.

It seems as close as you can get to "best of both worlds" from a seller PoV.


----------



## Spell

BryonD said:
			
		

> It appears you are taking it personally and that is causing you to miss the point.




look, i did take it personally and maybe i haven't made my point clear enough.

what i was trying to say is:

1. i don't think it's polite or nice or productive to reply with ironical remarks to a couple of guys that were basically asking for something they wanted.
do they want lushier books? big discounts for cheeseburgers with their copy of PHB? free books? good for them. they are just stating a simple fact: "if i pay, i want X".

now, i can ignore him, reply and explain him that my experience says that what he wants is not what other 99% people want, or take note and check if it's feasible or not. to the life of mine, i can't see how venting out one's sense of humour like Wulf did is helpful for him or his business, _especially_ since he says that he himself offer high quality products for less.

it's like me giving to charity, and then making fun of someone who i just met on the street who says people should give to charity. what's the point?


and now for something completely different:
2. one must decide whether making D&D 4th edition the kind of collectible boardgame that it seems to emerge from the little that Eric Noah said is a good thing or not.

if one accepts that making D&D bigger is beneficial to the hobby ipso facto, then i don't really understand the panic or the dispear. that kind of game *will* be bigger. i said it myself, the totality of people on these boards are a minority themselves, so WotC is 100% right if they ignored us altogether. why bother with a reply, then?

D&D will attract new players, they will buy all the WotC books, someone will look for something different and BANG! they will buy books for the same small press publisher that cater for minority markets. maybe, in time, the small publisher will become respected and average sized, and than, who knows?, maybe bigger than WotC.

if one sees this course of action as beneficial, then what's the problem? why complaining? people can play other games, and D&D 4th edition won't turn all the back catalog from previous edition into ashes.

would you complain if you had a cadillac and they decided to put out a new model, completely different, that you don't like?

if, on the other hand, one thinks that keeping the essence of what D&D has been for 30 years is what is important, then selling comes second.
the people who are manifesting their unhappiness with the game should make an effort to contact WotC. again, voicing their thoughts here is not terribly beneficial to anyone, since these are not WotC boards. even if they were, i believe game designers and their bosses have better things to do than reading every post on the official boards.


As for me:
1. i have decided that i don't care for D&D 4th edition long long ago.
2. i play GURPS, WHFRP, the real D&D (the red box one), AD&D and, if someone else is GMing, a buch of other d20 games (not D&D3e).
3. i do not advocate that i have any insightful idea on how the market is or should be.
4. i do not think that hasbro is evil for wanting more money.
5. i think that hasbro assumes that RPG games and gamers are like other boardgame gamers. (and maybe they are right.)
6. i am not a game designer/ publisher, and, most importantly
7. i don't care if i am the only person wanting a certain thing: i will buy only those games i am at least 90% happy with. if i want something bringing less "happyness" i just need to look at my shelves. if i won the lottery, quit my life and decide to do nothing but modifying RPG books to fit my needs, i could spend months without resurfacing.
8. i really have too much time to kill today if i am still writing.


----------



## BryonD

Spell said:
			
		

> look, i did take it personally



well stop and you'll be better off.



> and maybe i haven't made my point clear enough.



It was kinda overshadowed by you taking things to personally.  Not being inflamatory, I really mean it as an honest critic.



> what i was trying to say is:
> 
> 1. if i read a post of someone asking for what he wants, i don't think it's polite or nice or productive to reply with ironical remarks. does he want lushier books? big discounts for cheeseburgers with his copy of PHB? free books? good for him. he's just stating a simple fact: "if i pay, i want X".
> now, i can ignore him, reply and explain him that my experience says that what he wants is not what other 99% people want, or take note and check if it's feasible or not.
> i can't see how venting out one's sense of humour like Wulf did is helpful for him or his business, _especially_ since he says that he himself offer high quality products for less.
> 
> it's like me giving to charity, and then making fun of someone who i just met on the street who says people should give to charity. what's the point?



I disagree with your assessment.  And if you would take his comments as comments on the situation rather than personal comments on you, then it would be better taken.



> 2. one must decide whether making D&D 4th edition the kind of collectible boardgame that it seems to emerge from the little that Eric Noah said is a good thing or not.
> 
> if one accepts that making D&D bigger is beneficial to the hobby no matter what, then i don't really understand the panic or the dispear. that kind of game *will* be bigger. as i myself said it, the totality of people on these boards are a minority themselves, so WotC is 100% right if they ignored us altogether. why bother with a reply, then?
> 
> if, on the other hand, one thinks that keeping the essence of what D&D has been for 30 years, then selling comes second, and the people who are manifesting their unhappiness with the game should make an effort to contact WotC. again, voicing their thoughts here is not terribly beneficial to anyone, since these are not WotC boards. even if they were, i believe game designers and their bosses have beter things to do than reading every post on the official boards.
> 
> 
> As for me:
> 1. i have decided that i don't care for D&D long long ago.
> 2. i play GURPS, WHFRP, and, if someone else is GMing, a buch of other d20 games.
> 3. i do not advocate that i have any insightful idea on how the market is or should be.
> 4. i am not a game designer/ publisher, and, most importantly
> 5. i don't care if i am the only person wanting a certain thing: i will buy only those games i am at least 90% happy with. if i want something bringing less "happyness" i just need to look at my shelves. if i won the lottery, quit my life and decide to do nothing but modifying RPG books to fit my needs, i could spend months without resurfacing.
> 6. i really have too much time to kill today if i am still writing.



You are confusing your personal opinion with market reality.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Spell said:
			
		

> to the life of mine, i can't see how venting out one's sense of humour like Wulf did is helpful for him or his business, _especially_ since he says that he himself offer high quality products for less.




The Snark is provided free of charge. 

I like to provide a little something extra for every Bad Axe customer.

I believe the Snark currently enjoys a 4.15 star average review, like most of my products, although it has not yet been nominated for an ENnie.


----------



## Clefton Twain

*Hmmm...*



			
				EricNoah said:
			
		

> You know what I hope?  I hope WotC doesn't listen to our babbling too closely.  Because I'm not sure "we" really know what "we" want.   They should do what they think is best for the game.  If they can come up with a clever way to have their cake and eat it too, more power to them.  I'm sort of realizing that no matter what direction they take, a) I'm pretty satisfied with the game I have, and the scads of supplemental and third-party materials I have; and b) I will watch with great interest what they do next because I'm simply curious about it.  Who knows... maybe a year or two from now I'll be playing the latest and greatest D&D with or without their hardware and having a blast.




You're probably right. Well, I *know* you're right that they will do what they think is best for the game. I just truly hope they consider very closely what they do. 4th edition may attract new fans but I hope not at the expense of avid gamers. At that point, profitability (which is arguably in the toilet anyway) will go down.

I think I'm in the same boat as you--I've got so much material right now I don't know what to do with it. Some of it is not worth using as toilet paper but 80% of it is worthwhile, and a lot of that is untapped for me.

The one thing that they have to realize is that there is a limit to how many products people can/will buy, especially when the quality of numerous products seems to be going downhill (I think so, anyway). I can't afford to continue to buy the same sourcebook over and over, simply updated with a few things for each edition. I don't even think I've got the space for all those books.

Since it's all conjecture, we're probably all getting worked up for no reason right now anyway. Time will tell. Hopefully there'll be an announcement at GenCon. I can't go this year so I'll have to keep my eyes glued to the messageboards. 

--CT


----------



## Vigilance

Clefton Twain said:
			
		

> The one thing that they have to realize is that there is a limit to how many products people can/will buy, especially when the quality of numerous products seems to be going downhill (I think so, anyway). I can't afford to continue to buy the same sourcebook over and over, simply updated with a few things for each edition. I don't even think I've got the space for all those books.




I dont think there IS a limit to what people will buy, except what interests them or does not interest them. The number of people who say "I buy so many books I could never use them" which translates to any beancounter as "I will buy books I will never use out of a collecting/completist impulse" actually gives them MORE incentive to make new editions.


----------



## Festivus

I just hope that when I order my first case of 4E feat cards that I can get a Weapon Finesse card.  It would suck if that was a rare chase card that I had to buy 2 more cases of to be certain I would get it.


----------



## SteveC

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If you had ever purchased a single product from this random publisher, you'd realize that my prices were always well below the market average, despite the fact that the quality was well above average.
> 
> The success of this strategy speaks for itself.



Wulf is right here. Take a look at Grim Tales...it's exactly the kind of product you're talking about. The question is: when do we see the full color edition with glossy paper Todd McFarlane art? I suggest charging $99.99 for it...

Seriously, though: I have followed this discussion for years. Just about everyone says they want low cost, perfect-bound, black and white games, but what actually sells is something else.

--Steve


----------



## rounser

> running an RPG company doesn't give you the right to make bitter would-be-ironic comments about what a single customer wants.



But what you and I want doesn't matter if there aren't enough of us, as you know.  That's the capitalist way.

Thus, you are stupid for wanting something if you aren't in the majority, because you won't receive it and so deserve to be mocked for having the gall to express a desire for it.  That seems to be the thinking involved.


----------



## Mercule

ashockney said:
			
		

> The only question in my mind now, is which game will all these old grognard's play in he retirement home?




Whichever one has the biggest typeface.


----------



## ashockney

*Seconded!  Big time!*



			
				EricNoah said:
			
		

> I know Ryan Dancey is lurking around here somewhere.  I'd be curious to hear what he as to say about a 4th edition w/regards to a) the rollout (i.e. should 4E's rollout be done the same way 3E's rollout was done -- a big announcement, a year of releasing info in digestible chunks, three main books over three months, etc.), and b) the OGL/d20 thing (does he think 4E will still essentially be "the d20 system" and has it accomplished what he thought it would -- extending the network of players and DMs).




I would love to see many of the industry heavyweights hop in here and postulate on the future of the game, and the impact it may have on the game we have today thanks to the OGL AND D20 LICENSE.


----------



## el-remmen

Spell said:
			
		

> 1. i have decided that i don't care for D&D 4th edition long long ago.




How can you know you don't care for something you haven't even seen or definitively heard about yet?


----------



## Ilium

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The Snark is provided free of charge.
> 
> I like to provide a little something extra for every Bad Axe customer.
> 
> I believe the Snark currently enjoys a 4.15 star average review, like most of my products, although it has not yet been nominated for an ENnie.




See, that's the kind of personalized customer service that big companies just don't provide.


----------



## Varianor Abroad

MerricB said:
			
		

> After the astonishingly successful release of D&D 3E, Wizards saw fit to lay off a large number of staff, several behind the design of 3e.
> 
> These things don't always make sense to us.




It does in the context of budget. Companies have budgets. Nowadays, a classic, short-term view assumes that you can replace expertise and historical knowlede with someone newer and cheaper. Or, as Phil Reed said in response, once you've done the work, just license it out. Is it "right"? I don't think so, by my opinion matters diddly over squat to a spreadsheet.

I appreciate Erik Mona stopping by to clarify that they license. I could easily see WotC doing licensing of the RPG portion and keeping what makes a profit. Or what they think makes a profit.


----------



## Eridanis

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I believe the Snark currently enjoys a 4.15 star average review, like most of my products, although it has not yet been nominated for an ENnie.




I hear Snark 2.0 will be totally revamped, MST3K style, and available for free download to play concurrently with your favorite tabletop game. Is that a true rumor?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Eridanis said:
			
		

> I hear Snark 2.0 will be totally revamped, MST3K style, and available for free download to play concurrently with your favorite tabletop game. Is that a true rumor?




Are you kidding me? Haven't you been paying attention to this thread?

Snark 1.0 currently meets and exceeds all customer expectations. Rolling out Snark 2.0 at this time would just be greedy.


----------



## Spell

EricNoah said:
			
		

> You know what I hope?  I hope WotC doesn't listen to our babbling too closely.  Because I'm not sure "we" really know what "we" want.




if i have the money, and this D&D is organised as the basic box D&D was (with the addition of miniatures), i might give it a shot. i won't buy the first printing, though. it's usually filled with mistakes, and it's full price...


----------



## philreed

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Rolling out Snark 2.0 at this time would just be greedy.




I vote for greed.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

philreed said:
			
		

> I vote for greed.




Well, of _course_ you do. Your business plan actually seems to call for this crazy "profit" notion.

We do things a little differently over here at Bad Axe.


----------



## Razz

el-remmen said:
			
		

> How can you know you don't care for something you haven't even seen or definitively heard about yet?




It's probably for the same reason I chose not to care about 4E once I switched over to 3.5E.

I have a very large library of 3.5 books from WotC, a few I never bought (Weapons of Legacy, Enemies&Allies to name a couple) and the Eberron books. It was bad enough I went from 2E to 3E then 3.5E, a lot of money and time down the drain it seems. I stop at 3.5E because I refuse to buy 4E only to know a few years into 4E they're going to just start working on 5E. I don't care howe many times better 4E is, because I personally don't see what else they can do in 4E that you couldn't accomplish in 3.5E with 3rd party products, Dragon Magazine, Unearthed Arcana, and house rules. Plus all of my players will just be really angry, probably even quit the game entirely, if we moved to another edition.

Yep, D&D becomes dead to me beyond 3.5E. I might look at the FR 4E books (if there are any) for it's lore, that's about it. 

If 4E is a change from 3.5E like 3.5E was a change from 3.0E, I ~might~ be more open-minded about it. But that still would leave all 3.0/3.5 books needing an upgrade, which I doubt WotC will have the time and money to do for free on their website again.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The Snark is provided free of charge.
> 
> I like to provide a little something extra for every Bad Axe customer.
> 
> I believe the Snark currently enjoys a 4.15 star average review, like most of my products, although it has not yet been nominated for an ENnie.




But the snark has never been provided to the judges in any judgable form. That's your bad Wulf. Try to get it in next year!


----------



## philreed

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Well, of _course_ you do. Your business plan actually seems to call for this crazy "profit" notion.
> 
> We do things a little differently over here at Bad Axe.




Yeah, some of us don't have day jobs where we can sit on EnWorld and still make money.  I've gotta look at profit or else it's back to the corporate world for me (and I'm pretty sure they won't let me play the XBox while I'm in a corporate office so I want to make this keep working).


----------



## JoeGKushner

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Despite his insistence that they're simply to generate discussion, Mike Mearls' recent website articles on developing some classic critters is one of those signs, I believe.




I'd add the Monster Manual IV format to the list with maps and more GM friendly bits.

I'd also add Book of Nine Swords/Tome of Nine Blades as the abilities are useful during every 'encounter' as opposed to X/day.


----------



## Delta

Why don't other games follow the "revise, reset, resell" model? Like chess, poker, baseball, etc.? Wouldn't companies that make those products be better off revising the rules and selling new products to all the players every few years? Or is there an advantage to grognards always being able to teach the game to newbies, fathers-to-sons, etc.?


----------



## Spell

el-remmen said:
			
		

> How can you know you don't care for something you haven't even seen or definitively heard about yet?




easy:
1. i found a good system that gives me (or will give me, when the bestiary comes out!) pretty much what i want from a role playing game: GURPS.
2. i had problems wiht 3e, i didn't like what they did with 3.5, and i see no reason why they should change the game completely for the new edition.
3. i have a limited amount of money i can spend on RPGs. more importantly, i don't have space for many more books. so, i either buy GURPS (which i know comes from a solid company and does what i want) or i buy D&D 4th edition (which is 100% speculation. even when the game is out, i doubt i will be able to read the books unless i buy them or i read them in a shop).


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> The Snark is provided free of charge.
> 
> I like to provide a little something extra for every Bad Axe customer.
> 
> I believe the Snark currently enjoys a 4.15 star average review, like most of my products, although it has not yet been nominated for an ENnie.




Hey, I didn't get any Snark with my Grim Tales or Slavelords.  Can I get my money back?


----------



## solomoncane

Is it just me, or did WOTC's decision to put 3.5/Mod pdfs back on DTRPG seem like an attempt to milk a little bit more out of 3.5/Mod before the end?


----------



## bento

Phew... that's an hour and a half of my life that I'll never get back.

Seriously, I don't think it's in the best interest of Hasbro to sell off the product line.  They, like their rivals Mattel, are all about building brands and maintaining those brands.  Every few years the brands get a new look for a new group of buyers.  In addition to the core product, the brand has "legs" that can be cross-promoted as dolls, games, direct-to-dvd movies, comics, large balloons in Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade and birthday party supplies.  But that doesn't mean the company won't come in a meddle every few years or so.  It's in their best interest to keep the brand fresh and attractive to a new audience.  

I see two big problems with the current D&D business model.  First there's the issue of product line bloat.  As many posters mention, there's more than enough 3.5 material to last several lifetimes.  Returns on each new year's worth of book are less than the last. Second, despite the great idea of the OGL, WoTC gave away the golden goose years ago. On the one hand it sparked a creative outlet with third-party publishers, but on the other those publishers rushed the doors with competiting and overlapping products.

So where can Hasbro/WotC go?  Obviously minis are a big part of plan - they've proven to be great "legs" for the brand and reuse of IP.  Everything in Eric's first posting makes sense that the company SHOULD build the next edition around the minis.  

But selling off the brand would be penny rich and pound foolish.  Besides, there's so much talent out there willing to be a part of the brand that they can drive down labor costs by bringing wanna-be game developers into the fold.  Look at Marvel and DC in the 1970s, essentially bringing in "fans" and firing the older professionals asking for pensions and health insurance.  Look at EA today, where they can bring in new programmers, work them for low wages and long hours until they get burned out, but hey, the new version of Madden 2007 continues to bring in millions of revenue.

If Hasbro does anything, it is dictate to WoTC what the next business plan will be, based on revenue targets and costs.  WoTC will make the internal changes to execute the plan and pray to God they hit the revenue targets.  If not, Hasbro can either shelve the brand or put it on automatic pilot until it gets the right signals from the market.


----------



## Clefton Twain

Spell said:
			
		

> if i have the money, and this D&D is organised as the basic box D&D was (with the addition of miniatures), i might give it a shot. i won't buy the first printing, though. it's usually filled with mistakes, and it's full price...




Ah, but you must remember this: for the first few months, the PHB and DMG were discounted ($10, I believe). It still stunk that I had to turn around a couple of years later and buy them again in 3.5 though.

--CT


----------



## Spell

BryonD said:
			
		

> You are confusing your personal opinion with market reality.




funny. i think you are confusing me stating my personal opinion with an urge to teach the world how to spin. if you like to  think that way, more power to you...


----------



## JoeGKushner

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> It's sickening.
> 
> What we need is more companies willing to go belly-up for the love of the hobby.
> 
> Somebody with a much smaller staff, no high-priced "talent," fewer resources, and much less desire (and ability) to market the game as widely as possible. Cut back on some of that crazy OVERHEAD and follow the "small RPG publishing" model that has been so successful so far.




We need to outsource RPG design, art, and editing to India. It's cheaper and they can probably do the math on the monsters better saving John Cooper from the brain tumor waiting on MMIV review.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

philreed said:
			
		

> Yeah, some of us don't have day jobs where we can sit on EnWorld and still make money.




Multi. _Tasking._


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Spell said:
			
		

> if i have the money, and this D&D is organised as the basic box D&D was (with the addition of miniatures), i might give it a shot. i won't buy the first printing, though. it's usually filled with mistakes, and it's full price...




Actually, with 3.0, the core books were discounted at first, as I recall, and the price went up after a few months.


----------



## Spell

Clefton Twain said:
			
		

> Ah, but you must remember this: for the first few months, the PHB and DMG were discounted ($10, I believe). It still stunk that I had to turn around a couple of years later and buy them again in 3.5 though.
> 
> --CT



true, but months later you can always grab the books with even a greater discount on ebay or on amazon. some of these "used" books are really really mint.


----------



## Henry

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> We need to outsource RPG design, art, and editing to India.





We did, but he and his wife came back.


----------



## Belen

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Looking at the Games Workshop business model is instructive. EVERY edition is met with wailing and gnashing the teeth. They blithely ignore the grognard and their retail business model focuses on teens and under.
> 
> It's not a perfect analogy because the actual bulk of a player's investment is in the miniatures, and the miniatures can be used from edition to edition; but the rulebooks themselves... revise, reset, resell.
> 
> Like clockwork.
> 
> Let's benchmark the GW business model against the 4e rumors:
> 
> -New edition already in the works? Check.
> -Miniatures based? Check.
> -Smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately (codexes)? Check.
> -Outsourcing the RPG? Check.





If I remember correctly, GW has been in a downward spiral of late.


----------



## JoeGKushner

EricNoah said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to compare what was in the TSR pipeline the year before GenCon 1999.  I don't know how much it would help predict a release date, though.




Lots of campaign ending stuff like Die Vecna Die and the Apocalypse stone.

Speaking of which, may be why we've seen a lack of a Age of Worms compendium or Dragon Compendium II. No point putting out something that's going to be obsolete in a few months for that type of format.

But does make me wonder what would happen to Dungeon and Dragon magazines.


----------



## solomoncane

Perhaps we should just do a POD of this thread and call it 4E for Dummies (or 4E for the snarkily-inclined or simply 4EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).


----------



## Vigilance

Delta said:
			
		

> Why don't other games follow the "revise, reset, resell" model? Like chess, poker, baseball, etc.? Wouldn't companies that make those products be better off revising the rules and selling new products to all the players every few years? Or is there an advantage to grognards always being able to teach the game to newbies, fathers-to-sons, etc.?




Many card games DO, even traditional ones.

How many different kinds of Uno are there? There's collectible Uno, variant rule uno, etc.

Also, what do you think all those Hoyle books are?

Finally, do you know of a company that makes pinochle as its main product? 

RPG companies adopt the "revise, reset, resell" strategy because it's something approaching a real business model. You know, profit? Like all sorts of crazy avarice like maybe being able to offer your employees some dental coverage? (crazy I know)

Chuck


----------



## JoeGKushner

Faraer said:
			
		

> Wargames and RPG-wargame hybrids aren't more popular than RPGs, they're just more expensive and thus more profitable per player.




And generally have higher turnover rates and new editions. Confrontation is one 3rd edition I believe.

Cadwaldon (spelling?) is mini-based RPG.

Warhammer is going on... 6th ed?

There's a lot of turnover but also a lot of new blood.

The new blood likes that it can get in on the ground floor of something new without all the intimidation factors of dozens of books/backgrounds, etc... and then they grow up and move on and the new edition comes out.


----------



## Clefton Twain

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I dont think there IS a limit to what people will buy, except what interests them or does not interest them. The number of people who say "I buy so many books I could never use them" which translates to any beancounter as "I will buy books I will never use out of a collecting/completist impulse" actually gives them MORE incentive to make new editions.




To some extent, I think you're right. But there is definitely a breed of consumers who will not jump on the bandwagon at the drop of a hat. Obviously WotC would be betting on the type of person who will gobble up anything and everything. I tend to pick and choose what I want--this adds up to about 3-4 books a year. Mostly this is because of either poor design, uninteresting subject matter, or lack of anything I can actually use. My gaming group tends to share books so that only one person ends up buying about half of the books we use.

In a slightly related rant:

[rant]

One thing I think WotC really needs to pay more attention to is the actual GAME DESIGN. I am still very unhappy with the fact that they have to release errata for so many of their products. I don't really care about typos or grammatical errors (though, being a former journalist, these really bug me a lot when they're in an official book I'm supposed to want to buy). When they royally mess up game mechanics it's a problem. What's worse is when they do this and then force you to buy another book to get the *real* fix.

They also tend to develop books in a proverbial vacuum. This usually results in two different spells, feats, prestige classes etc. with the same name, or two different versions of said rule. Some of the current spells have gone through FIVE iterations in five different books. In a one particular instance, there was a spell that was revamped and fixed in the Spell Compendium, only to be reverted back to its original form in Fiendish Codex I. Obviously I know which version to use but why did this happen? There have been 3.5 books released in just the last couple of years that still included old, out-of-date rules (one or two have included original 3e material that was obsolete). This is usually because WotC have been sitting on the book for a while, I think. Taking into consideration the whole publishing process it is probably unavoidable. But this is why the rule needs to be correct the first go-around.

This has been a problem from the get-go and I think it's only getting worse. I can't very well copy and paste errata into physical books so I type up the rules for myself so that I can change them every other week when WotC's "patches" come out.

[/rant]

--CT


----------



## Pants

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yeah but see if Eric has the rumor, some of us are inclinded to believe it.



WTF does that have to do with anything I said?


----------



## EricNoah

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But does make me wonder what would happen to Dungeon and Dragon magazines.




Me too.  

Can someone point me to info on who does what at Paizo now?  There were some position shifts fairly recently, right, up to and including Erik Mona's role at the company?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Mercule said:
			
		

> Whichever one has the biggest typeface.



The question is whether C&C or OSRIC will get to market first with their large print edition.


----------



## Mr. Draco

I, for one, welcome 4E no matter the shape it turns out to be.

If it's a new, more awesome D&D ruleset, then I'll buy it and enjoy.

If it's a mini-centric wargame, I'll buy up all the 3.5E books I want, on the cheap, when they go on sale and hit the bargain bin in the local bookstore in response to the emergence of 4E.

Either way, I get more years of role-playing enjoyment.


----------



## solomoncane

Mr. Draco said:
			
		

> I, for one, welcome 4E no matter the shape it turns out to be.
> 
> If it's a new, more awesome D&D ruleset, then I'll buy it and enjoy.
> 
> If it's a mini-centric wargame, I'll buy up all the 3.5E books I want, on the cheap, when they go on sale and hit the bargain bin in the local bookstore in response to the emergence of 4E.
> 
> Either way, I get more years of role-playing enjoyment.




QFT--win-win.


----------



## Vigilance

Clefton Twain said:
			
		

> To some extent, I think you're right. But there is definitely a breed of consumers who will not jump on the bandwagon at the drop of a hat. Obviously WotC would be betting on the type of person who will gobble up anything and everything. I tend to pick and choose what I want--this adds up to about 3-4 books a year. Mostly this is because of either poor design, uninteresting subject matter, or lack of anything I can actually use. My gaming group tends to share books so that only one person ends up buying about half of the books we use.




Of course, but a new edition not only lets them sell you more books, it lets them sell you THE SAME BOOKS.

Even casual gamers will probably get hooked. Your GM gets the game and really likes it, so ok, you buy the new PHB (in several stages possibly from what we're hearing). And then of course you HAVE to have the Forgotten Realms campaign.

And then your GM leaves your group and it falls on you to run the game for a bit, which was going so well in 4e. So now you need the MM and the DMG (again in several stages). 

Etc etc.

I think this process is why despite all the acrimony, the vast majority of gaming groups end up adopting the new game. D&D is social, and just like people will get the new EQ disk to go cavorting with their buds on Norrath's moon or wherever, they will get the new edition of D&D to play with their friends too.


----------



## Spell

Delta said:
			
		

> Why don't other games follow the "revise, reset, resell" model? Like chess, poker, baseball, etc.? Wouldn't companies that make those products be better off revising the rules and selling new products to all the players every few years? Or is there an advantage to grognards always being able to teach the game to newbies, fathers-to-sons, etc.?




well, in some cases, the games are not profitable in themselves. i can't see how a company doing only affordable chessboards might thrive. on the other hand, if you also sell deluxe sets at "deluxe" prices, books on the history of the games, and so on...

baseball is not a game you can sell. on the other hand, you can sell bats, uniforms, and so on. so there is little need to upgrade the game.

also notice that the ability to spend very little to play these games makes them wildly known by the public, and immensely popular, too.


----------



## DaveMage

Henry said:
			
		

> We did, but he and his wife came back.




Good one!


----------



## JoeGKushner

Sammael said:
			
		

> Minis are too expensive for kids to buy as is; I firmly believe that it is the multi-case-buying collectors who have been driving the market, and if they stop buying, the game is dead.




I can agree with pretty much everything you said but this. Warhammer would not be the #1 minis game is cost was top priority.


----------



## EricNoah

Can someone dig up the Ryan Dancey quote about "yesterday's customers" not factoring into tomorrow's plans?  I think it fits here.  4E may not be "for us" -- it may be for those who don't already play, or gamers yet to be.


----------



## solomoncane

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Can someone dig up the Ryan Dancey quote about "yesterday's customers" not factoring into tomorrow's plans?  I think it fits here.  4E may not be "for us" -- it may be for those who don't already play, or gamers yet to be.




Best point yet.
How many have said they already have enough 3.5?
We're finished.

Now, where is that torch? .. I need to pass it.


----------



## Pramas

ashockney said:
			
		

> The only thing that is throwing me off is the fact that this isn't going to be announced at Gen Con.  I think we've pretty much laid out an infallible argument that it is in development, right?  Why wouldn't they announce it?




The moment a new edition is announced, sales of the current edition will suffer. The announcement will be timed to minimize damage to sales of forthcoming 3.5 products. As we know from the catalogs, WotC has a robust D&D schedule planned out well into 2007. That's why I don't think there'll make an announcement anytime soon.


----------



## Mercule

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> The question is whether C&C or OSRIC will get to market first with their large print edition.




Depends on who has more profit motive er... is a greedier bastard.


----------



## solomoncane

Pramas said:
			
		

> The moment a new edition is announced, sales of the current edition will suffer. The announcement will be timed to minimize damage to sales of forthcoming 3.5 products. As we know from the catalogs, WotC has a robust D&D schedule planned out well into 2007. That's why I don't think there'll make an announcement anytime soon.




[begin speculation]

The exception to this might be if they announced that 4.0 would be backwards compatible with 3.5.  It could essentially be 3.6 repackaged and remarketed into smaller chunks as described earlier.  That way, the new kids could get into it while the completists/collectors would buy it anyway.

[end speculation]


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, GW has been in a downward spiral of late.




http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=qkchart&symbol=L^GAW

I haven't played in quite some time but I would like to know where the peak and the drop-off corresponds to their latest "reboot;" to LOTR; and to licenses like Dawn of War. 

FWIW-- I believe the last "rules reboot" was in August 2004.

I could compare it to Hasbro in the same time period but it's not particularly instructive as Hasbro's holdings are so diverse (notwithstanding that most of Hasbro's revenues are driven by toys, including Star Wars).

And I can't think of a single other publicly traded game company at the moment...


----------



## Festivus

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Me too.
> 
> Can someone point me to info on who does what at Paizo now?  There were some position shifts fairly recently, right, up to and including Erik Mona's role at the company?




http://paizo.com/paizo/news/v5748eaic9k91

James Jacobs - Dungeon Magazine Editor in Chief
Erik Mona - Dragon Magazine Editor in Chief / Paizo Publishing Publisher (big cheese I presume)


----------



## Henry

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Can someone dig up the Ryan Dancey quote about "yesterday's customers" not factoring into tomorrow's plans?  I think it fits here.  4E may not be "for us" -- it may be for those who don't already play, or gamers yet to be.




I can understand it, but part of me wonders whether D&D would have such a devoted fanbase as it did, had it alienated most of its previous fans back in the 1970's or early 1980's. I think that by its nature it never WILL be a rabid success, and if it's changed TOO much, it will lose its rabid proselytizers, and STILL not be a major hit. Having contributed to the success of D&D minis (to the tune of about 30 boxes of minis by myself) I've played the minis game only ONCE, and didn't like it. It may well be the ONLY game I repeatedly buy, but don't play.


----------



## JohnRTroy

My biggest concern about the future of the D&D game is this.

3e was designed by people who cared a lot, and who had enough of the traditional "old school" thought.  Monte Cook worked on 2e products, Skip Williams was there from 1e, and Jonathan Tweet was the new "young turk".  Together, they revamped a system but kept a lot of the old flavor in.  And at that time, Wizards had just purchased TSR and there was still a TSR culture.

But as the game has progressed, it's changed thanks to the influence of WoTC R&D, etc.  While this isn't a bad thing per se, you'll note that the rules took into account more miniatures, squares for instance, and there are elements I see that are designed to remove the dependency on the DM.  When 3e first game out, I was glad they made people feel less "guilty" about "min-maxing" or power gaming.  All styles of play are valid.  But it seems that there is no longer as much emphasis on the story or background.

And note the loss of the "TSR" culture.  What big names are left at the company?  Most formed their own d20 labels which have suffered a lot--or completely retired or moved on to CRPGs.  I think Monte had the best success but now he's retiring.  I feel there's a loss of direction there and there's no one to keep some of the magic that made D&D DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS.

What I think might happen:

4e comes out as expected.  Emphasis is on combat and minitures, the DM's role is reduced.  Things like death, etc, are reduced in a way similar to Mike Mearls columns.  This may happen in 2008.  The game will not be OGL, no SRD will be produced.  It will still be compatible but the company will emphasize minis because that's a lot harder to copy and post on the Internet.

The game gets short term new fans.  Older fans dislike the changes.

The game has a disapora of players who follow various systems.  Sadly, because of the OGL, this may allow the game to survive, but it will become factionalized.  Some publishers will attempt to do a 3e compatible OGL game, but the competition and lack of Wizard's industry power will likely prevent any one from coming too powerful.

RPGs might not be spun-off--at best I could see somebody spinning off a Forgotten Realms RPG project or sell the Novel division.  

Hasbro will NEVER give up the D&D Trademark.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Delta said:
			
		

> Why don't other games follow the "revise, reset, resell" model? Like chess, poker, baseball, etc.? Wouldn't companies that make those products be better off revising the rules and selling new products to all the players every few years? Or is there an advantage to grognards always being able to teach the game to newbies, fathers-to-sons, etc.?




Who owns chess, poker, baseball, etc...?

I live in Chicago. Bleacher seats for the Cubs at something like $30 bones.

Chess? Well, it's not quite the same type of game, but I've owned about ten different sets based on where I was living, free space, quality of the pieces, etc... Chess, and Monopoly, and to a lesser extend Risk, are games that are continusouly being updated, but their changes are visual no?

And poker? Man, how many variants do we need? How many different styles of cards? How many different styles of chips? How many different options or buy ins or gaming guides?


----------



## Vigilance

Henry said:
			
		

> I can understand it, but part of me wonders whether D&D would have such a devoted fanbase as it did, had it alienated most of its previous fans back in the 1970's or early 1980's. I think that by its nature it never WILL be a rabid success, and if it's changed TOO much, it will lose its rabid proselytizers, and STILL not be a major hit. Having contributed to the success of D&D minis (to the tune of about 30 boxes of minis by myself) I've played the minis game only ONCE, and didn't like it. It may well be the ONLY game I repeatedly buy, but don't play.




Well, as I said above to the person who was buying books he wasn't using, I'm fairly certain Hasbro doesn't care whether or not you play the minis game as long as you buy the minis early and often 

As for alienating old fans, I don't see it happening. I've been through this 4 times already and have heard people claim "never again!" only to see them slink (quickly mind you) to the counter opening day to buy it as soon as possible.

And the ones who stick to their guns are eventually swayed by the social network aspects of the game. If the GM wants to run 4e, chances are his buddies will buy a PHB just to get their game on.


----------



## ehren37

Festivus said:
			
		

> I just hope that when I order my first case of 4E feat cards that I can get a Weapon Finesse card.  It would suck if that was a rare chase card that I had to buy 2 more cases of to be certain I would get it.





I keep seeing blatently stupid stuff like this, stat scratch cards... come on guys, use your heads. You cant HONESTLY think crap like this would fly.


----------



## Vigilance

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I keep seeing blatently stupid stuff like this, stat scratch cards... come on guys, use your heads. You cant HONESTLY think crap like this would fly.




What about boxes of randomized minis, with little cards of monster stats, including variant and rare monsters (like Heroclixes different more powerful Wolverines) for popular monsters like Dragons or Beholders.


----------



## Festivus

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I keep seeing blatently stupid stuff like this, stat scratch cards... come on guys, use your heads. You cant HONESTLY think crap like this would fly.




I don't think it's all that stupid, and I do think it could fly.  Please don't drag this down into a icky name calling event or insult my intelligence, and I won't insult yours.

I think if anything it would help bring people into the game by simplifying things greatly and also provide a revenue stream.  It's something I have always complained about with 3E, there are way too many feats/spells/rule options in way too many different books to be economically feasable and unintimidating to the new player.  If on the other hand you say, yeah you can play, go buy a starter pack of feat cards that have the rules printed right on them.... easier, cheaper, more fun time rather than book time.  Yep, I think it could fly.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I keep seeing blatently stupid stuff like this, stat scratch cards... come on guys, use your heads. You cant HONESTLY think crap like this would fly.




I never thought people would spend hundreds or thousands of dollars buying poorly sculpted and painted plastic minis that were randomly packed and cost fractions of a penny to produce, either.  Especially after the aborted Chainmail game.  <shrug>  

There is an extraordinary amount of information we don't have.  The one thing we know for sure, though, is that WotC is the house that 'collectible' built.


----------



## Henry

Vigilance said:
			
		

> If the GM wants to run 4e, chances are his buddies will buy a PHB just to get their game on.




Assuming there's a book to buy anymore...


----------



## Vigilance

Henry said:
			
		

> Assuming there's a book to buy anymore...



There will be SOMETHING to buy I assure you 

Just pointing out what I think we've all seen in the past on different levels: some early adopters buy game, act as "mavens" for said game, social networking does the rest.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Clefton Twain said:
			
		

> One thing I think WotC really needs to pay more attention to is the actual GAME DESIGN. I am still very unhappy with the fact that they have to release errata for so many of their products.




The fact that they release errata at all distinguishes them from most other game companies. At least they acknowledge they have mistakes. I doubt anyone believes that all those other games and game products by other publishers that never release errata are perfect.


----------



## Scribble

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I keep seeing blatently stupid stuff like this, stat scratch cards... come on guys, use your heads. You cant HONESTLY think crap like this would fly.




Why not? If the cards were integrated into the system, it would work just fine. 

Also why release a PHB at all. Release a book of rules for things like combat, and how the dice work, and how stats work.

Character classes are just  a new miniature of a "x character class" it comes with the stats already built into it. 

Instead of rolling up stats, you get a number of points and "buy" your character like assembling a warband in D&D minis. Higher stats = higher point cost. Things like feats and spells and such cost more points. So, as your character levels up, you collect more points to buy more options. 

DM would work the same. Challenge rating translates into a certain point cost for the DM. (if there even needs to be one anymore!)

Monsters are just more minis with a point cost and stats on a little card. 

DM's job becomes assemble a warband for players to fight.

RP aspect of the RPG can be passed onto someone else. 


Ok, enough spewin doom for me!


----------



## Arnwyn

rounser said:
			
		

> Thus, you are stupid for wanting something if you aren't in the majority, because you won't receive it and so deserve to be mocked for having the gall to express a desire for it.  That seems to be the thinking involved.





And remember: you aren't allowed to dislike it, and you must support it - because it's for the _hobby_. Won't anybody _think of the hobby?_


----------



## Perun

I think 4e, when it eventually comes, and I don't think it will before 2009 or 2010, will be substantially different from 3(.5)e, with much less sacred cows. Why do I think that?

When there was some discussion about psionics (might be related to the release of CPsi), one of the designers of 3(.5) psi rules (it might've been Bruce Crodell, I don't remember really) said that one of the main reasons why post-2e psionics were so successful was because the designers were not restricted by sacred cows, and were free to tinker and tweak the system as they saw fit. This gave us 3.0 psi which, although flawed, were a signifficant improvement over the clunky 2e psi mechanics, and finally the XPH which is an almost fully integrated psionic system for D&D game.

Then there are various "testing ground" (as I like to call them) accessories, like MoI, ToM, ToB, etc. I suspect more and more books will offer variant subsystems or changes to the existing system. Then there are the changes in stats: monster stat blocks, spell descriptions, now there's a new (and improved ) magic item stat block.

This seems like it spells an end for some of the sacred cows in D&D,like the strict division in character roles, along the fighter-wizard-cleric-thief lines, or arcane-divine spell distinction, and opening doors to new, more "versatile" types of characters, which will probably suit youger audiences more (who are more drawn, IME, towards quicker-flashier-stronger-cooler characters).

I just hope they simplify the process of creating mid- and high-level (N)PCs (especially spellcasters). That's my gripe with 3e. I'd actually like to see a general simplification in the rules for 4e (like 3e has been made simpler compared to 2e).


----------



## BlackMoria

The burning question for me is how far do changes go before it is no longer D&D?

Each edition of the game has left part of its fan base behind (staying with the  previous edition) because for those individuals, the new edition no longer makes it 'D&D' for them.

Diaglo and his OD&D rants are a case in point.  Each one of us has our own definition of what D&D is for them.

Now, some speculation has made some posters conclude that 4E may be more like DDM on steriods or that it will be some DDM/card game hybrid.   For me, I hope not, because from my view in the cheap seats, that is not D&D for me - the game becomes just a new fangled MageKnight or DDM type game.

I guess we all will have to decide for ourselves where that 'line in the sand' is that we will not cross.  Based on the original rumors, I am not comfortable ( I will avoid the term 'dreading' since it is only rumors so far) with the direction the game may be going because if 4E is more like a DDM style wargame, I know where the line in the sand is for me.


----------



## BryonD

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> Now, some speculation has made some posters conclude that 4E may be more like DDM on steriods or that it will be some DDM/card game hybrid.   For me, I hope not, because from my view in the cheap seats, that is not D&D for me - the game becomes just a new fangled MageKnight or DDM type game.



Yeah.

I pretty much find those speculations to be wild extrapolation off a tangent of an unsupported rumor.
 

Seriously, I can easily see them doing card games or god knows what under the D&D brand.  But DDM is under the D&D brand.  It is doing very well.  But I don't recall anyone every claiming it would or should replace the D&D roleplaying game.
I'd expect to see more of the same.


----------



## just__al

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Who owns chess, poker, baseball, etc...?
> 
> I live in Chicago. Bleacher seats for the Cubs at something like $30 bones.
> 
> Chess? Well, it's not quite the same type of game, but I've owned about ten different sets based on where I was living, free space, quality of the pieces, etc... Chess, and Monopoly, and to a lesser extend Risk, are games that are continusouly being updated, but their changes are visual no?
> 
> And poker? Man, how many variants do we need? How many different styles of cards? How many different styles of chips? How many different options or buy ins or gaming guides?




6 years ago before we got married my wife and I paid nearly 500 dollars for this






and I spent weeks sniping eBay options to get about 1000 generic but good quality chips in nice carrying cases.

About 2 years ago (maybe 3) poker EXPLODED.  Now our single table hold-em tournaments we run monthy usually are double table tournaments.  I didn't go out and plop down another 600 odd dollars for a table and chips.  I spent arount 40 dollars and got a foldable table top and more chips.  I am seriously annoyed with the bandwagoneers.  

I don't know what any of that has to do with 4E, but I felt the need to rant.


----------



## Scribble

BryonD said:
			
		

> Yeah.
> 
> I pretty much find those speculations to be wild extrapolation off a tangent of an unsupported rumor.
> 
> 
> Seriously, I can easily see them doing card games or god knows what under the D&D brand.  But DDM is under the D&D brand.  It is doing very well.  But I don't recall anyone every claiming it would or should replace the D&D roleplaying game.
> I'd expect to see more of the same.




I make no claims other then my speculation being indeed wild speculation! 

But, as opposed to it being about replacing D&D, perhaps it's about how to integrate the two into one product.

Hasbro sees the success of the minis and card games, so how do you use the concepts that make those games sell, to sell the main RPG. Morph them into one.

Card and CMG's sell because in order to make sure your warband is a good one, you need to collect the newest and best cards and figures.  D&D has that cap, where new stuff comes out, but you don't need to buy it to stay "competitive."

So integrate the two concepts somehow. My posts were my own, as you said, wild speculation on how to do that.


----------



## morbiczer

*Just some thoughts*

A)

We can be 99% sure that 4E won't come out in the next 12 months, not only because I take it as granted that it will debut at a GenCon, but because the new Adventure Path starts in Dungeon next month. Having 12 installments it will end in August 2007. And I don't think that a new edition would come out in the middle of an Adventure Path. So we are "safe" for at least a year. 

On the other hand, this also means that the Savage Tides AP ends August 2007. The first 4E issue could come out in September 2007, right after GenCon.  Coincidence? Maybe yes, maybe not.



There are two things I don't get. I thought about opening a new thread for it, but since I'm basically only a lurker, I didn't dare to open a thread on 4E. 

B)

What does "more miniature centric" mean? Even under the current 3.5 rules it is quite difficult - at least in my experience - to play without some sort of battlemat/grid paper and miniatures/something else representing characters and monsters (dice, pennies, paper counters, etc.). 

* What rules could there be that would increase the need for miniatures even more? 
* What could force us to play with miniatures produced by WotC instead of dice, counters, gummibears, LEGO men, whatever? Not at places like the RPGA, but in your own livingroom? 

C)

I really can't see how a "collectible" element could be added to a roleplaying game. Would someone care to elaborate how they imagine this?

To me playing an RPG is all about liberty, especially 3.5 D&D. I can more or less play what I want. (Or better, what my DM allows.) 

Do you really think that a game could be successful where the character I could play or the enemies our DM could throw at us were determined by what I found in my booster? I know this works in other games, but I fail to see how this could work out in an RPG. Would I only be allowed to play a Fighter if I had the necessary "Fighter" card or mini? Would I have to open booster after booster just to find that "Cure Light Wounds" spell for my cleric? To me such a game wouldn't be an RPG, it would be a glorified miniatures game at best. 

And this would not be something I would be interested in. 

Everything IMHO of course.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> I want to make this clear:
> 
> 
> The rust monster's rust attack should be permenant and not just a pansy 10 minutes!!!!
> 
> Thank you.




Preach on, brother.  Preach on.

I was super-mondo excited when 3e was announced, and am a diehard 3.5 player now.  I really don't know what it would take for me to just forget about the sagging bookshelf full of supplements I have to embrace 4e.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

I think one thing can be said for sure...the times that one could walk up to a handful of fellow roleplayers (or your friends) and say "Hey, how about a little game of D&D?" without getting a "Yeah, but *which one*?" in return are over...they probably ended 17 years ago with AD&D 2E, but by now you'll launch a whole group of people into a devastating discussion with that innocent question, and I guess it will simply become worse with any new revision and edition that will be created.


----------



## yipwyg

> Do you really think that a game could be successful where the character I could play or the enemies our DM could throw at us were determined by what I found in my booster? I know this works in other games, but I fail to see how this could work out in an RPG. Would I only be allowed to play a Fighter if I had the necessary "Fighter" card or mini? Would I have to open booster after booster just to find that "Cure Light Wounds" spell for my cleric? To me such a game wouldn't be an RPG, it would be a glorified miniatures game at best.




I think you answered your own question.  This is exactly how you make a rpg more minature based.  Imagine Heroquest or other fantasy type boardgame, but with a collectable element.


_-A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC)_

The above sentance leads me to believe that 4th edition probably won't be an RPG at all, but be something like a collectable heroquest.


----------



## Nellisir

Festivus said:
			
		

> Erik Mona - Dragon Magazine Editor in Chief / Paizo Publishing Publisher (big cheese I presume)




Big cheese.  There can't be a whole lot of room left between his job and Lisa Steven's.


----------



## BryonD

Scribble said:
			
		

> I make no claims other then my speculation being indeed wild speculation!




Understood.  



> But, as opposed to it being about replacing D&D, perhaps it's about how to integrate the two into one product.
> 
> Hasbro sees the success of the minis and card games, so how do you use the concepts that make those games sell, to sell the main RPG. Morph them into one.
> 
> Card and CMG's sell because in order to make sure your warband is a good one, you need to collect the newest and best cards and figures.  D&D has that cap, where new stuff comes out, but you don't need to buy it to stay "competitive."




Far be it from me to claim that WotC would not make a dumb move.

Setting that aside:  
There are roleplayers who mini-game.
There are roleplayers who do not mini-game.
There are mini-gamers who do roleplay.

With different but related games, you get something from all three groups and maybe even a few people from the second two groups getting drawn into the third.
If you force it down to a merger, then you screen out the later two groups altogether.
Seems a bad marketing plan.


----------



## morbiczer

yipwyg said:
			
		

> I think you answered your own question.  This is exactly how you make a rpg more minature based.  Imagine Heroquest or other fantasy type boardgame, but with a collectable element.




Would this mean that you think that there wouldn't be any rules to create a Fighter in some rulebook? Because if this should be the case, than IMO this couldn't qualify as an RPG. 

This concept works in CCGs or CMGs, because that's how these games were created from the beggining, and people grew up with it. But I simply can't see how this concept would work in the RPG field. For 20 years you could play any character you wanted, and now your PC can only wield a sword if you have the appropriate mini/card? 

I wouldn't touch such a game with the proverbial 10 ft pole. 


PS. I can see such a game being fun and being played by people, I can't see it fulfilling the wishes of the large majority of those who play D&D right now. The differences would be HUGE. As others have said, such a game wouldn't be D&D 4E, it would be Advanced DDM or something like that.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Heh.

How about the idea originally used for D&D Basic, Expert, etc.? Smaller price point, more easily digested bits. The abilty to link each box or small book with a random-box miniatures release....

And not a scratch card in sight. (Sorry Festivus, it really would not fly.)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne

I just can't help but wonder what the REAL reasons are for releasing 4E. It seems more profit driven, as RPG's don't make that big of a profit compared to effort and investment as the other, more lucrative parts, of WotC.

But, all I have to say in regards to 4E, is if it turns out as bad as everyone is afraid, non-OGC, high minature focus, multiple books, trading cards needed, etc, then Hasbro/WotC would have shot themselves in the genitals.

And I won't use my wallet to bandage the wound.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

I could see something CCG-ish layered on top of it.  The first thing that popped into my head when I started reading this thread was those 'treasure cards' that Paizo is doing.  Those are randomized, but more fluff than essential to the game.

But, add a 'Treasure Deck' to more or less 3.x D&D.  You defeat the dragon, and as part of its hoard, you get to draw three cards each from the deck.  

Or, special actions.  Sell randomized MtG-ish action cards broken out by class.  Instead of APs in Eberron, you get to draw cards from your 'deck'.

(Excuse me, I have to go take a shower for even thinking this.)


----------



## blargney the second

I recently read the wikipedia entry on cognitive dissonance, and there was one part in particular that this thread brings to mind.

Postdecisional Dissonance Studies
Jack Brehm's famous experiment looked at how housewives, after making a decision, favoured the alternatives which they had selected more strongly (Brehm, 1956). This can be explained in dissonance terms - to go on wishing for rejected alternatives would arouse dissonance between the cognitions "I chose something else" and "I preferred that option".

--

Oldbies like us stand a reasonable chance of sticking to the sizable investments (financial and mental) we've made in 3E.  For their own sakes, I really hope Wizards does whatever works out best for their business.  From experience running my own companies, I suspect that a strong drive to bring in new customers will put them on a good footing.

-blarg


----------



## mcrow

I'm just curious how much more "mini centric" D&D can be.  

As it sits now 3.5 is close enough to a boardgame for me. 

Where is the line where a game is no longer and RPG, but a minis or boardgame?


----------



## Razz

I got it. The solution to all these speculations!

Have Eric Noah squeeze more info from his source, no matter what it takes!

The trick: getting Eric Noah to do such a thing.   

On a serious note, is it possible for the anonymous source to say more? Or for the source to try and get more info on it if that's all he/she/it knows? 

Corporate spies, that's what we need in WotC! Heh.

Or it could be Eric Noah is secretly working for WotC as an unofficial liason between the gaming community and WotC and was told to plant the 4E rumors so they can gauge the reaction to it!

We're all just RPG guinea pigs, that's what's going on.


----------



## Mercule

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> (Excuse me, I have to go take a shower for even thinking this.)




Please use lye.


----------



## Octarinewolf

morbiczer said:
			
		

> This concept works in CCGs or CMGs, because that's how these games were created from the beggining, and people grew up with it. But I simply can't see how this concept would work in the RPG field. For 20 years you could play any character you wanted, and now your PC can only wield a sword if you have the appropriate mini/card?




Look at Dragon Storm for an example of such. Though it does have the printable basic equipment sets.

Or Mageknight Dungeons which does it from a different end.

MK was the more successfull but DS still continues.

In many ways its not different from being only able to play a Warlock or a Thri-Kreen if you have the appropriate supplament.

Not where I want it to go but then most of this thread matches the DND usenet group with the version numbers iterated. Most still bought 3E. Most will likely still buy 4E. 

WotC have the problem they've run out of the most profitable books [Core and Primary Splats] to sell, so it is time for a new version. After 3.5 Shock and Surprise at the product lifecycle is somewhat inappropriate.


----------



## Festivus

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Heh.
> 
> How about the idea originally used for D&D Basic, Expert, etc.? Smaller price point, more easily digested bits. The abilty to link each box or small book with a random-box miniatures release....
> 
> And not a scratch card in sight. (Sorry Festivus, it really would not fly.)
> 
> The Auld Grump




Oh, I never thought for a moment scratch cards for stats would work   Someone else thoguht of those, not me.

But Spell cards, feat cards, treasure cards... all those really could.  I use them already in my game (well, not feat cards) and they simplify things a ton and make it more tactile (read: mini-centric).  I was just thinking about it from Hasbro's side, how might you get people to pump money into the game... make it random and collectable.

I am not saying it's a bad thing at all, I actually would enjoy seeing the game go this route. *ducks behind the bar for cover from the d20's sure to come my way*


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Octarinewolf said:
			
		

> WotC have the problem they've run out of the most profitable books [Core and Primary Splats] to sell, so it is time for a new version. After 3.5 Shock and Surprise at the product lifecycle is somewhat inappropriate.




I don't think anyone is shocked at the lifecycle.  We're gamers, we're usually pretty good at math and stuff.  

I think most of the distress is on direction rather than timing.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Festivus said:
			
		

> I am not saying it's a bad thing at all, I actually would enjoy seeing the game go this route. *ducks behind the bar for cover from the d20's sure to come my way*




D20s are too good for you.  You're going to get pelted with all those d12s we never use.


----------



## BryonD

mcrow said:
			
		

> Where is the line where a game is no longer and RPG, but a minis or boardgame?



Wherever it is that you stop roleplaying.

I don't find that I roleplay 3.5 any less than I did way back in 1E.  So no issue there in my camp.


----------



## ST

Wow, interesting story. I personally am all for it. I figure combining D&D's name recognition with some kind of easier pick-up-and-play structure (like minis, or CCGs, or even board games) could give it some kind of mainstream audience. 

I've never understood the anger about having to buy the new books, or losing your investment in old version supplements, personally. I'm into gaming to game, not to collect. 

I'm not saying folks are wrong, just that it's interesting to see their perspectives.


----------



## Razz

I don't see how they've run out of ideas. I can come up with a few now.

Expand on what they already created. Which, I believe, is what they're finally doing what with Complete Mage and Complete Scoundrel coming along. Do an Epic Level splat book.

They have a Monster-theme line still running, they need to do a Fey book ala Draconomicon/Libris Mortis/Lords of Madness. There's still the "Book of Perfect Balance" idea they can wrestle with, the neutral version of BoED and BoVD. A "Races of the Mind" would be an interesting supplement for psionic campaigns.

That's just the general books, there's still tons of stuff they can do for FR and Eberron. And from the looks of it, they took back the Ravenloft license and made "Castle Ravenloft" so we might see a 3E return of that setting. Possibly. 

Again, we all might as well wait until Gen Con, a week from now. Though I assure you, to me, this will be one looong week now.


----------



## Vigilance

Razz said:
			
		

> I don't see how they've run out of ideas. I can come up with a few now.
> 
> Expand on what they already created. Which, I believe, is what they're finally doing what with Complete Mage and Complete Scoundrel coming along. Do an Epic Level splat book.
> 
> They have a Monster-theme line still running, they need to do a Fey book ala Draconomicon/Libris Mortis/Lords of Madness. There's still the "Book of Perfect Balance" idea they can wrestle with, the neutral version of BoED and BoVD. A "Races of the Mind" would be an interesting supplement for psionic campaigns.
> 
> That's just the general books, there's still tons of stuff they can do for FR and Eberron. And from the looks of it, they took back the Ravenloft license and made "Castle Ravenloft" so we might see a 3E return of that setting. Possibly.
> 
> Again, we all might as well wait until Gen Con, a week from now. Though I assure you, to me, this will be one looong week now.





We can all come up with ideas. The thing is though, there's a sweet spot with popular books most people are going to want: the core books and the splat books.

They've redone the core books for 3.5 and they're on the verge of finishing the revised splats.

Once you go through that ground twice for one edition, it's time to start thinking about a new edition.

Your ideas for what they could do were fine, but we're sort of at "peak oil" stage in the game's life cycle. All the popular ideas have been done, so they're writing books at the same expense for the same amount of work and expect them to not sell as well.


----------



## mcrow

BryonD said:
			
		

> Wherever it is that you stop roleplaying.
> 
> I don't find that I roleplay 3.5 any less than I did way back in 1E.  So no issue there in my camp.




Then you could get the same experience out of playing Decent. 

I just think that the minis tend to place a lot of emphasis on how you move your minis. It also seems to encourage playing outside of character knowledge. 

All that fiddling with mini and such just seems to take away from RPing IME. :\


----------



## Clefton Twain

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> The fact that they release errata at all distinguishes them from most other game companies. At least they acknowledge they have mistakes. I doubt anyone believes that all those other games and game products by other publishers that never release errata are perfect.




Correct! And I'm not saying errata is a bad thing. However, I liken somewhat to the way many current software developers operate--those who release a billion patches for the same game, usually fixing really stupid and obvious bugs that may not be showstoppers but detract from the game. The mentality seems to be "push the product out even if it's not polished because we can always release a patch."

I know errors are going to happen. Nobody's perfect. But, wow. Some of their errata is just plain ridiculous. Not only that but we usually have to wait quite a while to actually receive it.

However, I do see errata and corrections for pretty much most of the games I own (board games mostly). It irritates me that there actually *is* errata but I am also happy that they released the corrections. Most reputable publishers seem to adequately cover their butts.

So I really pretty much agree with you. But I tend to think that much of the motivation these days to release the errata is because a) people gripe about the errors and b) they probably knew it was there and sent it on anyway. If they spent a little more time polishing it before it shipped it would save them the increased amount of time it takes to write errata.

--CT


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> D20s are too good for you.  You're going to get pelted with all those d12s we never use.



And don't forget to sharpen a bunch of d4s and scatter them along his most obvious escape routes! 

The Auld Grump


----------



## LostSoul

Festivus said:
			
		

> But Spell cards, feat cards, treasure cards... all those really could.  I use them already in my game (well, not feat cards) and they simplify things a ton and make it more tactile (read: mini-centric).  I was just thinking about it from Hasbro's side, how might you get people to pump money into the game... make it random and collectable.
> 
> I am not saying it's a bad thing at all, I actually would enjoy seeing the game go this route. *ducks behind the bar for cover from the d20's sure to come my way*




Me too.  I think it would be cool.  When you get a Rare treasure or something like that, it would mean more.  "Sweet!  The Vorpal Blade of Hexor!  I've never seen one of these before!"

Of course, it would be more expensive... oh well.

I wonder... if they went down this road, what would happen if you had Roleplaying Cards?  Like relationships with other people, and a bonus that you get when you're dealing with them.  Or something like that.


----------



## Morrus

Festivus said:
			
		

> But Spell cards, feat cards, treasure cards... all those really could.  I use them already in my game (well, not feat cards) and they simplify things a ton and make it more tactile (read: mini-centric).  *




I do too, and I believe they really add to the game.  I even use Monopoly money for GP.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Morrus said:
			
		

> I do too, and I believe they really add to the game.  I even use Monopoly money for GP.




Do you hold the Monopoly money behind your back and tell your players 'Give me 5 pounds and I'll give you this fake money in random denominations?'


----------



## BryonD

mcrow said:
			
		

> Then you could get the same experience out of playing Decent.



Very fun game.  If you don't see a difference between it and D&D then I don't know what to say.



> I just think that the minis tend to place a lot of emphasis on how you move your minis. It also seems to encourage playing outside of character knowledge.
> 
> All that fiddling with mini and such just seems to take away from RPing IME. :\



shrug

I don't see why.
But those limitations do not exist between the covers of the PH.
You are creating them.
It is not the game's fault that a piece of plastic drains away your ability to RP.
And it is not my fault that I seem to be immune to this attack.

Heck, I play outside character knowledge a lot less than I did in prior editions.  But I think that is a function of age, not ruleset.  Either way, I don't see how the minis have any impact outside of matters of self control.


----------



## Scribble

BryonD said:
			
		

> Setting that aside:
> There are roleplayers who mini-game.
> There are roleplayers who do not mini-game.
> There are mini-gamers who do roleplay.
> 
> With different but related games, you get something from all three groups and maybe even a few people from the second two groups getting drawn into the third.
> If you force it down to a merger, then you screen out the later two groups altogether.
> Seems a bad marketing plan.




Eh... Businesses drop their non target audience members a lot... Check out what's going on with cingular right now... They're trying to get rid of their CDMA customers basically... Charging them 5 bux more unless they upgrade, but not offering any kind of upgrade deal... Why? BEcause the CDMA customers generally apparently spend less overall. 

So if the new game had that collectible element that would keep the kids a buyin and they could get rid of people like me, who dislike the collectible element and only buy game supplements I lthink will really ADD to my game... (The RPG equivalent of a CDMA phone user?)

Enough people would switch over, the DDM people would still buy, and new kids wouldn't be fragmented between the two areas. Just more more more collectible stuff.

Maybe that's what they mean about selling off the RPG line. 

Sell off the D20 system to another company, but keep the D&D brand to thmselves. D20 lives, but D&D turns into a mini/card game...

But again. 

<----- wild speculation.


----------



## Lanefan

Re: mini-centricism

Ever since the early days of 1e we've used mini's to represent the PC's and some of the opponents, in kind of a freeform manner.  3e tried to harden up the rules for use of mini's, movement, etc., and turned what was a relatively simple thing into much more of an exercise in tactics.  If 4e does end up incorporating lots of aspects of DDM, it'll only be a continuation in the same direction.  (whether that's the *right* direction is open for debate...)

Unrelated note:

If anyone is reading this who has any input whatsoever into 4e design: please keep a system that lets us use all the dice in the bag!  We have all those d12's, d8's, d4's, etc. for a reason...and some now have d5's, d16's, d24's, and who knows what else. 

Lanefan


----------



## mcrow

BryonD said:
			
		

> Very fun game.  If you don't see a difference between it and D&D then I don't know what to say.
> 
> 
> shrug
> 
> I don't see why.
> But those limitations do not exist between the covers of the PH.
> You are creating them.
> It is not the game's fault that a piece of plastic drains away your ability to RP.
> And it is not my fault that I seem to be immune to this attack.




See, I think you are looking @ it differently than I am. 

You can role-play anything you want, if you try hard enough. You could Role-play Decent if you wanted to. What I'm saying is some games and their rules hinder role-playing. That's why I don't use minis with D&D and it works OK. If they make it so the game cannot be played without them, then that sucks.

Really, for the most part V3.5 is ok if you dump AoO IMO.


----------



## BryonD

Scribble said:
			
		

> Eh... Businesses drop their non target audience members a lot...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> <----- wild speculation.




You could be exactly right.  I hope not.  But you certainly could be.


----------



## Scribble

BryonD said:
			
		

> You could be exactly right.  I hope not.  But you certainly could be.




I hope not too...


----------



## tylerthehobo

Fwiw, I just saw the following posted on Gary Gygax's thread (and yes, I know, he is in now way associated with WotC as a designer/editor, but his insight seems consistently wise...):

_Just read a short analysis by James Mischler of what is likely to happen in regards to 4E. If he is close to predicting the matter, the new game will be more like an MMPORPG, and all older but recent versions of the D&D game will be generally neglected as have been OA/D&D and 2E.

Cheers,
Gary​_
See here for the link: 
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=167680&page=10 

Yes, this is hearsay of hearsay - the person passing along the quote (Gygax) just adds a level of legitimacy.  (Kind of like if Paul McCartney were to say that there'd be a reunion of the _Wall_ era Pink Floyd, I guess...)


----------



## Scribble

My brain isn't working... whatsa mmporpg?


----------



## Festivus

World of Warcraft, Everquest, et al. Basically electronic crack.

Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG).


----------



## megamania

4th ed be darned!



Someone else said it-   As an older player I can not rebuy 100's of dollars of books every 5-10 years as new editions come out.   3/3.5 has enough material out and supplies that I can keep going with the current campaigns / game worlds with near infinity of ideas.

I understand the "percieved" need for 4th ed but I won't touch it.   I have drawn a line I can not cross.


----------



## BryonD

mcrow said:
			
		

> See, I think you are looking @ it differently than I am.
> 
> You can role-play anything you want, if you try hard enough. You could Role-play Decent if you wanted to. What I'm saying is some games and their rules hinder role-playing. That's why I don't use minis with D&D and it works OK. If they make it so the game cannot be played without them, then that sucks.
> 
> Really, for the most part V3.5 is ok if you dump AoO IMO.




Monopoly existed when earlier editions of D&D existed.  Why play D&D when you can role-play Monopoly?

Can you explain to me what exactly with minis or AoOs hinders roleplaying?  Or do you claim this is just a self-evident truth?

If you are anywhere in the ballpark of equating Decent to 3E for roleplay support then I stick to my claim that the issue is nowhere other than between your ears.

Also, I know a lot of people who play 3X without minis.  And they even keep AoOs.  I've never heard of anyone playing Decent without the pieces.


----------



## warlord

They can't do that! I won't let Hasbro turn the original RPG into a crappy WoW knock-off. I vote we start a violent revolution to put Gary back in power.


----------



## JustaPlayer

Scribble said:
			
		

> My brain isn't working... whatsa mmporpg?



Massively Multi Player Online Role Playing Game


----------



## BryonD

tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> _Just read a short analysis by James Mischler of what is likely to happen in regards to 4E. If he is close to predicting the matter, the new game will be more like an MMPORPG, and all older but recent versions of the D&D game will be generally neglected as have been OA/D&D and 2E.
> 
> Cheers,
> Gary​_




 

Is this supposed to suggest that it will be on-line?


----------



## JustaPlayer

BryonD said:
			
		

> Can you explain to me what exactly with minis or AoOs hinders roleplaying?  Or do you claim this is just a self-evident truth?



I myself use AoOs and don't have a problem with them.  As for minis, IMO once battle comes up and the minis go down people step out of character and look at it as a general on a battle field trying to get the best moves out of the pieces.  That is not necessarily what someone would do in the first person as they wouldn't have the POV.  In that since it does indeed change from "role play" to "roll play."


----------



## Vigilance

warlord said:
			
		

> They can't do that! I won't let Hasbro turn the original RPG into a crappy WoW knock-off. I vote we start a violent revolution to put Gary back in power.




Yeah! How dare they make the game more like the original Chainmail!

KHANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne

I did a little research, and look what I found...

Hasbro Symbol:
NYSE:HAS 
Stock Market: New York Stock
Exchange Type: Equity 
ISIN: US4180561072 

Description:
Change (p)  0.0
Change (%) 0.00 
Cur 18.72 
Bid 
Offer 
High   19.2
Low  18.7
Open  18.72 
Volume 528300
Time  15:03:25 

A  


Links 
Hasbro board to PC game strategy

D&D for PSP 

And finally, the REAL teller...


----------



## Starman

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> ...then Hasbro/WotC would have shot themselves in the genitals.
> 
> And I won't use my wallet to bandage the wound.




*picturing Mr. Ralts desperately using his wallet to stem the bleeding genitals of a giant wearing a WotC t-shirt*

It's not pretty.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> _Just read a short analysis by James Mischler of what is likely to happen in regards to 4E. If he is close to predicting the matter, the new game will be more like an MMPORPG, and all older but recent versions of the D&D game will be generally neglected as have been OA/D&D and 2E.
> 
> Cheers,
> Gary​_




I'd like to hope that this would mean that DM'ing and Character Creation tools would be built into the system from the very beginning, but the Infogrames deal (Hasbro sold off all the rights to computer versions of their properties to Infogrames, IIRC) seems to make such a thing unlikely.

As for the second part, I should hope that would be obvious.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Hmm.  177,988,000 shares outstanding.  We'd need half+1, so that'd be $1,664,187,800.  40,000 regstered ENWorld accounts....$41,604 each.  

I think we need the stock price to drop a bit.


----------



## mcrow

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> As for minis, IMO once battle comes up and the minis go down people step out of character and look at it as a general on a battle field trying to get the best moves out of the pieces.  That is not necessarily what someone would do in the first person as they wouldn't have the POV.  In that since it does indeed change from "role play" to "roll play."




Thanks, you explained my point better than I knew how.  

Now as far as AoO:

It ties into what JustaPlayer is talking about. As soon as combat starts players come out of character and start playing a strategy game. Which is fine if they have fun with it, I don't care. AoO just adds to it, people are counting out squares to see if they can get someplace without triggering an AoO and just in general more worried about tactics than the RPing. IMO, characters most likely would not have the time to sit and plan out the prefect tactical solution in most encounters and the use of minis makes that a part of the game. 

yeah,yeah....I know, it's all in my head and the game doesn't make you do it. But you know what, then why is it such a common thing in D&D games I play in and not in others that use differnt gaming systems?  I don't think anyone intetionally stops role-playing, but when the minis hit the table thats what tends to happen IME. 

As a side note, I'm very much a narrative combat type. I like RPing in combat, not just moving minis and rolling dice.


----------



## BlackMoria

> **Originally attributed to Gary Gygax**
> Just read a short analysis by James Mischler of what is likely to happen in regards to 4E. If he is close to predicting the matter, the new game will be more like an MMPORPG, and all older but recent versions of the D&D game will be generally neglected as have been OA/D&D and 2E.




Now I will let my ignorance really show through.....who in the nine hells is James Mischler?  Is he a WOTC employee in the RPG divison or a Hasbro 'suit'?  

If he is neither, then his 'prediction' is no more insightful than the several dozen opinions other posters have made in this thread.


----------



## fett527

Festivus said:
			
		

> Oh, I never thought for a moment scratch cards for stats would work   Someone else thoguht of those, not me.
> 
> But Spell cards, feat cards, treasure cards... all those really could.  I use them already in my game (well, not feat cards) and they simplify things a ton and make it more tactile (read: mini-centric).  I was just thinking about it from Hasbro's side, how might you get people to pump money into the game... make it random and collectable.
> 
> I am not saying it's a bad thing at all, I actually would enjoy seeing the game go this route. *ducks behind the bar for cover from the d20's sure to come my way*



They published spell cards for 2E.  Big boxes with cards for each spell.  I don't remember using them a lot but I thought they were useful.  Not the same concept really since they all came in one big box (as i recall they came as Priest Spells and Arcane or along those lines)but they have been done.


----------



## DaveMage

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> D&D for PSP




Interesting....


----------



## Spell

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Sadly, because of the OGL, this may allow the game to survive, but it will become factionalized.



... as if it was one single monolithic game right now... (you might say that everyone always had his house rules, but at least, there was a single sytem. now: D&D, d20 modern, true20, OGL, midnight, C&C...)


----------



## helium3

Razz said:
			
		

> I stop at 3.5E because I refuse to buy 4E only to know a few years into 4E they're going to just start working on 5E. I don't care howe many times better 4E is, because I personally don't see what else they can do in 4E that you couldn't accomplish in 3.5E with 3rd party products, Dragon Magazine, Unearthed Arcana, and house rules. Plus all of my players will just be really angry, probably even quit the game entirely, if we moved to another edition.




The only serious reason for a customer to reject an edition change is if the costs involved in moving from one edition to another is too high. The only way that the RPG business is going to be able to permanently move to a "periodic edition release" business model is if they decrease the price of the cost of an edition change to the point where they gain more customers than they lose with each edition change. If you can figure out how to do that then you'll know what 4E is going to look like.


----------



## fett527

Vigilance said:
			
		

> ...KHANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Why must I always correct people about this?  Too many Ns.

KHAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Henry

The only thing I know FOR SURE....

...is that one speculation from Eric by a trustable source just made Gencon a heck of a lot more interesting.


----------



## blargney the second

By the way, here's what MMORPG really means:

Many Men Online Role-Playing Girls


----------



## fett527

Henry said:
			
		

> The only thing I know FOR SURE....
> 
> ...is that one speculation from Eric by a trustable source just made Gencon a heck of a lot more interesting.



Grab the torches and pitchforks and storm the WotC booth!!!!!


----------



## Spell

Scribble said:
			
		

> My brain isn't working... whatsa mmporpg?



it's evil kid! i say EVIL!!!


----------



## Varianor Abroad

ST said:
			
		

> Wow, interesting story. I personally am all for it. I figure combining D&D's name recognition with some kind of easier pick-up-and-play structure (like minis, or CCGs, or even board games) could give it some kind of mainstream audience.




Strangely enough, so am I. I wrote a tournament adventure for Gen Con within the past week. Last week I made the design decision to reduce a lot of the rules to cards for the DMs to prop up for players to see, or to pass out as needed. Then along comes this thread. I think we're already thinking in that direction. Logically. (So the real heroes here are who? Fiery Dragon? The guys at TSR who thought up the old Monster Cards? Or some nameless Italian who imported pasteboard cards from the Muslims?  )



> I've never understood the anger about having to buy the new books, or losing your investment in old version supplements, personally. I'm into gaming to game, not to collect.




That I'm not worried about. I budget, and I buy books as needed. As noted upthread, 4E means I just wait to get discounted copies of the rest of the current product that I want.

No, what a new edition means to me is a loss of mastery. Monte Cook wrote about this. As gamers, we like to know the ins and outs and all abouts of the rules. People are bewailing the potential loss of their success at knowing the current rules. I still suspect many of us (myself possibly among them) will buy the new edition and figure it out. Not likely in my case if it's not including Open Game Content though.


----------



## ehren37

fett527 said:
			
		

> They published spell cards for 2E.  Big boxes with cards for each spell.  I don't remember using them a lot but I thought they were useful.  Not the same concept really since they all came in one big box (as i recall they came as Priest Spells and Arcane or along those lines)but they have been done.





Oh, I'd shell out for a box of spell cards... the ones in 2nd edition were great, and I've printed out ones for my 3rd edition game. But RANDOMIZED spell cards, treasure cards, etc are just so alien to my way of thinking on how a RPG should be run, I just cant grasp how they would think it could meet mass approval. If people arent lining up to pay 20 bucks for a players handbook which contains ALL the spells, why the hell would they pay 6 bucks for a pack of 10 random spells?

I honestly dont think we have to worry about something like that. And if Bizarro World invades our own, and something like this DOES occur, I wont be worrying anyways... since I wont be using it.


----------



## EricNoah

Well here's some more...

I just heard from a high-up at WotC.  He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark.  

I trust my source's intentions, though as I've said earlier my source could be misunderstanding something, or I could have misconstrued something.  

Hopefully if the WotC person doesn't mind outing himself he could post here to verify and share what info he is allowed to share.  

In any case, I responded to him as I respond to all of you:  I'm out of the "D&D scoop business" and so this is the last you'll hear from me on anything 4E related.


----------



## Clefton Twain

helium3 said:
			
		

> The only serious reason for a customer to reject an edition change is if the costs involved in moving from one edition to another is too high. The only way that the RPG business is going to be able to permanently move to a "periodic edition release" business model is if they decrease the price of the cost of an edition change to the point where they gain more customers than they lose with each edition change. If you can figure out how to do that then you'll know what 4E is going to look like.




Pretty good assessment. And that may be the driving force behind the rumored "release in small amounts"--it doesn't seem like you're spending a lot when you pick and choose little bits.

The move from 2nd ed to 3e was sorely needed. 2nd edition was very old, clunky, and was broken in many ways. I just don't see the same problem with 3e. If anything, I think WotC really needs to either revamp or open up the epic stuff. They've pretty much neglected it and I think there is at least enough interest to make a little money there, if done right.

They could even still just revamp some things in 3e--maybe work on that "20 levels of spells" thing, or classless D&D, or a better spell point system to replace the one in Unearthed Arcana?

All I know is, if, as rumored, 4e is supposed to be much more minis based, they'd better let you buy the EXACT minis you want, instead of getting your luck of the box.

(Once again, I know it's all heresay, but I like adding fuel to the proverbial fire 

--CT


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

EricNoah said:
			
		

> In any case, I responded to him as I respond to all of you:  I'm out of the "D&D scoop business" and so this is the last you'll hear from me on anything 4E related.




I hope all this didn't make you feel like Cassandra, Eric.  We're all suckers for a good argument over just about anything.  It's was good to get the blood pumping before GenCon!


----------



## ColonelHardisson

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well here's some more...
> 
> I just heard from a high-up at WotC.  He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark.
> 
> I trust my source's intentions, though as I've said earlier my source could be misunderstanding something, or I could have misconstrued something.
> 
> Hopefully if the WotC person doesn't mind outing himself he could post here to verify and share what info he is allowed to share.
> 
> In any case, I responded to him as I respond to all of you:  I'm out of the "D&D scoop business" and so this is the last you'll hear from me on anything 4E related.




Eric, just so we're clear, did the WotC higher-up say anything at all about what was wrong about the rumors? Most importantly, did he specifically deny 4e was being worked on? I doubt he said anything specific like that, but I figured I'd ask.


----------



## EricNoah

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Eric, just so we're clear, did the WotC higher-up say anything at all about what was wrong about the rumors? Most importantly, did he specifically deny 4e was being worked on? I doubt he said anything specific like that, but I figured I'd ask.




Nope. 

Let me point him to this thread.  If he's able to post anything maybe he will, and head this whole fruitless discussion off at the pass.


----------



## mcrow

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well here's some more...
> 
> I just heard from a high-up at WotC.  He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark.




Thank the Gods! 

Now I don't have to hate D&D.



yet.


----------



## Koewn

I'm glad I previewed, I had a big old reply that would've looked stupid with this new info.




			
				EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well here's some more...
> 
> I just heard from a high-up at WotC.  He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark.




Or gearing up interest/speculation for GenCon? There may very well be a biggish product coming out that could sound like a 4E but isn't (like the Basic Set sorts of ideas above).

That's almost too bad.

I was looking forward to finding out if diaglo's hat of e4 know no limit.


Koewn


----------



## fafhrd

Dueling WotC insiders...Sounds like the ettin's right head doesn't know what the left head is doing.


----------



## Arnwyn

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Let me point him to this thread.  If he's able to post anything maybe he will, and head this whole fruitless discussion off at the pass.





Eric, this thread went to 12 pages in less than a day. It already made it through the pass (and sacked the nearest village).


----------



## EricNoah

Hey, if we can keep it from infecting any other threads I'll count it as a success!


----------



## PatrickLawinger

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> Let me point him to this thread.  If he's able to post anything maybe he will, and head this whole fruitless discussion off at the pass.




I wouldn't have high hopes of that. Generally, an employee making announcements for a company such as this without "permission" is a no-no and could threaten their job. That is why I couldn't say "<> says X is completely wrong" when I posted a reply several hundred (thousand now??) posts ago. 

I think it is a shame that this got reported as "news" when Eric has already stated that he didn't intend for it to be. It certainly has kicked up the hype some. Now, if True 20 and CnC sales take off, maybe Green Ronin and the Troll Lords need to buy Eric a nice bottle of scotch ...

I figure this should hit 1000+ posts by the next time I glance at the boards .


----------



## Mark CMG

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well here's some more...
> 
> I just heard from a high-up at WotC.  He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark.
> 
> I trust my source's intentions, though as I've said earlier my source could be misunderstanding something, or I could have misconstrued something.
> 
> Hopefully if the WotC person doesn't mind outing himself he could post here to verify and share what info he is allowed to share.
> 
> In any case, I responded to him as I respond to all of you:  I'm out of the "D&D scoop business" and so this is the last you'll hear from me on anything 4E related.





Well, that doesn't necessarily negate my own prediction of what might be in store for 4E. 




			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I'm thinking we're going to see new products along the lines of -
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060317a
> 
> - packaged with the appropriate miniatures and broken out by ELs or CRs.  Very modular, smaller packages that have a component that appeals to collectors.  As they get a better picture which ELs and CRs are being most used, they can focus on churning them out.  Larger packages would put strings of such encounter packages together.  They can handle the core books and collectable stuff themselves and license out the stuff that doesn't move in great volume, the niche stuff that 3.x third party pubs have been doing through this edition.
> 
> Anyway, that's my guess at one possible scenario of what WotC might do with the future of D&D.





Still . . .




			
				fafhrd said:
			
		

> Dueling WotC insiders...Sounds like the ettin's right head doesn't know what the left head is doing.





Testing among future gamers showed that the ettin was too complex, so it only has one head in the redesign.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Testing among future gamers showed that the ettin was too complex, so it only has one head in the redesign.




ROFL.

Heh... an ettin with only one head smells twice as bad and only tastes half as good.


----------



## EricNoah

If nothing else, this conversation is a good way for WotC to see what some of the fears are.  

The fears seem to be that a) we won't be warned of the approach of a new edition in a timely manner, b) a new edition will be more closed off than the current edition is and thus 3rd-party publishing will suffer, c) too-tight a tie between D&D "hardware" and "software" and the feeling that we might be strong-armed into buying stuff we don't want*, d) changes to the game might not be driven by the needs of current players, but by the needs of a future potential market.  

I think they're reasonable worries.  I think WotC can address these early on even if they can't be specific about timelines, etc. 

_* Remind me to tell you about my last computer purchase.  I had to spend $30 to NOT get a printer when I bought a computer and a monitor.  Blech! _


----------



## Koewn

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> ROFL.
> 
> Heh... an ettin with only one head smells twice as bad and only tastes half as good.




The hydra's getting nerfed, I'll tell ya that much.

And the Chimera? Not so chimeric anymore.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I have to say, I suspect Star Wars Saga is going to be picked up by a lot of curious/nervous D&D DMs ...




Well for obvious reasons, I hope you're right!

Owen K.C. Stephens
lightsaber fanatic


----------



## JustaPlayer

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> Let me point him to this thread.  If he's able to post anything maybe he will, and head this whole fruitless discussion off at the pass.



Ha! This discussion is soooooo waaaay past the pass.


----------



## GVDammerung

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well here's some more...
> 
> I just heard from a high-up at WotC.  He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark.
> 
> I trust my source's intentions, though as I've said earlier my source could be misunderstanding something, or I could have misconstrued something.
> 
> Hopefully if the WotC person doesn't mind outing himself he could post here to verify and share what info he is allowed to share.
> 
> In any case, I responded to him as I respond to all of you:  I'm out of the "D&D scoop business" and so this is the last you'll hear from me on anything 4E related.




Sounds like someone was treated to "a whiff of grapeshot," or its near cousin, which can be uncomfortable.  Its not nice to tell Wotc's secrets.


----------



## fafhrd

Think bigger Mark!


----------



## EricNoah

Wow, when I said "smaller packages of info" that's not what I had in mind!  Having to buy each half of an ettin separately would indeed be a problem.


----------



## Plane Sailing

tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> Fwiw, I just saw the following posted on Gary Gygax's thread (and yes, I know, he is in now way associated with WotC as a designer/editor, but his insight seems consistently wise...):
> 
> _Just read a short analysis by James Mischler of what is likely to happen in regards to 4E. If he is close to predicting the matter, the new game will be more like an MMPORPG, and all older but recent versions of the D&D game will be generally neglected as have been OA/D&D and 2E.
> 
> Cheers,
> Gary​_




This might be an interesting time to review a thread from 2002
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=9766

and its continuation

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=10348

Cheers


----------



## RigaMortus2

So I sent my friend the info on the main site here, and he asked some people he knows at Wizards if it is true or not, and this is the reply he got back (which he sent to me).

From my friends at Wizards, this is the light I can shed:

*4E already in the works?*

4th Ed has been "in the works" since 3rd ed went to press without development being finished.  This unfortunately is standard operating procedure and why so many games seem to have not been properly playtested.

*Even more miniatures-centric?*

Combat is not only the most popular part of the game, it's also the most marketable.

*Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately?*

They'd be keeping the core setup roughly the same, they'd just be offering more specialized and fluff material.  The class books, feat books, creature type books, etc, always sell really well.  On top of that a huge chunk of the player base are completionists and collectors.

*A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely?*

This one I've heard absolutely nothing about.  I know that the power house is still Magic, but I can't believe that Chainmail alone accounts for a larger haul than, or that it would be able to survive without the RPG.  It might be that the cost of producing adventures isn't as lucrative as the core material, but ditching all of it and focusing only the minis would be like the auto industry deciding to stop making cars because people buy more wheels.  Why would they still be going to press with new material, and even with a new updated core system if they were planning to sell it all off?  Maybe it's an inter-Hasbro shuffle?


----------



## EricNoah

Well there you go!  Based on your description of where the info comes from I'd say your source is a step above mine in terms of potential accuracy.


----------



## fafhrd

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Wow, when I said "smaller packages of info" that's not what I had in mind!  Having to buy each half of an ettin separately would indeed be a problem.


----------



## BryonD

JustaPlayer said:
			
		

> I myself use AoOs and don't have a problem with them.  As for minis, IMO once battle comes up and the minis go down people step out of character and look at it as a general on a battle field trying to get the best moves out of the pieces.  That is not necessarily what someone would do in the first person as they wouldn't have the POV.  In that since it does indeed change from "role play" to "roll play."



Ok

But are you actually claiming this is inherent to the game?

If you choose to stop roleplaying and treat combat as a skirmish mini-game then that is a choice you have made.  Heck, you could toss out the role-playing completely and use the D&D combat system as a mini wargame and nothing more if you so selected.

But, that would be a choice.  And individual selection, as I said, is purely a function of what goes on between the ears of the person making that selection.  
You CAN choose to NOT roleplay D&D combat.  That does not make it not a roleplaying game.  You can choose TO roleplay Descent (or even Monopoly) and that does not make these games BE roleplaying games.

In my experience there is nothing to inhibit roleplaying during D&D combat.  The players each have characters who, unlike, say Desecnt characters, have larger motivations and goals.  Sometimes it doesn't matter.  But frequently the players make much different choices during RP combat contained within a larger roleplaying campaign than they would in one where it is simply a matter of "winning" such as Descent or Warhammer.  So their tactical actions are readily influenced by their roleplaying in ways that a non-roleplaying game lacks.  Further, even non-tactical role play often continues throughout combat.  Interparty relationships and exchanges persist.  If these things are cast aside in your game, then I would suggest you are missing out.

Bottom line remains that nothing in a piece of plastic or between the covers of any D&D book has the slightest ability to prevent a dedicated player from roleplaying their experiences both in and out of combat.  And that is not an IME comment.  That is purely a rational observation.  I'm not disputing that other people have different experience.  I am disputing that it is rational to claim these alternate experiences result from the game itself, as opposed to the people playing it.


----------



## EricNoah

The circle is now complete.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Wow, when I said "smaller packages of info" that's not what I had in mind!  Having to buy each half of an ettin separately would indeed be a problem.




It'd suck to have to collect 1000 rats for a swarm!


----------



## EricNoah

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> It'd suck to have to collect 1000 rats for a swarm!




Now you're thinkin' with gas!  :thumbsup:


----------



## Vocenoctum

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Wow, when I said "smaller packages of info" that's not what I had in mind!  Having to buy each half of an ettin separately would indeed be a problem.



Nyah, you just get the big gummi bears, bite off the right arm and leg from one, and the left arm and leg from the other, and you've got an Ettin mini.

Forget mini's, Gummi Bears come in all sizes!


----------



## EricNoah

And shapes.  Fish, worms... 

What we really need is a regenerating gummi troll.


----------



## Koewn

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Combat is not only the most popular part of the game, it's also the most marketable.




Makes sense, really. Heck, I've got a professional miniaturist and a budding amateur in my group, they buy the plastic minis and often redo them to great effect for custom  PC/NPC jobs. (green stuff? some sort of putty.) We also tend to err towards kick-in-the-door, so we use them a lot. (we're the A-Team, and we're all either Hannibal or B.A. (unless it's a wizard, then he's Murdock)

And it's not so much that we need the minis; we didn't use *any* till these came out - they're toys, nothing more.  That's why they're popular. They're the fantasy equivalent of the green army men.



			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> They'd be keeping the core setup roughly the same, they'd just be offering more specialized and fluff material.




Again, makes sense, what with all the Tome of * and Magic of * and MonsterType books.

Had they done this from the beginning, I have no doubt there would be a product called Magic of Slots with the default Vancian system in it.


Koewn


----------



## jgbrowning

EricNoah said:
			
		

> And shapes.  Fish, worms...
> 
> What we really need is a regenerating gummi troll.




I'd never have to buy a new piece of food again.

joe b.


----------



## Kae'Yoss

> 4E already in the works? Check.




Well, As people were saying: 4e was in the works the day 3e was sent off to the printers. Some designers even said that some changes they had in store for the game were too big to do in one edition. They had to be done in several steps. 



> Even more miniatures-centric? Check.




I don't know about that one. It can't be much more than making minis more obvious in battle. They might make measurement in squares primary (but I even doubt they'd get rid of feet). They might make the minis more visible in the core books. They might show minis for the races and classes. They might bundle the core book with those minis even.



> Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately? Check.




I'm not sure about that one, either. It could be a good thing, provided the price per page won't go up. Say there's a Regional book coming up? You'd get 3 books for 10 bucks each instead of one for 30 bucks: One, with the rules info (classes, races, feats, and so on), one with the regional and setting info, and another with a tie-in adventure. That way, they could sell the crunch to those not into the setting, sell the fluff to those not interested in more rules, and could sell those parts to DMs not interested in running the adventure.



> A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC)




No way. Without D&D, there is no DDM. They have to keep the RPG in order to keep the D&D minis. I don't have any hard evidence, but I think DDM is the leader of their line, going before SWM and AAM, and of course Dreamblade. 

Sure, they could sell the rights to make the RPG to others while keeping the minis for themselves, but I think that the minis would suffer from that - right now, the rpg department and the minis department have a good rapport going, but how would communication be if they were different companies?


----------



## morbiczer

EricNoah said:
			
		

> The fears seem to be that a) we won't be warned of the approach of a new edition in a timely manner ...




I'm pretty sure that I have read here on EnWorld a post from some WotC official that we would get at a "warning" at least a year before 4E is released. 

This was at least a year ago, and I don't remember any more details, but am sure about the one year's notice part.




> Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately? Check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about that one, either. It could be a good thing, provided the price per page won't go up. Say there's a Regional book coming up? You'd get 3 books for 10 bucks each instead of one for 30 bucks
Click to expand...



The problem with this is that I would be very surprised if the production, transport, etc. cost for three small books wouldn't be higher than for one big. So if they decide to relase more but smaller books, and you want to buy all, you most likely would have to pay more.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Vigilance said:
			
		

> But the market has already shown that you're in the minority. Remember the ooos and ahhhs over M&M's "production values"?
> 
> A lot of that was knockout art, in full color on glossy paper.
> 
> 
> Chuck





I often browse through books and ooh and ah over the pretty pictures and then go buy a paperback.  I do the same thing at clubs.  Ooh and ah over the 10s in the bikini contest, then go home with a 2 who can cook.


----------



## Mark CMG

BryonD said:
			
		

> If you choose to stop roleplaying and treat combat as a skirmish mini-game then that is a choice you have made.  Heck, you could toss out the role-playing completely and use the D&D combat system as a mini wargame and nothing more if you so selected.
> 
> But, that would be a choice.  And individual selection, as I said, is purely a function of what goes on between the ears of the person making that selection.
> You CAN choose to NOT roleplay D&D combat.  That does not make it not a roleplaying game.  You can choose TO roleplay Descent (or even Monopoly) and that does not make these games BE roleplaying games.
> 
> In my experience there is nothing to inhibit roleplaying during D&D combat.  The players each have characters who, unlike, say Desecnt characters, have larger motivations and goals.  Sometimes it doesn't matter.  But frequently the players make much different choices during RP combat contained within a larger roleplaying campaign than they would in one where it is simply a matter of "winning" such as Descent or Warhammer.  So their tactical actions are readily influenced by their roleplaying in ways that a non-roleplaying game lacks.  Further, even non-tactical role play often continues throughout combat.  Interparty relationships and exchanges persist.  If these things are cast aside in your game, then I would suggest you are missing out.
> 
> Bottom line remains that nothing in a piece of plastic or between the covers of any D&D book has the slightest ability to prevent a dedicated player from roleplaying their experiences both in and out of combat.  And that is not an IME comment.  That is purely a rational observation.  I'm not disputing that other people have different experience.  I am disputing that it is rational to claim these alternate experiences result from the game itself, as opposed to the people playing it.





This needs to be its own thread, I think.  Would you mind starting one?


----------



## EricNoah

As a theoretical discussion...

One problem with the same info spread out over more (and smaller) books is that it makes the DM's job harder.  The DM already has to fold/shuffle in every new feat, class, race, spell, monster, rule etc. that he chooses to add to his game.  That's a lot of significant information storage and retrieval going on.  It is hard enough to truly and fully integrate a new sourcebook like Lords of Madness into the core rules as it is.  

Another related problem is the publisher managing that info and doing a good job of testing each new rule against each other existing rule.  The more it's chopped up, the easier I think it would be to make some major mistakes.


----------



## genshou

*catches up from his last post on page 7, takes a deep breath, and plunges back in*


			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Ok
> 
> But are you actually claiming this is inherent to the game?
> 
> If you choose to stop roleplaying and treat combat as a skirmish mini-game then that is a choice you have made.  Heck, you could toss out the role-playing completely and use the D&D combat system as a mini wargame and nothing more if you so selected.
> 
> But, that would be a choice.  And individual selection, as I said, is purely a function of what goes on between the ears of the person making that selection.
> You CAN choose to NOT roleplay D&D combat.  That does not make it not a roleplaying game.  You can choose TO roleplay Descent (or even Monopoly) and that does not make these games BE roleplaying games.
> 
> In my experience there is nothing to inhibit roleplaying during D&D combat.  The players each have characters who, unlike, say Desecnt characters, have larger motivations and goals.  Sometimes it doesn't matter.  But frequently the players make much different choices during RP combat contained within a larger roleplaying campaign than they would in one where it is simply a matter of "winning" such as Descent or Warhammer.  So their tactical actions are readily influenced by their roleplaying in ways that a non-roleplaying game lacks.  Further, even non-tactical role play often continues throughout combat.  Interparty relationships and exchanges persist.  If these things are cast aside in your game, then I would suggest you are missing out.
> 
> Bottom line remains that nothing in a piece of plastic or between the covers of any D&D book has the slightest ability to prevent a dedicated player from roleplaying their experiences both in and out of combat.  And that is not an IME comment.  That is purely a rational observation.  I'm not disputing that other people have different experience.  I am disputing that it is rational to claim these alternate experiences result from the game itself, as opposed to the people playing it.



*claps*
It's so much fun for PCs to interact with their world like real people.  Then when a combat starts and the players start thinking like... *gasp* people in a combat, suddenly people are up in arms about miniatures making the role-playing get out of combat?  I would argue with said people that thinking tactically _is_ role-playing in combat.


----------



## Greg K

If 4e were to go three core books and then smaller supplements, I might not object depending on the approach. Personally, I really dislike the WOTC class and race supplements for 3.x and 3.5. I would have preferred  an approach similar to that of Green Ronin's Master Class books and Mongoose's Quintessential line- individual books dedicated to examining and expanding a single existing or new class or race.


----------



## Knight Otu

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Nyah, you just get the big gummi bears, bite off the right arm and leg from one, and the left arm and leg from the other, and you've got an Ettin mini.
> 
> Forget mini's, Gummi Bears come in all sizes!



That's it! Collectable Customizable Dual Creatures!








That a gold mine!


----------



## Corinth

For what it's worth, I still think that too few people in the business understand that they're trying to sell what are--in function and effect--capital goods with a lifespan of 25-50 years (on average) as if they were disposable consumer goods with a lifespan of (at most) a year or so.  Switching models away from the GW model to something more from the heavy industry or basic economic infrastructure model would be far more likely to produce universally desirable results.


----------



## Vigilance

Corinth said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I still think that too few people in the business understand that they're trying to sell what are--in function and effect--capital goods with a lifespan of 25-50 years (on average) as if they were disposable consumer goods with a lifespan of (at most) a year or so.  Switching models away from the GW model to something more from the heavy industry or basic economic infrastructure model would be far more likely to produce universally desirable results.




Desirable results for everyone except the publisher- which leads to no new game books- which is desirable for that small percentage of the market that wants their beloved perfect game frozen in amber. 

The GW/WoD model isn't an ancient innovation and was adopted by companies in an attempt to increase profitability to the point that their RPG companies were SUSTAINABLE BUSINESSES. 

Keep in mind the history of the RPG industry is not one with a long string of IBMs or Standard Oils. It's a history of companies that burn brightly for a time then fade into oblivion. 

So when you talk about how undesirable the "Three R" business model is, you should recognize it's one of, if not THE only proven model for an RPG company to be profitable over a long period of time. 

Chuck


----------



## BryonD

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> This needs to be its own thread, I think.  Would you mind starting one?



No.

But I'll drop it here.


----------



## Driddle

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well there you go!  Based on your description of where the info comes from I'd say your source is a step above mine in terms of potential accuracy.




And there you have it, folks! Eric has vouched for the previous message's authenticity.   

Remember, you heard it from me -- aka _"some OTHER other guy"_ -- first. (You can quote that.)


----------



## bowbe

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> I think it is a shame that this got reported as "news" when Eric has already stated that he didn't intend for it to be. It certainly has kicked up the hype some. Now, if True 20 and CnC sales take off, maybe Green Ronin and the Troll Lords need to buy Eric a nice bottle of scotch ...




You know Patrick, I suggested something different, but I don't think Eric's granmma would approve.  

Case


----------



## JRRNeiklot

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Well here's some more...
> 
> I just heard from a high-up at WotC.  He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark.




Yeah, and the halfling outrider has no base attack....


----------



## Mark CMG

BryonD said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> But I'll drop it here.





I hope you know I wasn't suggesting that you drop it.  I really feel it has "full thread discussion" potential, as it were.  If you don't mind, may I quote you in a new thread that I begin myself?  I can do so anonymously, for what it is worth, if you prefer.


----------



## William Ronald

Well, since we are still uncertain of what's happening with a possible 4th edition, I guess we can continue to speculate.

While RPGs may never become a mainstream hobby, there are perhaps some ways to attract more new gamers.  Perhaps an improved basic set might work, as well as some products that are enjoyable for veteran players but still easy for new players to use.  (Perhaps a Dungeon Delve product that is a low level adventure that is compatable with both a basic set and the core rules books might be a good idea.)


----------



## Bobitron

This thread has confirmed a couple things in my opinion.

1) I love it when we get info, even unconfirmed and vague info, from people inside the industry. Thanks to Eric, Phil, and Wulf, and other who take the time to make their opinions and meager info known.

2) Wulf continues to crack me up. Man, I wish I had a chance to play with you and GlassJaw when I was in NoPro.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> One problem with the same info spread out over more (and smaller) books is that it makes the DM's job harder.




You're making an assumption that the new edition will require DMs.

There have been subtle-hints that the DMs role is waning.  From the strict "boxed" rules of 3e with it's various states and conditions, from products based to be purchased by players and not DMs, to even guidelines on convincing the DM that his rules may not be in-line with the popular viewpoint.

I'll bet they make the game so a DM is optional.


----------



## Nightfall

Bob,

Yeah we got some cool inside people and Wulf is a funny guy.


----------



## BryonD

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I hope you know I wasn't suggesting that you drop it.  I really feel it has "full thread discussion" potential, as it were.  If you don't mind, may I quote you in a new thread that I begin myself?  I can do so anonymously, for what it is worth, if you prefer.



No problem and I certainly do not mind you quoting me elsewhere.
I just agreed with you that it had gone astray from this thread.  I'm afraid it is easy to follow a tangent without being fully aware of how far you have gone.

Beyond that, I didn't see much more to say anyway.

But if you'd like to discuss it, I'd be quite happy to follow.


----------



## Obrysii

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> You're making an assumption that the new edition will require DMs.
> 
> There have been subtle-hints that the DMs role is waning.  From the strict "boxed" rules of 3e with it's various states and conditions, from products based to be purchased by players and not DMs, to even guidelines on convincing the DM that his rules may not be in-line with the popular viewpoint.
> 
> I'll bet they make the game so a DM is optional.




With the "simplifcation" of the monster format, expanded magic item format, expanded PrC format (including lore information), as well as the aforementioned boxed rules...I have to agree with you.

All of the other moves to "increase the speed and easy of play" that WoTC is doing...doesn't hurt your theory.


----------



## BryonD

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> You're making an assumption that the new edition will require DMs.



I'll take that assumption and claim it.


----------



## genshou

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> You're making an assumption that the new edition will require DMs.
> 
> There have been subtle-hints that the DMs role is waning.  From the strict "boxed" rules of 3e with it's various states and conditions, from products based to be purchased by players and not DMs, to even guidelines on convincing the DM that his rules may not be in-line with the popular viewpoint.
> 
> I'll bet they make the game so a DM is optional.



There is one advantage to this line of thought.

It'd fix the severe ratio of potential players to potential DMs in online gaming...


----------



## Mark CMG

BryonD said:
			
		

> No problem and I certainly do not mind you quoting me elsewhere.
> I just agreed with you that it had gone astray from this thread.  I'm afraid it is easy to follow a tangent without being fully aware of how far you have gone.
> 
> Beyond that, I didn't see much more to say anyway.
> 
> But if you'd like to discuss it, I'd be quite happy to follow.





Thanks.   Well, let's see what it brings -

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=170598


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> You're making an assumption that the new edition will require DMs . . . I'll bet they make the game so a DM is optional.



That was my prediction for 5E!    

(Seriously, though, I agree with you that WotC seems to be de-emphasizing the role of the DM, lately.)


----------



## Nightfall

Yeah well when you start losing refs, the game becomes less of a game and more like "Hey that's my +5 sword!"


----------



## tylerthehobo

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Another related problem is the publisher managing that info and doing a good job of testing each new rule against each other existing rule.  The more it's chopped up, the easier I think it would be to make some major mistakes.




Speaking as someone who's worked in publishing in one capacity or another for almost a decade, while there are pamphlet / small paperback houses that do just that and do fine (on a small scale), big publishers don't think in terms of 64 p. $10 pamphlets.  The amount of effort into a 64 p. booklet is not half the effort of a 128 p. booklet - it's still a good chunk of writing, editing, layout, publishing, marketing, distribution...  The margins (profit, not page) would _probably_ be better off of the 128 p. book.  I doubt we'll see $10 booklets/pamphlets about a cluster of feats or a single class anytime soon.

But then again, no one would have ever thought that $3 packs of cards with pictures of spells in action on them would sell either, so...


----------



## Nightfall

Tyler,

Yeah and people weren't sure about mice either. Or this internet thing either. Times they are a-changing...


----------



## I'm A Banana

My idea for "More like an MMO" + "Little bite-sized supplements, but more of them" = "Expansion Packs". You play D&D for a while, and then you get to take it to a New Continent with New Classes and New Monsters and New Rules!

....the problem with that is that we get into the whole "fragmenting the marketplace" thing that was a problem in earlier editions. If they keep it to one-offs, no problem, but we see already how tempting it is to go back to good ideas from previous books.


----------



## Nightfall

KM,

There were good ideas in Planar Handbook and Races of the Dragon?!


----------



## Vrecknidj

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> This one I've heard absolutely nothing about.  I know that the power house is still Magic, but I can't believe that Chainmail alone accounts for a larger haul than, or that it would be able to survive without the RPG.  It might be that the cost of producing adventures isn't as lucrative as the core material, but ditching all of it and focusing only the minis would be like the auto industry deciding to stop making cars because people buy more wheels.  Why would they still be going to press with new material, and even with a new updated core system if they were planning to sell it all off?  Maybe it's an inter-Hasbro shuffle?



*Chainmail?*

Okay, I'm really hoping here that I missed something else in the previous 13 pages.  Someone tell me that this isn't right.  Chainmail, I'd guess, accounts for almost no business today.  Surely what is meant is the DDM line.  But if that's so, why the word "Chainmail"?  Are there insiders who still call the minis line "Chainmail"?

Please tell me that it's me, and that I read something wrong.

Dave


----------



## pogre

morbiczer said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that I have read here on EnWorld a post from some WotC official that we would get at a "warning" at least a year before 4E is released.
> 
> This was at least a year ago, and I don't remember any more details, but am sure about the one year's notice part.




I believe that was Charles Ryan, the D&D Brand Manager. Let's hope he will chime in...

oh wait, nevermind....


----------



## genshou

pogre said:
			
		

> I believe that was Charles Ryan, the D&D Brand Manager. Let's hope he will chime in...
> 
> oh wait, nevermind....


----------



## jeff37923

I just purchased the _Miniatures Handbook _ and the last chapter on Dungeon Delving sounds a lot like what has been proposed for 4E. Opinions?


----------



## babomb

So, when will _Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D Fourth Edition News_ open?


----------



## rounser

> Speaking as someone who's worked in publishing in one capacity or another for almost a decade, while there are pamphlet / small paperback houses that do just that and do fine (on a small scale), big publishers don't think in terms of 64 p. $10 pamphlets. The amount of effort into a 64 p. booklet is not half the effort of a 128 p. booklet - it's still a good chunk of writing, editing, layout, publishing, marketing, distribution... The margins (profit, not page) would probably be better off of the 128 p. book. I doubt we'll see $10 booklets/pamphlets about a cluster of feats or a single class anytime soon.



You're assuming a book, though.  What can fit on something the size of an M:tG card, more or less?
A spell.
A feat.
A monster (definitely stretching it with stat blocks the size they currently are).
A magic item.
There's one heck of a lot of scope right there.  Standardise the layout like in M:tG and I don't see there being much more overhead than requiring new artwork for every card, and if randomly distributed, there's the publishing/marketing/distribution problem solved.


----------



## sullivan

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> (Seriously, though, I agree with you that WotC seems to be de-emphasizing the role of the DM, lately.)



I for one _love_ that direction. I'm more than a little fed up with the God-syndrome for whoever is behind the screen. I don't think flat out getting rid of the DM is really a feasible option at this point, or anytime in the foreseeable future.  But I'm for reducing the burden on the DM and dropping the text and tone like that "advice" in the DMG that assigns the role of Dictator For Life to the DM.

In fact dropping the current split of a Players Handbook and a Dungen Master Guide and instead having core rule book(s) that are all for _everyone_ at the table would be a huge step forward. Treat everyone at the table like responsible humans instead of having the parent at one end and all the little kids at the other.

Tear down the screen!


P.S. Yes, I am a sometimes DM.


----------



## yipwyg

I think that the new Star Wars RPG might be a good way to see where D&D is heading.  The Saga edition is supposedly a revised version of the old rules, and is more focused on minatures.
I might be totally wrong, but we will see.


----------



## haakon1

sfgiants said:
			
		

> The scary thing is that maybe 4e will become a self-fullfilling prophecy. Say what I want, I will probably buy it, but as a result I am going to slow down on 3.5 purchases. Causing WotC to see fewer sales and thinking that 4e is more needed than ever. Anyone else feel the same?




Umm, no.  I'm wholeheartedly against 4e.  I know some people live and die by additional "crunch", making their game extra complicated each month, and love changing all the rules around every couple of years.

I'm completely the opposite.  I want a stable rule base, so I can memorize the rules even though I play infrequently (equivalent of once a month).  I do want new rules.  I don't want the dozens of modules I've bought to plunder ideas or put together into campaign arcs to be wrecked so I have to do a lot of rework or more likely just toss them.  I don't want my players to have to buy new books.  So I don't want to switch.  And maybe I won't . . . 3.5e is broken in that it's overly complicated, but my campaigns have a lot of legacy now.

I only "downgraded" from 1e to 3.0e in 2002 . . . I skipped 2e entirely as a DM.  I'm thinking there's no reason to "downgrade" again . . . 

WOTC should find a better way of getting my money than annoying me with new editions.  I'd be happy to pay a monthly license fee, if they'd only stop messing up the game every few years.  No WOTC products at all is superior to 4e.


----------



## Geron Raveneye

haakon1 said:
			
		

> WOTC should find a better way of getting my money than annoying me with new editions.  I'd be happy to pay a monthly license fee, if they'd only stop messing up the game every few years.  No WOTC products at all is superior to 4e.




I wonder if that kind of "protection money scheme" would fly better than a new edition.   Imagine, WotC announcing "For *just* $9.95 a month, you can save *your* game from being updated AGAIN! For an additional $9.95, we will make sure the game background of your choice will be perfectly consistent and not blown up every 2 years. And for the small sum of $199.95, we will send out a squad of legbreakers to make sure everybody else is playing the way you play! Get it now while we're feeling generous."


----------



## JVisgaitis

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Warhammer is going on... 6th ed?




7th actually. And those games have much higher turn over. 40K just hit 4th edition as well.


----------



## JVisgaitis

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I can agree with pretty much everything you said but this. Warhammer would not be the #1 minis game is cost was top priority.




Not only that, they wouldn't do their ridiculous annual price increases. Games Workshop's model is to sell to kids between 8 and 14 and that is their largest market. I've heard it time and time again from people at the studio which is weird because I have never really seen it at local game stores, but it is certainly prevalent if you go to Games Day. The strange thing is its old time vets like me who won't pay the crazy costs to continue with the game, but parents fork out tons for their kids. I don't get it.


----------



## Kae'Yoss

I doubt they'd want to get rid of the DM. Just won't happen. They might put more significance to miniatures. They might put a lot significance in combat (not that it was ever different). But they'll keep it an RPG, and they'll keep the DM. They know that they depend a lot on the old players, and won't antagonize them by doing away with an integral part of roleplaying.

Besides, they don't need to do a game with only combat and no DM. They already did that: D&D Miniatures skirmish.



			
				Vrecknidj said:
			
		

> *Chainmail?*




Chainmail. Not Chainmail the recent minis game based off D&D, but Chainmail the old Wargame D&D evolved from.


----------



## Nightchilde-2

My hat of d20 4e know no limit.


----------



## Banshee16

Umbran said:
			
		

> The question facing Hasbro is not, "is D&D profitable?"  The question is, "Is D&D as profitable as other things we could do with the same resources?"  Which is a better bet for them, giving operating budget to D&D, or Monopoly, or any one of over 130 other brands they own.  In economic terms, while D&D isn't actually losing money, it may be a form of opportunity cost for Hasbro.
> 
> Wulf is correct that D&D needs to be with a company that wants it to be wildly successful.  What he seems to miss is the difference between companies for whom that wild success would only bring the brand up to par with normal everyday business for them, and companies for whom wild success would be... wild!




I suspect we're saying the same thing here....we're just coming at it from slightly different angles.

The point about the possibility of D&D doing better with a smaller company, to whom it means more, is still valid.  And, yes, who might have lower overhead.

I'm not so sure if WotC has lower overhead.  Does WotC operate out of Hasbro facilities, or do they have their own facilities?  Do they have their own separate benefits systems?  In most companies I've seen that have been acquired, the company that was purchased eventually took on the same pension plans, benefits etc. as the parent.  If they're using the same facilities, it could be a bigger, more expensive building that costs more to rent.  There are all kinds of things. 

Who knows?

In any case, upon reflecting, I don't think that the people at WotC are stupid people.  They're not going to revise the game in a manner that is going to lose them their sales.  Now whether that means that some of the rumours flying around (ie. the game being collectible, modular, smaller, less expensive rulebooks, more of a CCG model) are actually false, or whether my thoughts that implementing those changes would cost them business (ie. maybe kids like buying over and over at $20+ price points to try and get all their rules), or maybe there's a kernel, but it's being completely misunderstood, I'm sure they're not going to try and make the game worse.

Given the announcement on the front page that Eric Noah's source may have been mistaken, perhaps the whole hubbub is premature.  

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16

BryonD said:
			
		

> Anyway, this would be much bigger changes than 3.5 was.  And 3.5 allowed them to start over re-cycling all the standard splat books and supplements.  Six months after 4E you get the FR and Eberron handbooks with the worlds re-visioned to include the new versions of wizards and the inclusion of warlocks as a core base.  For example.
> 
> It seems as close as you can get to "best of both worlds" from a seller PoV.




Could you imagine if in the new edition, there was *no* MM, but instead, players have to purchase randomized packs of minis, with more detailed, full entry stat cards with all the info/description that would have ordinarily been included for said monsters in the MM?  It would definitely force the use of minis, and push that segment of the game.  And it probably corresponds with the type of business model they apparently want.

Banshee


----------



## Brulack

philreed said:
			
		

> You can release a game that's compatible with any other RPG on the market today -- game rules cannot be copyrighted, just the exact expression of those rules.
> 
> The challenge is in how you promote your product to the right crowd.




In which case, you are bumping up against trademark law instead of copyright law.


----------



## Banshee16

SteveC said:
			
		

> Seriously, though: I have followed this discussion for years. Just about everyone says they want low cost, perfect-bound, black and white games, but what actually sells is something else.
> 
> --Steve




There are plenty of rulebooks that sell (or at least that I buy <g>), which are black and white.

Sure, colour books are nice, but after looking at the pictures a few times, do I really pay attention?  What keeps me coming back is the content.  Green Ronin's Mythic Vistas line is a great example.  A whole series of books, many with excellent content, soft-bound, and with black and white line art.  And personally, I find some of them, such as Hamunaptra (not fair comparison, as it's a boxed set), Skull & Bones, Trojan War, and Eternal Rome as good or better in terms of actual content (from a personal like perspective) than many books WotC has released.  Have they sold as well as WotC books?  Likely not.  Unfortunately, the WotC label goes a long way towards getting a book in front of a buyer's eyes.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16

Scribble said:
			
		

> Why not? If the cards were integrated into the system, it would work just fine.
> 
> Also why release a PHB at all. Release a book of rules for things like combat, and how the dice work, and how stats work.
> 
> Character classes are just  a new miniature of a "x character class" it comes with the stats already built into it.
> 
> Instead of rolling up stats, you get a number of points and "buy" your character like assembling a warband in D&D minis. Higher stats = higher point cost. Things like feats and spells and such cost more points. So, as your character levels up, you collect more points to buy more options.
> 
> DM would work the same. Challenge rating translates into a certain point cost for the DM. (if there even needs to be one anymore!)
> 
> Monsters are just more minis with a point cost and stats on a little card.
> 
> DM's job becomes assemble a warband for players to fight.
> 
> RP aspect of the RPG can be passed onto someone else.
> 
> 
> Ok, enough spewin doom for me!




I will point out that TSR's one attempt at integrating CCG style playing into the game, was with SAGA, which, from what I understand, failed.  That is an assumption however, based on the fact that the game is no longer produced, and Dragonlance is once again being produced (and very well) for D&D.

Banshee


----------



## BluSponge

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Could you imagine if in the new edition, there was *no* MM, but instead, players have to purchase randomized packs of minis, with more detailed, full entry stat cards with all the info/description that would have ordinarily been included for said monsters in the MM?  It would definitely force the use of minis, and push that segment of the game.  And it probably corresponds with the type of business model they apparently want.




I was thinking about this the other day.  Wouldn't it be extremely difficult to package a random assortment of miniatures AND make sure there are stat cards for each of them?  Or am I just out of touch with the whole collectible minis thing?

Tom


----------



## Umbran

EricNoah said:
			
		

> In any case, I responded to him as I respond to all of you:  I'm out of the "D&D scoop business" and so this is the last you'll hear from me on anything 4E related.




This is not a reasonable position.  Nobody interested in the game should ever really be "out of the scoop business".  It's your hobby, for cryin' out loud!  If information comes your way, why shouldn't you share it?

And, honestly, I think it'd be entirely appropriate if the real, official, first scoop about it came from you.  Very fitting.


----------



## sullivan

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Could you imagine if in the new edition, there was *no* MM, but instead, players have to purchase randomized packs of minis, with more detailed, full entry stat cards with all the info/description that would have ordinarily been included for said monsters in the MM?  It would definitely force the use of minis, and push that segment of the game.  And it probably corresponds with the type of business model they apparently want.




With the girth of the Monster Manual you wouldn't need to randomize the entire thing (even though this would lose some of the single SKU benefits).  You could have a 5 out of 6 or 7 out of 8 random pack or something.  One of the windows shows something like an orc that travels in packs, or maybe an NPC that's common.  Then the rest are random, or semi random (random, but coming from a relatively limited set that is linked to visible mini).  I have NEVER bought, or even looked at a DDM case, so maybe this is how they work already?

What this does is let people that are somewhat casual get in without it being a total crapshoot.  But it still feeds the Lottery Ticket monkey and plays off the Gotta Catch 'Em All drive key segments of the market.

I'm not sure about Feats going to cards, because Feats as of now are fairly persistant.  But using them for one-time spending specialized Stunts would be cool.  Even if they get cycled back into a deck, or just held and then used for a payout for a reward instead of, or supplementing XP rewards for PC actions.  Like many other RPGs, only now it becomes a revenue stream.  Plus once again you can get into the Lottery Ticket and Gotta Catch 'Em All market.

I'd find these two things, while a bit more expensive to the player, a cool rules update idea.  But then I'm a person that like tactile props like that in my RPG games. When I play Shadowrun 4 I use poker chips for keeping track of my Edge use (it feels great to toss down a chip to signify burning a point of Edge) and I actually hand crafted custom d6 for playing.

As for the OGL/SRD, I'm with Monte Cook on this one (as linked in the current news on the main page).  They'll only toast it if they are _stunned_. Even more so if the head deeper into mini territory.  Why?  Because if minis are where they are making their money, and if they exclude minis from the SRD then they get other people to help do their low margin work for them and rake in the mini cash! Duh.



			
				Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I doubt they'd want to get rid of the DM. Just won't happen.



No, but shifting the majority of rule 0 out of the DM's sole disgression, and either into the group or discouraging it altogether, would mesh far better with minis or cards.  As well it'll help in the long run to clear up a number of pathological tendancies at gaming tables.


----------



## EricNoah

Umbran said:
			
		

> This is not a reasonable position.  Nobody interested in the game should ever really be "out of the scoop business".  It's your hobby, for cryin' out loud!  If information comes your way, why shouldn't you share it?




Well what I mean is that I'm not going to juggle 50 e-mails a day, posting every little thing I hear, yadda yadda yadda.  There's a reason I stepped down five years ago, and not much has changed.  

Also, this episode just cements the fact that I don't have the network of contacts I once did.  If I'd had my ear to the ground on this for a while I might have been able to spot some contradictory information.   

Plus it didn't feel "fun" this time -- when I heard the info, which I felt to be credible, I was saddened instead of excited.  And when I saw my "scoop" posted, I was not excited, I was surprised and a little worried.  It all seems to have worked itself out, but despite my light-hearted "regenerating gummi troll" posts and other silliness, I had a pretty nerve-wracking day yesterday over this.  My intestinal fortitude is gone. 

Ultimately, I think this stuff should come from a fan.  I'm not the WotC fan I was at one point.  I'm not the D&D player I was at one point.  I don't think anyone wants 4E info from someone who isn't particularly excited at the prospect of a new edition.  I've heard those people, and right or wrong they're no fun to listen to.


----------



## sullivan

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Ultimately, I think this stuff should come from a fan.  I'm not the WotC fan I was at one point.  I'm not the D&D player I was at one point.  I don't think anyone wants 4E info from someone who isn't particularly excited at the prospect of a new edition.  I've heard those people, and right or wrong they're no fun to listen to.



That is rock solid reasoning.  EN was very obviously based on your excitement for first the potential and then the actualites of 3rd edition D&D. Of taking something you liked and, in your opinion, improving on it drastically by address problems. People of a like minded were drawn towards that.

"Meh" is just going to draw like minded "Meh", and WotC isn't going to want to feed that tasty morsels of semi-intentionally leaked info.


----------



## sunfear

*A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely?*

This one I've heard absolutely nothing about.  I know that the power house is still Magic, but I can't believe that Chainmail alone accounts for a larger haul than, or that it would be able to survive without the RPG.  It might be that the cost of producing adventures isn't as lucrative as the core material, but ditching all of it and focusing only the minis would be like the auto industry deciding to stop making cars because people buy more wheels.  Why would they still be going to press with new material, and even with a new updated core system if they were planning to sell it all off?  Maybe it's an inter-Hasbro shuffle?[/QUOTE]

This surprises me greatly. As I recall a few years ago WOTC added Pokemon to the CCG line specifically to funnel money into the magic Pro Tour. The Tour has changed a bit in the last year or so, with the Pro Player club and the Hall of Fame. WOTC is pumping a lot of money into Magic bling bling in terms of the Tour IMO, and I have to wonder if while magic sales are highest, if it is actually not the most profitable line. I would imagine that belongs to Yu-Gi-O or to one of the lesser lines, or very likely DND minis.

The fact is something that targets kids who get their parents to buy it for them sells more product. (Admitted I believe by Mark Rosewater). Thats the whole reason they will start upping minis in the DND. I don't see Hasbro selling off the RPG line at all, thats just too silly an idea. WOTC bought TSR for a reason and those reasons are just, if not more, valid since the OGL. 

What I expect to see from 4E, a very flexible game with an OGL, loosly based on 3E but keeping staple aspects of DND. (same races, classes, magic missile, ect.) I see a new line of minis coming out with some kind of lock on it so while the game is OGL the mini line is not and WOTC can pump cheap plastic minis at kids whose parents pay the $$$.

This is total specualtion on my part, I know no rumors, and quite frankly the only thing I hope for in 4E is that Mike Mearls is one of the main guys writing/working on it.


----------



## Mark CMG

sunfear said:
			
		

> *A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely?*





I believe that rumor was outright quashed in a later post, direct to Eric from a definite WotC source, IIRC.  Anyone want to confirm that for me, please?


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty

I could easily see WotC getting rid of RPGs and focusing instead on minis. RPGs don't exactly fit into what I see as the typical WotC product. And RPGs are so diverse and capital intensive (vs. simply producing plastic miniatures) that it's easier to focus on toys.

D&D will never die. It might not be sold by WotC anymore, but it'll be sold my somebody.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Hasbro will never get rid of the D&D Trademark.  They may give up RPGs, but no other company will have the right to produce D&D.

Companies have been known to repurpose trademarks.  There was a recent article in BusinessWeek about a new producer of products at Coke, and things like TAB end up being retooled as an energy drink, for instance.

The SRD and OGL license assures that the 3e form of the game will survive.  However, the big problem now will be a virtual Diaspora of D&D fans trying to find a replacement.  If this happened a few years ago I'm sure some company would be able to do this.  However, many of them have reduced their publishing roles, and those that are left would bring their own changes and/or styles.  Like the arguments for against 1e/2e/3e, now there would be different interpretations of 3e.

For instance, with those seeking "classic" AD&D, there's those that play the original rules, there's those that play with OSRIC, with C&C, and those that have moved onto other games, such as Savage Worlds and Lejendary Adventure.  What would happen to the 3e market?  Who'd take over as leader?  I thought Monte Cook's label would be a prime candidate, for instance since he had a loyal following and was one of the 3e designers, but he's leaving gaming.  You'd end up with people arguing over "which" heir to the throne would be used.  

This will factionalize the D&D line more than it ever has been.  There won't be a common bond anymore, and D&D's name recognition will become less about the RPG and more about what WoTC turns it into.


----------



## Nellisir

BluSponge said:
			
		

> I was thinking about this the other day.  Wouldn't it be extremely difficult to package a random assortment of miniatures AND make sure there are stat cards for each of them?  Or am I just out of touch with the whole collectible minis thing?
> Tom




Long time no see, Blu.    

They already do this with D&D Minis.  Each box has X random figures and the stat cards for those figures.  The DDM stats are on one side, the D&D stats are on the other.  The DDM stats are a very cut down extrapolation of the D&D stats, with a more legible and graphic presentation.

Pick up a booster of minis.  They're pretty cool.


----------



## Banshee16

sullivan said:
			
		

> With the girth of the Monster Manual you wouldn't need to randomize the entire thing (even though this would lose some of the single SKU benefits).  You could have a 5 out of 6 or 7 out of 8 random pack or something.  One of the windows shows something like an orc that travels in packs, or maybe an NPC that's common.  Then the rest are random, or semi random (random, but coming from a relatively limited set that is linked to visible mini).  I have NEVER bought, or even looked at a DDM case, so maybe this is how they work already?
> 
> What this does is let people that are somewhat casual get in without it being a total crapshoot.  But it still feeds the Lottery Ticket monkey and plays off the Gotta Catch 'Em All drive key segments of the market.
> 
> I'm not sure about Feats going to cards, because Feats as of now are fairly persistant.  But using them for one-time spending specialized Stunts would be cool.  Even if they get cycled back into a deck, or just held and then used for a payout for a reward instead of, or supplementing XP rewards for PC actions.  Like many other RPGs, only now it becomes a revenue stream.  Plus once again you can get into the Lottery Ticket and Gotta Catch 'Em All market.



Although I asked about the possibility that maybe this is the way they might take things, I hope I didn't give the impression that I'm *happy* about that direction *if* that's the way they take things.  It'll personally end my support as a customer for their company.

I picked up a few of the minis at the beginning when all the broo-hah hah came out.  I've got a few packs of Angelfire, a basic set, and underdark, and maybe one others.  Really, when it comes down to it, I need them to indicate positioning on a grid.  It doesn't really matter (to me) whether or not they exactly match the monster I'm using in the encounter.  The whole randomized aspect really ticked me off, and became pretty evident as a blatant cash grab....not that it's against the law.  Hey some people like that kind of thing.  But I stopped the whole "collecting random hockey cards" thing when I was about 13, and at 31, have no interest in doing that anymore.

I'd just prefer well thought out, functional, *complete* rulebooks and adventures.  The minis themselves are actually edition independent, so I could likely use them into 10th edition.

Hopefully the whole thing was just a bad rumour.

As a final note, just to avoid ruffling any feathers, by saying that at 31 I'm not interested in collectible cards like I was at 13, I do not mean to imply that other gamers who are adults are silly for doing so.  I understand that everyone has their preferences...I just don't like it on a personal level.

Banshee


----------



## librarius_arcana

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I often browse through books and ooh and ah over the pretty pictures and then go buy a paperback.  I do the same thing at clubs.  Ooh and ah over the 10s in the bikini contest, then go home with a 2 who can cook.




Wa!!

She must be so lucky to have a guy like you


----------



## Uder

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I just heard from a high-up at WotC.  He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark.



It might not specifically be your source, or it might not be personal. I've heard the same sort of stuff for up to six months now from "friends of friends", or more precisely distributers to a couple of friends who own game shops. Somebody out there either has an axe to grind or has something to gain from the warm fuzzies that will occur when the disinformation is proved false.

I would never ever trust anything a distributor says, no matter what type of precious stone they're named after, because I've heard too many self-serving lies from them in the past.


----------



## librarius_arcana

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yeah, the revised SW game was such a failure their revising it AGAIN. What does that tell you about how it went last time for them?




You know, this new edition may be using the 4th ed rules, 

I don't think the current d20 version of this game is/was selling that well,
you've got to remember it costs a lot of money to get a title like this, and not make money because of the system used, and not change it is dumb,

Ya know if they re-released this as D6 it would sell like hot cakes,


----------



## Knightfall

EricNoah said:
			
		

> As a theoretical discussion...
> 
> One problem with the same info spread out over more (and smaller) books is that it makes the DM's job harder.  The DM already has to fold/shuffle in every new feat, class, race, spell, monster, rule etc. that he chooses to add to his game.  That's a lot of significant information storage and retrieval going on.  It is hard enough to truly and fully integrate a new sourcebook like Lords of Madness into the core rules as it is.




That's true, but also think of this possibility.

We all know that D&D 3E is designed with very specific "parts" such as races, classes, skills, feats, spells, and the like and not everyone likes all aspects of current version (or previous editions) of D&D. Not everyone likes PrCs or the Vancian spell system, for example, for D&D 3E.

Now, imagine that the 4E core rulebooks have only the most "basic" structure of what makes the edition, D&D. In the PHB, things like ability scores, standard races, core classes, skills, basic combat rules, equipment, and any other basic rules are included. Things like feats, prestige classes, spells, and non-core classes aren't part of the "core" of D&D. Instead, these options are "add-on rulesets" that integrate seemlessly into the basics of the game, sort of how psionics is a add-on system.

For example, the creatures in the 4E Monster Manual wouldn't have any feats listed or any rules for how to use monsters as PC races. (It might list how many feats the creature is suppose to have, if the DM decided to use feats in their game. i.e. # of Feats: 5) There would be a 4E Feats Sourcebook that would describe how to add the feats ruleset into the "basic" rules system and might give example feats for a few of the iconic monsters. There would be a "Savage Species"-style sourcebook that would have an add-on ruleset for using monsters as PC races.

New books would be made for the option of including prestige classes or new, non-core base classes. The DM could use one or the other, or both, depending on how he/she want the game to be run. Vancian spells would have their own sourcebook, but there would also be more "spell" options such as a Spell Points sourcebook and a Channeling sourcebook. You pick which version of spellcasting you want to use in your game.

Psionics would have it's own sourcebook (or even two or three different options, like spells), of course, as would the Epic rules. New add-on systems will be built on the basics, with the ability to integrate the Feats sourcebook into them by having new feat-based sourcebooks (i.e. an Epic Feats sourcebook). There would be seperate sourcebooks for prestige classes and non-core base classes that builds on the new systems.

The Power of such a 4E game would be customization. Players and DMs would only have to buy the "add-on rulesets" they want, and forget the rest. There would be some crossover regarding feats, clesses, spells, and the like but most of those crossovers would be for unique playing options that reward players and DMs for using multiple "add-on rulesets" in their game. Plus, WotC would gain the benefit of having more books to sell to a wider base of players. 4E feat & prestige class sourcebooks would, basically, be compatible with D&D 3.x, while new, unique 4E rulesets would be considered Closed, regarding the OGL. (I don't believe 4E will be Open.)

The Drawback of such a 4E game would be complexity. Players and DMs would have to come to an agreement on which rules to use BEFORE the game could even start. And what if the DM decides that he doesn't want feats and prestige classes in the game, but his players insist on using those rulesets? Plus, the game would have less portablity from game table to game table, as each D&D game will become uniquely different. Plus, some sourcebooks will likely not sell as well, and WotC will decide to drop those rulesets from their support of the game. Plus, how do you address campaign settings and other types of sourcebooks such as the Draconomicon?



> Another related problem is the publisher managing that info and doing a good job of testing each new rule against each other existing rule.  The more it's chopped up, the easier I think it would be to make some major mistakes.




Agreed.

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## BobROE

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> Now, imagine that the 4E core rulebooks have only the most "basic" structure of what makes the edition, D&D. In the PHB, things like ability scores, standard races, core classes, skills, basic combat rules, equipment, and any other basic rules are included. Things like feats, prestige classes, spells, and non-core classes aren't part of the "core" of D&D. Instead, these options are "add-on rulesets" that integrate seemlessly into the basics of the game, sort of how psionics is a add-on system.




See the problem with this is that it's not really good for the seller.  Really what they want is for everyone to buy every book.  So really it makes sense to have the books be as interconnected as possible so to use the cool thing in book #4 you have to own books #2 and #3.


----------



## dvvega

Making books interconnected isn't hard at all.

Look at the d20 Modern set of splatbooks with the requirement of d20 Future. There are 4? I think that require you to have purchased something else besides the core book.


----------



## Kanegrundar

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> You know, this new edition may be using the 4th ed rules,
> 
> I don't think the current d20 version of this game is/was selling that well,
> you've got to remember it costs a lot of money to get a title like this, and not make money because of the system used, and not change it is dumb,
> 
> Ya know if they re-released this as D6 it would sell like hot cakes,



 Actually, SW D20 has worked out really well for WotC.  A game like that has to be updated to stay current to what's happening with the movies.  Granted, I'm surprised a new editoin didn't come out aournd the same time as Ep3.  However, there are several instances where the rules are contradictory to what we see in the movies, and therefore needs an update.  Not to mention the introduction of new characters, species, creatures, droids, force powers, and so on that fans will want to see in their games.  

Check out the prices for some of the SW line through Amazon Marketplace and ebay.  Secrets of Tatooine was going for $80 + at one point  (not sure now).  Books that no-one is looking for don't go for prices like that.

SW D20, may not have been WotC's biggest seller, but by many indications on this board alone it sold well.  Minis simply sell better.


----------



## kigmatzomat

I don't know what WotC is thinking from a system but I can see the "smaller chunks of data" concept being plausible without resorting to cards and foil packs.  I think the old D&D boxes provide a decent guideline.

"core rules" with all the chargen, equipment, feats (up to 5th level), combat mechanics and possibly magic items.  

"magic"  with the caster classes, magic rules  and the spells up to 3rd level.  

"adventurer" with the non-caster classes, basic combat tips and feat combos. 

"DMG" would include game running advice in DMG1 & 2 as well as the C1/4-CR7 monsters.   

"Advanced" book that covers 5th-15th level feats, PrCs and monsters CR8-18.  

"Expert" is the 16-25th feats, PrCs with really high pre-reqs (aka "epic"), and monsters CR19-30.  

Assuming the first four are $10 and the last two are $15 means you'll likely wind up selling everyone core, magic, adventurer, and advanced for $45 right out of the gate, plus about 1/4 people will need the $10 DMG so  assume $190 for every 4 gamers.  Not bad since you're basically selling the PHB, DMG, and MMI in page count.  

At some point you will introduce AdvancedII and ExpertII with additional PrCs, feats,  monsters and RP/DM advice.  Possibly you break it up into Advanced/Expert-Magic, Advanced/Expert-Adventurer and Advanced/Expert-DMG so the price point stays near the impulse buy.    

Yeah, I'm going to shell out more money but it will be easier to get new players to buy into the game.  

Actually, I won't shell out more money anytime soon since my 3.0 game is running just fine, thanks.  I still don't own a 3.5 PHB or DMG/


----------



## woodelf

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> Agreed. It would be consonant with the prior sale of Dragon and Dungeon to Paizo. It's also consistent with Hasbro's company practice. If it does go up for sale, it would be great to see a company with enough capitol to nurture RPGs for the future.




With Palladium on the ropes, doesn't that mean WWGS, or maybe SJG? That would be interesting...


----------



## librarius_arcana

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Actually, SW D20 has worked out really well for WotC.  A game like that has to be updated to stay current to what's happening with the movies.  Granted, I'm surprised a new editoin didn't come out aournd the same time as Ep3.  However, there are several instances where the rules are contradictory to what we see in the movies, and therefore needs an update.  Not to mention the introduction of new characters, species, creatures, droids, force powers, and so on that fans will want to see in their games.
> 
> Check out the prices for some of the SW line through Amazon Marketplace and ebay.  Secrets of Tatooine was going for $80 + at one point  (not sure now).  Books that no-one is looking for don't go for prices like that.
> 
> SW D20, may not have been WotC's biggest seller, but by many indications on this board alone it sold well.  Minis simply sell better.




Thats not true, they didn't release the core rule again just because of content for the latest film, it was done because of the new rules, (or so is the claim),

(btw they stopped producing this stuff didn't they?, why if it sold so well?)

If you could do a poll of what Star Wars players were playing (outside of a d20 forum) I think you may be surprised, I know of many who own both versions of WotC Star Wars, and Westends D6 version, and refuse to play the d20 in favour of D6, (myself included) 

For me the choice is very simple, the fact that one covers the setting well the other doesn't
plus the fact that one is a pain in the arss to learn for beginners, were as the other a breeze, (with the massive bonus of being much more realistic)


----------



## nobodez

Spell said:
			
		

> ehm...
> sorry, i know that RPG books are luxury items, and that production prices has gone up, blah blah blah...
> 
> i would *still* rather buy a black and white book than a full colour one.
> 
> i would *still* rather buy a single normal-paper 34$ book (actually, 22$ from amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...5614/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-6294374-4839044?ie=UTF8) that gives me a complete game, than 3 "deluxe" glossy-paper books, at 30$ each (again, amazon has them for around 20$).
> 
> i would *still* rather buy a game that is really 100% modular (GURPS, hero), or much simpler (C&C), or that is written in a less academic fashion (WoD books), or that gives me something more than the dry rules and a couple of hints about a generic setting that is not supported outside RPGA or magazines (WHFRP). even if the cost the same.




Yeah, this is an old message to reply to, but it's a long frelling thread.

Me, I'm almost completely the opposite. When I compare my Complete Warrior to my Sword and Fist, I know which one I prefer. CW is a hardcover, which means that it'll last longer in play and I don't have to worry about it falling apart on me. CW has full-color art, and while some prefer the old-school fantasy art, I prefer the more, cinematic art of v.3.5 and 3e. 

Well, I liked the modular rules, so it's not all contrary, but still, if I had to choose between a hardcover book for $30 and a paperback for $20, I'd always buy the hardcover.


----------



## Scribble

sunfear said:
			
		

> *A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely?*
> 
> This one I've heard absolutely nothing about.  I know that the power house is still Magic, but I can't believe that Chainmail alone accounts for a larger haul than, or that it would be able to survive without the RPG.  It might be that the cost of producing adventures isn't as lucrative as the core material, but ditching all of it and focusing only the minis would be like the auto industry deciding to stop making cars because people buy more wheels.  Why would they still be going to press with new material, and even with a new updated core system if they were planning to sell it all off?  Maybe it's an inter-Hasbro shuffle?




They already do this, and have done this in certain cases. Look at Dragonlance and Ravenloft... Farmed out to another company to do, but still technically owned by Wizards. (I think Dragonlance still is at least.)  Same with Dragon and Dungeon. Farmed out to Paizo because it wasn't making enough money against the cost of dealing with it, but still technically owned by Wizards.

4E might be exactly the same thing.  A set of rules that can be used as a collectible miniatures game. But another company also makes the D&D roleplaying game, which produces the settings and "fluff" of it all.

Wizards continues to rain in cash from the collectible kids, while at the same time making "free money" from some other company that pays the liscensing fee and deals with the production issues that come from us weirdo  RPG kids...


----------



## Kanegrundar

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> Thats not true, they didn't release the core rule again just because of content for the latest film, it was done because of the new rules, (or so is the claim),




Sure.  They cleaned up the rules, but there was a lot of new material from EP 2 in the RCR.




			
				librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> (btw they stopped producing this stuff didn't they?, why if it sold so well?)




Minis sell better.  The RPG sold well by all accounts I've ever been able to find on the subject.  Minis have a broader appeal.  Period.  



			
				librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> If you could do a poll of what Star Wars players were playing (outside of a d20 forum) I think you may be surprised, I know of many who own both versions of WotC Star Wars, and Westends D6 version, and refuse to play the d20 in favour of D6, (myself included)




:shrug:  Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.  My experience is exactly the opposite.  SW D6 was played because it was SW *in spite* of the system.  When SW D20 came out, all but a couple of people leaped onto it and didn't look back.  Plus, I remember reading an interview with Ryan Dancey where he talked about how well the SW RPG was selling.  



			
				librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> For me the choice is very simple, the fact that one covers the setting well the other doesn't
> plus the fact that one is a pain in the arss to learn for beginners, were as the other a breeze, (with the massive bonus of being much more realistic)




I actually liked the way WotC handled fluff.  (Though I still hold onto several of my old WEG material.)  It wasn't to your tastes, that's fine.  However, your views of the game doesn't really make it a reality of how the game sold or the game's popularity with gamers overall.

What it all comes down to is play what you like.  Just don't make the mistake that because you and your group doesn't like a game that it's not selling well.  I don't like GURPS, for instance, but there's no doubt in my mind that it sells well.


----------



## philreed

librarius_arcana said:
			
		

> (btw they stopped producing this stuff didn't they?, why if it sold so well?)




Word is that the license allows only so many products each year, of which WotC must balance a mix of minis and RPG books. My understanding is that the minis made so much money that they elected to fill their publishing slots with minis products rather than RPG books.


----------



## philreed

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> (Though I still hold onto several of my old WEG material.)




Since the WEG Star Wars RPG was where my first game writing was professionally published I've always had a special place in my heart for it. Still, books like the Dark Side Sourcebook and Hero's Guide, for the d20 version, are definitely fantastic resources for any Star Wars campaign no matter the system.


----------



## sullivan

Scribble said:
			
		

> They already do this, and have done this in certain cases. Look at Dragonlance and Ravenloft... Farmed out to another company to do, but still technically owned by Wizards. (I think Dragonlance still is at least.)  Same with Dragon and Dungeon. Farmed out to Paizo because it wasn't making enough money against the cost of dealing with it, but still technically owned by Wizards.
> 
> 4E might be exactly the same thing.  A set of rules that can be used as a collectible miniatures game. But another company also makes the D&D roleplaying game, which produces the settings and "fluff" of it all.
> 
> Wizards continues to rain in cash from the collectible kids, while at the same time making "free money" from some other company that pays the liscensing fee and deals with the production issues that come from us weirdo  RPG kids...



That's actually the first thing I thought of when I saw Eric's original post.  How WotC "is getting out of the RPG business" could mean something like the above, or even just doing the core design but farming everything else out. But via Telephone Game passing between people come out as "selling the RPGs".


----------



## provik

*Really Talking About*

Is no more books.  D & D Minis 2.0 Re-release with a slight expansion in the stuff on the info cards.  Keeping crunchy and dropping the story crap out of books.

Yeah, sounds like a good bottom-line decision for the WoTC folks.  Sounds like crap for the gamers.

Stock up on your extra copies of books now, folks, cuz this is probably the last good RPG we'll get out of WoTC.  As I've always heard them whine, books don't make money these days.

Provik


----------



## Henry

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> The strange thing is its old time vets like me who won't pay the crazy costs to continue with the game, but parents fork out tons for their kids. I don't get it.




I do. The conventional wisdom in marketing is this: If you want a man's luxury money, market to his wife or his kids.  And even with social and family paradigms changing, this is still a pretty sound strategy.


----------



## Lady Dragon

I can't believe how out of control the responses are to this rumor. Even if it is true in full or in part it is probably only being considered and its not all that bad if it is set in stone.

The first rumor that they are working on it. Yes I suppose that they probably are a good redesign that is worthy of being called Dungeons and Dragons will take several years to develop. 

As to when it will be released I don't see how it could be before 2008 since they have already released their list of Jan. thru Apr 2007 release schedule and there is no sign of slowing down. One product which is a super module for FR actually mentions that is the first of three in a set. WOTC always releases there biggest products around gencon and why would they change now. I think they might annonce it sometime in 2007 either in summer or perhaps in Dec.

As to the second rumor of  it being heavy mini related well duh! what do you think they are going to to with it. Mini's sell well (I certainly have enough of them) and they will want to keep on selling mini's. And I hate to admit it but I like playing the game with my mini's.

Also mini's need D+D to sell, I imagine their are only three reasons to buy these mini's 1. because you just like to display them. 2.because you play the minitures game or some other mini's game and finally 3. because you use them as prop in your D+D game. or finally all of the above. If wizards lost reason three they might as well stop selling mini's.

Now on to rumor number three about smaller packages. Where does everyone get the idea of this meaning cards or collecting. I take it to mean instead of 3 320 page books maybe there will be 6 192 page books, or something similar I,ve always thought that it wouldn't hard to separate magic out of the PH with a separte book for spells and maybe even magic items. So there could be a character book, a magic book, a DM book, a combat book, a monster book and a options books.

Finally to the last rumor, selling the RPG department. This if it is true is not the same as selling D+D. If they sold D+D they would lose the right to use the name with their mini's and their video games and all other endorsements and lisences, thus leaving them with magic as their only money maker since D+D and mini's are tied together.

Selling their RPG department however would be more like when they sold the Magazine dept. to Paizo. You have to realize that Paizo does not own dungeon or dragon magazines, they don't even own the content that they put into them. Paizo simply took over running the periodicals dept and they inherited those wizards emplyees that worked in those depts. And now they publish those magazine and take the risks as well as the profits and since they are much smaller than WOTC they can make a profit, And I might add they do a fantastic job which helps them I'm sure.

So all that being said what selling The RPG dept would mean is that a third party company would be granted lisense to use all of WOTC's D+D product identity to produce D+D supplements to support the new 4E game. That company might also inherit all of their RPG employees as well. I'm sure they would still work closely with WOTC in order to coordinate with the minature dept. and with Paizo and the magazines (That is if Paizo isn"t the lucky lisencee,)


----------



## Scribble

Lady Dragon said:
			
		

> I can't believe how out of control the responses are to this rumor. Even if it is true in full or in part it is probably only being considered and its not all that bad if it is set in stone.




I agree with a large portion of what you posted, but I don't think they'e "out of control..." seems a little more in control then a lot of rumor based gossip I've seen on the internet. Most in the thread seem as if they are ready and willing to admit they have no real idea about 4e at all... And are just speculating...




			
				Lady Dragon said:
			
		

> Also mini's need D+D to sell, I imagine their are only three reasons to buy these mini's 1. because you just like to display them. 2.because you play the minitures game or some other mini's game and finally 3. because you use them as prop in your D+D game. or finally all of the above. If wizards lost reason three they might as well stop selling mini's.




This I dissagree with as well... Perhaps if D&D hadn't existed the minis wouldn't have sold... But a large number of people seem to play the D&D minis game because they like it, regardless of the RPG game...


----------



## Nightfall

I share Provik's fear. Some day it will all just be on little random cards and any chance we have of having real books will be out the window.  It's already starting with character generation...


----------



## ChristianW

Scribble said:
			
		

> This I dissagree with as well... Perhaps if D&D hadn't existed the minis wouldn't have sold... But a large number of people seem to play the D&D minis game because they like it, regardless of the RPG game...




Like many folks have said, not only do lots of people play the minis game as a stand-alone, it is also more profitable for WotC. Books, while profitable, may not be profitable _enough_ in the corporate scheme. 

Nevertheless, I'm sure we'll always have the triumvirate of D&D (PHB, DMG, MM), we just might not get all the sourcebooks we're used to seeing.


----------



## Nightfall

*is more concerned they'll just do minis and nothing else* This is another reason I don't buy minis from WotC. Just not sure I want to say "Yes Hasbro, shaft us RPGers!"


----------



## genshou

Nightfall said:
			
		

> I share Provik's fear. Some day it will all just be on little random cards and any chance we have of having real books will be out the window.  It's already starting with character generation...



I'm assuming you're referring to the 3d6/4d6 rolls for characters...

Random ability scores are a staple of D&D.  How is this "already starting" if it's been a part of the system for so long?  Even *diaglo* uses randomly generated ability scores.


----------



## Nightfall

Genshou,

Check out Dragon 346. They use CARDS instead of just "dice" to do random rolls. That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## genshou

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Genshou,
> 
> Check out Dragon 346. They use CARDS instead of just "dice" to do random rolls. That's what I'm talking about.



Eww.  How about I _don't_ check out Dragon 346 and we never speak of this horror again, lest we summon the minions of an unfathomable horror buried deep beneath our oceans.


----------



## Nightfall

Well it's not ALL bad Genshou, but the fact is they are working very slowly to replacing dice rolls and point buy based on card draws. 

yeah it's coming folks.


----------



## rounser

> Keeping crunchy



_Yes, much keeping crunchy! More crunchy! Oh-so-crunchy..._


----------



## GQuail

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Genshou,
> 
> Check out Dragon 346. They use CARDS instead of just "dice" to do random rolls. That's what I'm talking about.




To be exact, they use Three Dragon Ante cards and tokens to do a faux tarot reading for your prospective character: which is still character gen by cards, but a bit more complex (and clearly assembled for flavour reasons than a 4E grooming trick, IMHO) than what some people are dreading here: that is, it's not just "a pack of cards with some numbers between 3 and 18 on them".


----------



## Scribble

ChristianW said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, I'm sure we'll always have the triumvirate of D&D (PHB, DMG, MM), we just might not get all the sourcebooks we're used to seeing.




Shrug, who knows. Maybe we will maybe we won't. 

I wonder what the D&D sales/costs are compaired to say a traditional game such as monopoly?


----------



## GQuail

ChristianW said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, I'm sure we'll always have the triumvirate of D&D (PHB, DMG, MM), we just might not get all the sourcebooks we're used to seeing.




Plenty of other RPGs sell on a single core rule book model: hell, so did D&D once, with the Rules Cyclopedia.   And the BECMI boxes similarly were packaged by level, not by player/DM status: though inside, of course, were seperate books.

Moving to a single D&D rule book might be one way to defray costs, depending on the price: rather than buy three seperate core ruile book sat £18, I'd look at a mega D&D book at £45.  (the disadvantage on players, who need to get the whole shebang into order to play, can possibly be ignored if there's still an SRD: I dunno how gamers would take that.)

Or perhaps a split to a "Rule Book" (which contains the PHB and, say, magic items and environmental hazards out the DMG) and then making monsters, PrCs and the like purely campaign based.  So there might a "Generic Fantasy" sourcebook with Orcs, Goblins, Archmages and Thaumaturgists, and then a Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft or whatever book: but the previous sourcebook glut doesn't happen.  I know that with the "new hardback a month" model it's a rare person who grabs every book, perhaps doing fewer but bigger books might be one way to make a difference?


----------



## D.Shaffer

GQuail said:
			
		

> To be exact, they use Three Dragon Ante cards and tokens to do a faux tarot reading for your prospective character: which is still character gen by cards, but a bit more complex (and clearly assembled for flavour reasons than a 4E grooming trick, IMHO) than what some people are dreading here: that is, it's not just "a pack of cards with some numbers between 3 and 18 on them".



Of course, if you have a bunch of cards labeled 1-6 and you draw them instead of rollind dice, it's not THAT much different.  Well, unless you're completely wedded to point buy.


----------



## Gargoyle

The prospect of a 4th edition neither worries or excites me.  I will likely buy it even if it is horrible just to see for myself.  I will run it if it's better than 3E.

"Better" for me would mean a more inspirational magic system, better multiclassing, and miniatures that aren't random.  

Someone mentioned scratch off stats for characters...I would like that on minis.  They should make scratch off stats on the mini's base so that I can buy what I need for RPGing and mini game players can still have a reason to buy yet another minotaur in hopes of getting that elite rare stat.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Well it's not ALL bad Genshou, but the fact is they are working very slowly to replacing dice rolls and point buy based on card draws.
> 
> yeah it's coming folks.




You are straight up on CRACK.

The dice are NOT going away.


----------



## GQuail

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> Someone mentioned scratch off stats for characters...I would like that on minis.  They should make scratch off stats on the mini's base so that I can buy what I need for RPGing and mini game players can still have a reason to buy yet another minotaur in hopes of getting that elite rare stat.




When going through my bedroom in my parents house last week, I came across a stack of an old CCG called "Champions".  Dunno if it was a UK thing only or not, but basically it was a simple combat game with a mishmash of vikings, saracens, knights and monsters and weapons/spells for them to use.  The trick was that each card had scratch-off portions: you scratched off the stas of each warrior when they lost to weaken them, and if they won a battle you scratched off a mark at the bottom to add another skull to their collection.  ;-)

A game with self-destructing pieces is somewhat awkward to sell, but something of the same ilk might be something to spruce up D&D miniatures.  Perhaps the stat cards have scratch-off panels for treasure when you kill the monster, so the non-combat stuff he's carrying is hidden until needs be?  Perhaps a heat-sensiitve sticker (Transformers-style) under each miniature to reveal his name or level?  It kinds plays them up more as "toys" than "roleplaying aides", but isn't that part of the goal here?


----------



## Kae'Yoss

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Well it's not ALL bad Genshou, but the fact is they are working very slowly to replacing dice rolls and point buy based on card draws.
> 
> yeah it's coming folks.




I'm just watching The X-Files. Mulder's almost as paranoid as you are. But for him, the stuff he fears is true.

Yes, that's right: Before we see dice going away from D&D, aliens will come, interbreed with us, and rule us openly.



			
				genshou said:
			
		

> Eww.  How about I _don't_ check out Dragon 346 and we never speak of this horror again, lest we summon the minions of an unfathomable horror buried deep beneath our oceans.




I love the 3DA generation. Whenever someone wants random character generation, he can use that (I don't use dice for any part of character generation any more.)



			
				Nightfall said:
			
		

> *is more concerned they'll just do minis and nothing else* This is another reason I don't buy minis from WotC. Just not sure I want to say "Yes Hasbro, shaft us RPGers!"




It is one of the reasons I do buy minis: It tells them: "Hey, I give you a lot of money for those minis. I use them for D&D. Mess up D&D and you not only lose me as a D&D customer, but also as a minis customer. Your choice."

Most minis are sold to roleplayers and they know it. They won't do them instead. They know they can't. They do them to get more money from roleplayers. They don't get enough money from players who play the skirmish exclusively. They know that and make Dreamblade to get the money from the card gamer and professional tournament players' crowd.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You are straight up on CRACK.
> 
> The dice are NOT going away.




Can we minimize them in rolling hit points, game abilities, and advancing hit points officially? Pretty please?

(Yup, long term Hero player here...)


----------



## Gargoyle

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Can we minimize them in rolling hit points, game abilities, and advancing hit points officially? Pretty please?
> 
> (Yup, long term Hero player here...)




I'm all for that.  Having randomized stats for characters makes no sense to me as the official rule.  Random damage against fixed hit points makes sense...random damage against random hit points seems overdone to me, and just encourages players to reroll or cheat.


----------



## DaveMage

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Can we minimize them in rolling hit points, game abilities, and advancing hit points officially? Pretty please?




Sometimes I like using dice for ability scores.

Hit points I'd probably like better if it's half random and half set.  For example, a barbarian's HP each level would be 1d6+6, a fighter's 1d5+5, cleric 1d4+4, etc. (With max HP at 1st level.)

I could probably live with fixed HP though.


----------



## Psion

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Can we minimize them in rolling hit points, game abilities, and advancing hit points officially? Pretty please?
> 
> (Yup, long term Hero player here...)




I'd be happy to can the rolling of HP.

But, as another long term player of hero and other point-buy games, point build taught me the folly of min/maxing and stat dumping.

Point buy is a nice alternative for online or tournament play, but for the purpose of table play, I'll stick with rolling stats.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Psion said:
			
		

> I'd be happy to can the rolling of HP.
> 
> But, as another long term player of hero and other point-buy games, point build taught me the folly of min/maxing and stat dumping.
> 
> Point buy is a nice alternative for online or tournament play, but for the purpose of table play, I'll stick with rolling stats.




Are you saying the're no stat dumping in the rolling of stats now?   

And no min/maxining in random rolling? "Gee, I want to make a fighter, where do I put that 18? Hmmm..."


----------



## BryonD

Psion said:
			
		

> I'd be happy to can the rolling of HP.
> 
> But, as another long term player of hero and other point-buy games, point build taught me the folly of min/maxing and stat dumping.
> 
> Point buy is a nice alternative for online or tournament play, but for the purpose of table play, I'll stick with rolling stats.



You have a valid concern.
But IMO it is a lot easier to work with players to be reaonable than it is to not have screwy rolls (high or low) mess things up.


----------



## Psion

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Are you saying the're no stat dumping in the rolling of stats now?
> 
> And no min/maxining in random rolling? "Gee, I want to make a fighter, where do I put that 18? Hmmm..."




Beat that strawman, Joe! Beat it like there's no tomorrow!


----------



## JoeGKushner

Psion said:
			
		

> Beat that strawman, Joe! Beat it like there's no tomorrow!




Strawman?

How do you figure?

Are you seriously telling me people who roll stats don't do stat dumps and min/max?

Unless I'm missremembering, the core rules let you roll 4d6 and arrange to taste no? and it's possible I am misrembering because it's been so long since I used random rolls.


----------



## Psion

BryonD said:
			
		

> You have a valid concern.
> But IMO it is a lot easier to work with players to be reaonable than it is to not have screwy rolls (high or low) mess things up.




My experience is that perfectly reasonable players are subject to behavior patterns brought on by point buy.

It's easy enough to set boundaries or create other conditions to maintain balanced play.


----------



## Psion

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Strawman?
> 
> How do you figure?
> 
> Are you seriously telling me people who roll stats don't do stat dumps and min/max?
> 
> Unless I'm missremembering, the core rules let you roll 4d6 and arrange to taste no? and it's possible I am misrembering because it's been so long since I used random rolls.




Do you not understand the definition of strawman? Because you're propping it up again.

IOW, no, that's not what I mean to say. But you could have said "what do you mean" instead of deciding to mock me without the dignity of even trying to come to an understanding of my position.

I do not have an issue with a fighter placing their highest score in strength or a wizard, int. That's really to be expected, and I'm not labelling that "min/maxing" here.

I do have an issue with every character from the same player playing a character of the same class looking the same.

I do have an issue with players distorting their character statistics to a ridiculous degree in order to acheive some over-specialized smackdown character.

I'd like to see, every once in a while, character with a stat placement that is not the theoretical optimimum, like a fighter with a good Wis or Cha. That's be refreshing. But the pattern characters created by point buy are getting old to me. They seem stale and inorganic.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Psion said:
			
		

> Do you not understand the definition of strawman? Because you're propping it up again.
> 
> IOW, no, that's not what I mean to say. But you could have said "what do you mean" instead of deciding to mock me without the dignity of even trying to come to an understanding of my position.




Seriously dude, I'm not trying to mock you. Straw man to me is an arguement without merit as opposed to propping it up again.

I don't see a lot of difference between min/maxining your rolls based on 4d6 and arranging them to taste (or worse yet, using some random rolling methods like those found in Green Ronin's Advanced Player's Guide yanked straight from 1st ed Arcana Unearthed) and then picking a class vs knowing what you want to play and using point buy to get it. Two seperate paths that look an awful lot alike to me.

It sounds like you're saying in your experience that point buy brings out that worst in your players during character creation.

Heck, I'd accept the arguement that point buy simply takes too long.


----------



## Psion

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Seriously dude, I'm not trying to mock you. Straw man to me is an arguement without merit as opposed to propping it up again.




A strawman is, to me, an argument different than the one held by the person on the other end of the debate in a way that is flawed so it can be rhetorically deconstructed. I never said that placing your highest stat in your highest score isn't optimizing or that such is a bad thing. That was the "you mean to tell me that" contained within your retort, and it feels designed to create a misconstrual of my position, or at the very least, sweep it into the extreme corner.



> I don't see a lot of difference between min/maxining your rolls based on 4d6 and arranging them to taste (or worse yet, using some random rolling methods like those found in Green Ronin's Advanced Player's Guide yanked straight from 1st ed Arcana Unearthed) and then picking a class vs knowing what you want to play and using point buy to get it.




I do. The characters would look different. I _especially_ like the Green Ronin Advanced GM Guide (I don't recall there being any special stat gen rules in the player's guide), because it shoots for an optimized character, but allows for variety. If you roll and 18 charisma on 3d6 for your fighter, so be it. That's a character you'll never see in point buy.



> Heck, I'd accept the arguement that point buy simply takes too long.




There's that, too. I do find them finicky.


----------



## Zaruthustran

*Out of the box*

I hope 4E is dramatically different than 3E. And I hope WotC truly embraces and leverages the Internet.

My wishlist: make 4E a subscription. You pay $x / month, and for that you get online access to continually-updated rules, character storage accessible from everywhere, an auto-calculating/auto-updating character sheet, spell lists that auto-generate a spellbook (including user-selectable fields for the spell lists), and so on. Put my game library online. In other words: I want to be able to take the books out of the equation*. 

I mean, the other day I sat down to make a new character, a 6th level warforged fighter/artificer. I had to move from my (very large) dining room table to the FLOOR, because I had literally 8 books open at any one time: PHB, Eberron CS, Races of Eberron, Complete Fighter, Complete Adventurer, Heroes of Battle, Complete Arcane, Magic of Eberron... it was ridiculous. After 4 hours of sifting around, looking up feats and spells, forgetting just which book had what piece of information, having to sift through and find it again, I just gave up.

Screw that. I want everything online, all the feats and options at the click of a mouse; a program that shows me what's available and hides what's not, and that auto-calculates everything when I'm done. And I want this to be slick and professional and continually-updated, not some shady Excel worksheet compiled by fans.

The subscription should also include a mechanism for playing D&D online. Not "D&D Online (tm)", the action game from Turbine, but literally Dungeons & Dragons online. Meaning: a program with a virtual table/battlemap, dice roller, minis, etc. The DM can drag-and-drop from a library of terrain, or draw on the map directly. The characters (which are stored online, remember?) have all their modifiers and options available to players and the DM. The system auto-calculates things like flanking, cover, concealment, spell buffs, and other fiddly modifiers. It also includes built-in voice chat. 

The D&D Online program should also come with a selection of virtual minis and an unlimited amount of generic counters in various sizes. WotC can then sell individual virtual minis, each of which comes with complete stats (stored in the same database as the characters) so that the program can calculate combat. 

This is what I want. What I *don't* want is a huge pile of new books just like now only with "Third Edition" crossed out and "Fourth Edition" scrawled in. 

-z

* not that books should go away. There *is* something to be said for leafing through a physical book. But make the book optional, and include a free trial month of the subscription with the book. Face it: these days the books are full of errors and contradictions (the game is just too big and complex), and there are so many books that it is impractical to own, much less use, them all. I know DMs who have had to invest in big piece of rolling luggage just to carry their game libraries to games. Ridiculous.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Psion said:
			
		

> A strawman is, to me, an argument different than the one held by the person on the other end of the debate in a way that is flawed so it can be rhetorically deconstructed. I never said that placing your highest stat in your highest score isn't optimizing or that such is a bad thing. That was the "you mean to tell me that" contained within your retort, and it feels designed to create a misconstrual of my position, or at the very least, sweep it into the extreme corner.




If you ain't with me...   



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I do. The characters would look different. I _especially_ like the Green Ronin Advanced GM Guide (I don't recall there being any special stat gen rules in the player's guide), because it shoots for an optimized character, but allows for variety. If you roll and 18 charisma on 3d6 for your fighter, so be it. That's a character you'll never see in point buy.




You might be right. Is that also where they have three sets of preconstructed stats? Ugh. Imagine if 4th ed went that way! (No need to roll, just pick your stats from these six based on the class you want to play.)

But I do find it interesting that, if I'm reading right, you object to the 'cookie' cutter approach but would accept a random rolling method that encouraged even more powerful characters through randomness.


----------



## BryonD

Psion said:
			
		

> My experience is that perfectly reasonable players are subject to behavior patterns brought on by point buy.



Sorry to hear that.



> It's easy enough to set boundaries or create other conditions to maintain balanced play.



Agreed.  IMO this statement applies to point buy and fixed array systems as well as rolling.

No big deal.


----------



## Psion

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> If you ain't with me...




Yeah, that's what I was reading...



> You might be right. Is that also where they have three sets of preconstructed stats? Ugh.




That was one alternative in there, yeah. It's like standard array (well, on steroids; those particular stat set was part of the up-powering rules), but they give you three options rather than one. Since it's less fidgety than point buy, but gives you a few more options than standard array, I think it's a nice compromise.

I use/am using arrays and point buys for pregens for my GenCon game... and it only highlights these issues for me.



> But I do find it interesting that, if I'm reading right, you object to the 'cookie' cutter approach but would accept a random rolling method that encouraged even more powerful characters through randomness.




IMC, I put a cap and a lower limit on your stats. That said, I guess I've always embraced the higher end of the power curve there. One reason I never particularly liked Standard Array is because it forces you to take a below average stat. (That's another reason I sort of liked those three arrays in the AGMG you refer to - they give you the option to have a substandard stat, but don't force you into one.)


----------



## Psion

BryonD said:
			
		

> IMO this statement applies to point buy and fixed array systems as well as rolling..




Incidentally, what I did last game was "random, at least as good as standard array". That was you did the normal random thing, but if any of your stats fell below the standard array (i.e., 15 in your best stat, 14 in your second, etc.) you raised it to that number.


----------



## BryonD

Psion said:
			
		

> Incidentally, what I did last game was "random, at least as good as standard array". That was you did the normal random thing, but if any of your stats fell below the standard array (i.e., 15 in your best stat, 14 in your second, etc.) you raised it to that number.




That's cool.  It certainly tends toward high power, but I don't have any issue with that.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Psion said:
			
		

> A strawman is, to me, an argument different than the one held by the person on the other end of the debate in a way that is flawed so it can be rhetorically deconstructed. I never said that placing your highest stat in your highest score isn't optimizing or that such is a bad thing. That was the "you mean to tell me that" contained within your retort, and it feels designed to create a misconstrual of my position, or at the very least, sweep it into the extreme corner.




Yep, that's what a straw man argument is - taking an opponent's argument, purposely misinterpreting it so it can be easily refuted, and then concentrating on it so that the real point the opponent was trying to make is overlooked.

Not saying anyone is using such a rhetorical style here, but the term often gets used incorrectly.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> But I do find it interesting that, if I'm reading right, you object to the 'cookie' cutter approach but would accept a random rolling method that encouraged even more powerful characters through randomness.




Not necessarily more powerful, just more variable.


----------



## JoeGKushner

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Not necessarily more powerful, just more variable.




No, I'm pretty sure it's more powerful.

One of the arrays is something like 18, 18, 14, 14, 14, 8

The other one has something like 9d6 for your best stat and 3d6 for your worst stat. The only downsize is that it's based on class.

Nothing wrong with it, but a spade's a spade. It's designed for high level competency in your core abilities. 

(And I knew people who still cried it was unfair and wanted a 2 for 1 exchange when they didn't get their pick and those poor GM's that agreed wound up having the same types of players as they dump statted wis/cha.)

Heck, that in and of itself, character generation, would make for an excellent discussion providing some in depth pros and cons for the various methods and how to handle the demands of players versus the expectations of the GM.


----------



## Psion

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> No, I'm pretty sure it's more powerful.
> 
> One of the arrays is something like 18, 18, 14, 14, 14, 8
> 
> The other one has something like 9d6 for your best stat and 3d6 for your worst stat. The only downsize is that it's based on class.




If you are talking about the AGMG, the highest dice combo it gives you is 7d6.

The heroic array with 2 18s has another 10 in it. (That said, that's even a bit over the top for my taste... one 18 is my normal limit.)


----------



## Kae'Yoss

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Can we minimize them in rolling hit points, game abilities, and advancing hit points officially? Pretty please?




Actually, I don't mind it. I'll never use random rolling again, but it's not as if it's something that takes a lot of effort to change.



			
				DaveMage said:
			
		

> Sometimes I like using dice for ability scores.




As I've seen people tearing games apart because they rolled godly (and didn't cheat, either) and completely dominated the game on low levels (and were very strong on other levels, too), I stick with point buy. I seldom saw the opposite case (someone rolling low), since that sort of thing was usually rerolled.

And for those who say PB takes longer: I don't think so. Usually, you'll have to roll in front of the DM, one at a time, and that takes some time. With PB, you go ahead and assign the stats - and you can do so at home.

And if you want some randomness, you can still do so:

There's the TDA method from Dragon where your scores depend on the cards (but are still confirming to the Point Buy method, since the random part is just assigning the stats).

You could do something similar with Dice:

Take a D6 and start rolling, adding up numbers in row. If you want, you can skip one or more, or roll more than one die at a time for stats. Add up the numbers rolled for each stat until the sum reaches the Point Buy Limit (If you roll too much, cut it down to size)

You can do this in row (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha, or starting somewhere in the row and going round) or with 6 stats you later assign.

*Example* 
_
Say we want to roll in row. I want a tank fighter with 35 point buy, so I start with Str - and roll two times in a row for Str.

I get 6 and 3 -> 9. Dex gets 1. Con (rolled 2x again) 4 and 5, too. Int is skipped. Wis is 2. Cha 3.

Str 9
Dex 1
Con 9
Int 0
Wis 2
Cha 3
-----
24 Points. 

I start again: 4 Str, 1 Dex, 3 Con, 0 Int, 0 Wis, 2 Cha.

Str 13, Dex 2, Con 12, Int 0, Wis 2,  Cha 5

34 points. 

Since you can't buy anything with 12 points, I just up it to 13.

That gives me Str 17, Dex 10, Con 17, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 13.
_ 

You can play around with it a bit - this was just a quick idea.



> Hit points I'd probably like better if it's half random and half set.  For example, a barbarian's HP each level would be 1d6+6, a fighter's 1d5+5, cleric 1d4+4, etc. (With max HP at 1st level.)
> 
> I could probably live with fixed HP though.




That's neither here nor there, if you ask me (and if you ask me not, it's still neither here nor there).

I played with Average rounded up (d10 -> 6), 3/4 (d10 -> 7). 

In my campaign setting (where I'd have changed the classes), I'd have gone with fixed hit points instead of HD. So a Rogue would get 4+Con per level, not 1d6+Con. You'd get double HP at 1st (1st level Rogue with Con 14: 12 HP).



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I hope 4E is dramatically different than 3E.




I hope not. The system is pretty damn great. Several details need fine tuning (and some need a complete overhauling, I give you that), but Since the game is not nearly as much a mess as AD&D 2e, it doesn't need to be scrapped and made again from scratch.

I'm no subscriber to the "if it ain't broke, fix it till it is" pholosophy.



> My wishlist: make 4E a subscription. You pay $x / month,




If they turn D&D into Warcraft for Dice, I'm out. I don't want to be forced to pay money to keep using the stuff I already bought. 



> and for that you get online access to continually-updated rules, character storage accessible from everywhere,




How does that include my gaming room, where there is no computer and no internet connection? How does that include the lodge we often play in during summer? How does that work outside, where we also often play during summer?

How does that enable me to read the rulebook in the bed? I can live with falling asleep with the book - but not with the notebook.

I don't want to be forced to access the net to roleplay. I want books. Leave monthly subscriptions to Blizzard.


Further down, you write that you want to make the books optional. I think it's supposed to be the other way around: Make the electronic version optional. I don't even see the need for a monthly subscription. Get a free e-book with the book (every book has a serial key to unlock the books, and maybe a CD inlcuded), and get updates from the website - like you'd get errata.

The DB is a bonus.




> I mean, the other day I sat down to make a new character, a 6th level warforged fighter/artificer. I had to move from my (very large) dining room table to the FLOOR, because I had literally 8 books open at any one time: PHB, Eberron CS, Races of Eberron, Complete Fighter, Complete Adventurer, Heroes of Battle, Complete Arcane, Magic of Eberron... it was ridiculous.




We had a character like this - always going through all books to find a spell or feat or PrC that makes the character even better.   

I made a character the other day, too. I have 8 books here, too (PHB, DMG, FRCS, PGTF, Underdark, PHB2, CAdv, RotW). I made it sitting in front of my PC.

I think what you need is a better book organization during character creation   



> WotC can then sell individual virtual minis, each of which comes with complete stats (stored in the same database as the characters) so that the program can calculate combat.




You lost me for good at this point. Buying virtual minis? No way in all the lower planes.



> I know DMs who have had to invest in big piece of rolling luggage just to carry their game libraries to games. Ridiculous.




I just declared my home the gaming place. BAM! Problem solved.


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> So I sent my friend the info on the main site here, and he asked some people he knows at Wizards if it is true or not, and this is the reply he got back (which he sent to me).
> 
> From my friends at Wizards, this is the light I can shed:
> 
> *4E already in the works?*
> 
> 4th Ed has been "in the works" since 3rd ed went to press without development being finished.  This unfortunately is standard operating procedure and why so many games seem to have not been properly playtested.
> 
> *Even more miniatures-centric?*
> 
> Combat is not only the most popular part of the game, it's also the most marketable.
> 
> *Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately?*
> 
> They'd be keeping the core setup roughly the same, they'd just be offering more specialized and fluff material.  The class books, feat books, creature type books, etc, always sell really well.  On top of that a huge chunk of the player base are completionists and collectors.
> 
> *A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely?*
> 
> This one I've heard absolutely nothing about.  I know that the power house is still Magic, but I can't believe that Chainmail alone accounts for a larger haul than, or that it would be able to survive without the RPG.  It might be that the cost of producing adventures isn't as lucrative as the core material, but ditching all of it and focusing only the minis would be like the auto industry deciding to stop making cars because people buy more wheels.  Why would they still be going to press with new material, and even with a new updated core system if they were planning to sell it all off?  Maybe it's an inter-Hasbro shuffle?




"Chainmail"? Wasn't that gone in like, 2001? WTF? Can we assume he means DDM, or should we just consider the entire email extremely suspect? 

Quick Rant: If these rumours are more truthful than not, I'm dissapointed that the future of D&D isn't planned to be more integrated with technology. My time is limited, and stat blocks take for ever, even relatively simple tasks like advancing a monster, applying templates, or choosing skills & spells. The preparation for games would be a breeze if a supplement I bought could come with a software download to integrate mechanics into the master generator. I'm not a programmer, and I don't want to be one. Filling in data into MS Access for each new option is not my idea of playing a game. Make it easy to use the latest program to build/modify a PC for goodness sake... A game with re-designed rules to make this possible would be my fantasy 4E. I like some of Zaruthustran's ideas above. I'd buy more supplements if they were easier to use! It doesn't need to be a subscription though, you should be able to buy what you want based on a companion sourcebook. The books would have the flavor and description of the rules. The soft updates would only have the data, so would be relatively useless without the book to understand the rule set. The game could still be playable without technology at all - just an option to facilitate preparation for those that want it.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

BigFreekinGoblinoid said:
			
		

> "Chainmail"? Wasn't that gone in like, 2001? WTF? Can we assume he means DDM, or should we just consider the entire email extremely suspect?




I assumed it was just a troll. I mean, really, would people working at WotC really say things like "4th Ed has been "in the works" since 3rd ed went to press without development being finished. This unfortunately is standard operating procedure and why so many games seem to have not been properly playtested" even under anonymity? I mean, they'd have to really, really trust whoever they're saying that to to never hint at their identity. I'll admit to the (slight) possibility, but come on...it just seems like a classic troll, to me. The Chainmail bit tipped the troll's hand, in my opinion. Someone that much on the inside forgets Chainmail's been gone for years now, or gets it confused with DDM?


----------



## dcas

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> The Chainmail bit tipped the troll's hand, in my opinion. Someone that much on the inside forgets Chainmail's been gone for years now, or gets it confused with DDM?




The other possibility is that some WOTC insiders refer to DDM contemptuously as "Chainmail" (not that I think it's a term of opprobrium but a WOTC insider might).


----------



## WayneLigon

I strongly _hope _ that the 'smaller packets of information' break things up into smaller, cheaper books that you can mix and match as needed. Such as:

Basic Book - The true core rules. The four basic classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard), a selection of spells and monsters and magic items, and you're done.

Advanced Classes - The rest of the classes we know, probably mixed with some of the more normal of the Complete Book classes.

Classes II - The stranger stuff? Or maybe prestige classes, or whatever replaces them.

Advanced Something or Other - More complex combat rules

An advanced monster manual with all the customizing information, templates, and such, plus more monsters. There would be other books that break monsters out by type. I would not mind seeing all underdark and extraplanar monsters shuffled off to their own books. I strongly suspect that the majority of the major common creature types will wind up in their own books: dragons, undead, constructs, aquatic creatures, giants and monstrous humanoids. There would be a smattering of those, 1-3 representatives of each type, in the basic game.


----------



## WayneLigon

A note about all the people saying they will just continue playing 3E/3.5: I've heard that before. 'No, we won't go to 3.5'. Well, the majority of you will, in fact, go to the next edition. The FLGS has a five-foot-wide nine-foot-tall bookscase full of 3.0 stuff - a lot of it _good _ 3.0 stuff, not the cheap quickly-prduced garbage - at 75% off that has maybe moved one or two books in the last year that says otherwise.


----------



## Lord Mhoram

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> A note about all the people saying they will just continue playing 3E/3.5: I've heard that before. 'No, we won't go to 3.5'. Well, the majority of you will, in fact, go to the next edition. The FLGS has a five-foot-wide nine-foot-tall bookscase full of 3.0 stuff - a lot of it _good _ 3.0 stuff, not the cheap quickly-prduced garbage - at 75% off that has maybe moved one or two books in the last year that says otherwise.




Well I played 1st ed until 3rd came out - the only 2nd ed stuff I bought was Spelljammer and Undermountain - we used 1st ed rules. If I don't like 4th (and I won't know until I see actual info) I'll keep playing my 3.0/3.5 that I play now.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Well, perhaps I'm part of the minority rather than the majority, but I didn't like 2E, and didn't move to it.  I saw no need for 3.5, and didn't move to it.  If I don't like 4E, I won't move to it, either.


----------



## National Acrobat

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Well, perhaps I'm part of the minority rather than the majority, but I didn't like 2E, and didn't move to it.  I saw no need for 3.5, and didn't move to it.  If I don't like 4E, I won't move to it, either.




I'm an even smaller minority.

While I'll gladly play 3.5 I refuse to run 3.0/3.5 so when it's my turn to GM our group, it's 1E ADnD or Castles and Crusades. 

It's worked well for us.


----------



## Zaruthustran

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> I hope not. The system is pretty damn great. Several details need fine tuning (and some need a complete overhauling, I give you that), but Since the game is not nearly as much a mess as AD&D 2e, it doesn't need to be scrapped and made again from scratch.
> 
> I'm no subscriber to the "if it ain't broke, fix it till it is" pholosophy.




I think we agree on this. I think the current edition is fine, from a core mechanics standpoint. So a "4th edition" that is just more of the same would be a waste. And therefore, if they do make a 4th Edition, it should not be more of the same--it should be dramatically different.




> If they turn D&D into Warcraft for Dice, I'm out. I don't want to be forced to pay money to keep using the stuff I already bought.




I'm not advocating a complex 3D online gaming world. I'm advocating a subscription-based service as the best way to:

1) monetize the legions of D&D players who, for whatever reason, don't buy minis and supplements/don't provide new revenue to WotC after they buy the three core books.
2) distribute errata and encourage players to actually *use* any new material they do buy, by incorporating a rules-flawless character generator and storage system. 

I've seen more than one person comment that the new Tome of Battle book is too confusing, and that they won't buy it for that reason. The ENWorld staff reviewer spent a half hour trying to create a character and couldn't figure out how to calculate his various feats and bonuses. So wouldn't it be great if WotC's online character generator handled all the BS work for you? Bonus: being forced to enter all the variables into the chargen system and test it would reveal many bugs and inconsistencies that currently make their way into the printed books.



> How does that include my gaming room, where there is no computer and no internet connection? How does that include the lodge we often play in during summer? How does that work outside, where we also often play during summer?




It's called wireless networking. Look into it. 

Seriously though, the books will still be there if you want them, either in bound or printable PDF form. Your complaint is a non-issue.



> I don't want to be forced to access the net to roleplay. I want books. Leave monthly subscriptions to Blizzard.




Again, I'm not advocating online 3D worlds. Surely you currently enjoy subscription-based entertainment: cable, Dragon magazine, the ISP you're using to access ENWorld. A $2-$5 a month fee for what I'm describing is reasonable.



> Further down, you write that you want to make the books optional. I think it's supposed to be the other way around: Make the electronic version optional. I don't even see the need for a monthly subscription. Get a free e-book with the book (every book has a serial key to unlock the books, and maybe a CD inlcuded), and get updates from the website - like you'd get errata.
> 
> The DB is a bonus.




In the situation you describe, each player is responsible for seeking out errata and updating their personal collection. In the situation I describe, the errata is pushed to all users at once. Everyone is playing from the same rules. Isn't that one of the goals of 3E?



> We had a character like this - always going through all books to find a spell or feat or PrC that makes the character even better.




For better or worse, that has become the focus of the D&D game: character optimization. If you're not creating a character with efficiency and effectiveness in mind, you're not playing the same game as WotC's most important customers. 

Meaning, the customers that continue to buy all the new books with all the new feats and PRCs and other character-enhancing doodads. 3.5, by design, is all about enhancing the character and overcoming monsters in combat. 



> I made a character the other day, too. I have 8 books here, too (PHB, DMG, FRCS, PGTF, Underdark, PHB2, CAdv, RotW). I made it sitting in front of my PC.
> 
> I think what you need is a better book organization during character creation




True. I need a single, online database I can access from anywhere in the world, that keeps track of all this stuff for me, and auto-updates my character sheet. 



> You lost me for good at this point. Buying virtual minis? No way in all the lower planes.




See this game:

http://www.poxnora.com/index.do

It's generating quite a buzz.  



> I just declared my home the gaming place. BAM! Problem solved.





Problem solved for you. What about the other players? Convention-goers? Students who game in publicly-owned spaces?

Like Egon says, "Print is dead."

Or should be, anyway. 

-z


----------



## Lanefan

The day you need online access to be able to play tabletop D+D is the day the game dies.

And I don't think the intent is to kill it, hm?

Lanefan


----------



## Geron Raveneye

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.


----------



## Zaruthustran

Lanefan said:
			
		

> The day you need online access to be able to play tabletop D+D is the day the game dies.
> 
> And I don't think the intent is to kill it, hm?
> 
> Lanefan




I doubt online access will be a requirement. Books are profitable and people certainly like buying them. But I do hope they make online tools and electronic books a well-supported, integrated option.

-z


----------



## Markn

One thing I would like to add about a 4th edition.  Dungeon magazine is about to begin its 3rd Adventure Path, starting next issue I think and I believe it runs for 12 issues.  I suspect that a 4th edition will not debut during its course.  That would seriously kill the magazine and tick people off causing many to not renew their subscription.

Make no mistake about it, regardless of what WotC does, they will inform those that need to know about a new version and IMO this includes the people running Dragon and Dungeon.  Based on that alone we have 12 months at least prior to a 4th edition announcement.

If anyone else mentioned this already, then please accept my apologies.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

National Acrobat said:
			
		

> I'm an even smaller minority.
> 
> While I'll gladly play 3.5 I refuse to run 3.0/3.5 so when it's my turn to GM our group, it's 1E ADnD or Castles and Crusades.



Nah, we're in the same small minority.    Like you, I'll play 3E, but I don't run it anymore.  I'm running C&C as my preferred system.  I'd run B/X, BECMI, or 1E, too, if requested.


----------



## dcas

Markn said:
			
		

> Make no mistake about it, regardless of what WotC does, they will inform those that need to know about a new version and IMO this includes the people running Dragon and Dungeon.  Based on that alone we have 12 months at least prior to a 4th edition announcement.




No, it means we have 12 months prior to a 4th Edition _release_. An announcement could come before then.

And it's quite possible that Dungeon and Dragon could run 3e and 4e adventures and articles side-by-side.


----------



## Markn

dcas said:
			
		

> No, it means we have 12 months prior to a 4th Edition _release_. An announcement could come before then.
> 
> And it's quite possible that Dungeon and Dragon could run 3e and 4e adventures and articles side-by-side.




I agree whole heartedly.  You'll notice that I didn't say 4e wouldn't be announced.  I said it wouldn't debut for at least a year.  Having said that, I think an announcement on 4e may have some detrimental effects on the magazine as well.  Therefore, IMO, we won't even get an announcement until next year which then would likely place 4e 2 years off.  

As for running 3e/4e articles in one mag?  No, that would kill the mag.  By trying to support 2 versions and making everyone happy they would end up making no one happy.  They will only support the current version.  Don't quote me on this but I think Erik Mona even stated as much - I just can't think of where I saw it.


----------



## Arnwyn

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> A note about all the people saying they will just continue playing 3E/3.5: I've heard that before. 'No, we won't go to 3.5'. Well, the majority of you will, in fact, go to the next edition. The FLGS has a five-foot-wide nine-foot-tall bookscase full of 3.0 stuff - a lot of it _good _ 3.0 stuff, not the cheap quickly-prduced garbage - at 75% off that has maybe moved one or two books in the last year that says otherwise.



If that's the best evidence you've got, ignoring all other factors and the situations of the people who posted in an online forum... you'll probably want to revise your statement.


----------



## WayneLigon

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> If that's the best evidence you've got, ignoring all other factors and the situations of the people who posted in an online forum... you'll probably want to revise your statement.




I consider it a vastly better indication of the likely buying patterns of the general gamer population. I beleive I've seen it said here that ENWorld is more heavily skewed towards older set-in-their-ways gamers who are unlikely to change quickly. I think the huge shelf of unmoved product shows us what happened elsewhere: people moved on to 3.5 and left 3.0 by the wayside, just like they left 2.0 and 1.0 by the wayside. If companies don't prepare for 4.0, then we'll see the same thing when people switch to 4.0: tons of unsold 3.5 product.

Only a tremendous screw-up on WOTC's part can prevent this, something on the level of the stupider theories of collectable rules or chargen-by-random-miniature.


----------



## Arnwyn

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I consider it a vastly better indication of the likely buying patterns of the general gamer population.



_That_ I absolutely agree with. WotC knows their market well - when 4e comes, the general gamer population will eat it up.



> I beleive I've seen it said here that ENWorld is more heavily skewed towards older set-in-their-ways gamers who are unlikely to change quickly.



Which I believe to be reasonably true - which is why I took issue with your particular post.


----------



## Llaurenela

I have omitted the smilies from the following, so insert the ones that you think it needs as you read it. Please note that if any of this offends you, then in all likelihood you have completely missed the point that I am trying to make. If any thing does offend,you then I apologize ahead of time that you read something into this that I did not intend.

4e, 5e, 6e, and 7e etc will come and go, or not. WOTC/Hasbro made a decision a long time ago to write off a lot of RPG players. WOTC came from the Magic The Gathering background which is antithetical to the roots of D&D and AD&D. Therefore, from the gitgo it was obvious that whatever they did with the game it would not be pleasing to those who really loved D&D or AD&D. And that is the way it worked out, you have today OD&D players, Clessic D&D players, 1st & 2nd Ed AD&D players (although these categories are simplified) and you have 3e players and 3.5e players. Each group pretty much does its own thing and their are not many who play any form of D&D outside their area of preference. However, people in all of these groups for the most part, play other games that offer some of the same things that they like about "their version" of D&D. Some of them actually like the other games better. But for the most part, people play what they like and don't play what they don't like. 

Hasbro on the other hand who bought WOTC out, comes from the background of an extremely large faceless coporate entity that is good at making money from games and toys. They really could care less about what the customer wants, and have no concern whatsoever about the quality of whatever they make. It is completely about making money and there are no other concerns that mean anything to the corporate suits. In other words, just a typical corporation, soulless,faceless and historyless. They are not moral or immoral, they are simply unmoral or amoral, i.e. without any moral orientation whatsoever, neutral if you will.

Now I started play rpgs and 1st Ed AD&D about 16 years ago (approx 1990) and I was not tempted with 2e, 3e or 3.5e. A little over a year ago, I discovered OD&D (the 3 books originally published in 1974) and have been hooked on it since. I really could care less about 4e, 5e, 6e, and 7e etc since I will never buy any of it for the same reason that I have never bought any of the 3e or 3.5e stuff and none of the d20 stuff except C&C. That reason is that it doesn't offer me personally anything of interest. (Get a grip, I am not putting down 3e or 3.5e, it is just not to my taste)

Along with discovering OD&D, I also discovered Mythus (Dangerous Journeys) and Arduin and Lejendary Adventures. I also got access to First Fantasy Campaign (the early one) and Adventures in Fantasy. Between these and the internet, I have enough material that is easily ported to OD&D and 1e, to keep me busy playing and having fun for the rest of my life. There are literally hundreds of free modules along with the OOP stuff, that anything my own creative juices run low, I will never run out of things to use.

So WOTC/Hasbro lost all possible business from me when they chose to walk away from what I want to buy. How many people like me are there, who knows and most likely who cares. If whoever owns D&D ever decides to publish the type of stuff that I am interested in I would buy it. If they reprinted the old OOP stuff again, I would buy some of it too. For instance if the original 3 books of D&D where reprinted in the same format and in the same type of box as they were at the beginning, clearly marked "REPRINT 200X" then I would buy several, one for myself about 10 for gifts.  And so on for many other OOP products.


Of course that will never happen.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> WOTC came from the Magic The Gathering background which is antithetical to the roots of D&D and AD&D. Therefore, from the gitgo it was obvious that whatever they did with the game it would not be pleasing to those who really loved D&D or AD&D.




I think I would disagree with this statement. 

Until the point where WotC was taken over by Hasbro (or sold to them or whatever it was), WotC was doing a lot of things that were pleasing to those who really loved D&D. The 3rd edition was an excellent piece of work which brought many, many people back into the D&D fold and kick-started an RPG revolution in a way that I'd not seen for a decade.

There have been plenty of post 3.0 decisions which haven't been pleasing to many people (especially regarding key design personnel, perhaps?), and I forget at which point Hasbro actually came into the picture; but without WotC, D&D might well be dead now. It seems that TSR was pretty much dead as a business at the point they were taken over, and it seems unlikely that the SRD and OGL would ever have happened at the very least.

Cheers


----------



## WayneLigon

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> For instance if the original 3 books of D&D where reprinted in the same format and in the same type of box as they were at the beginning, clearly marked "REPRINT 200X" then I would buy several, one for myself about 10 for gifts.  And so on for many other OOP products.




You can usually find those at conventions for a fairly cheap price unless you're looking for rare first printings, along with a lot of the Judge's Guild ODD stuff.


----------



## JVisgaitis

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> They really could care less about what the customer wants, and have no concern whatsoever about the quality of whatever they make.




Wow is this far from the truth. The main reason TSR failed as a company was they never found out what people wanted. All they did is released products they wanted to release and they suffered for it. You may like OD&D and I have no qualms with that at all, but the pattern with Wizards has certainly been one where they look for feedback from the fans and incorporate into the game.

Every product I buy has a marketing survey and the folks in D&D R&D are always very helpful and listen to feedback. Hasbro may be faceless, but Wizards certainly isn't. And of course they aren't going to release products to support a dead edition. What's the point in that? And if you claim the fact that people still play the old versions of D&D as Wizards failure to bring D&D to the masses, that is just misguided as they can't please everyone...


----------



## dcas

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> Hasbro on the other hand who bought WOTC out, comes from the background of an extremely large faceless coporate entity that is good at making money from games and toys. They really could care less about what the customer wants, and have no concern whatsoever about the quality of whatever they make. It is completely about making money and there are no other concerns that mean anything to the corporate suits. In other words, just a typical corporation, soulless,faceless and historyless. They are not moral or immoral, they are simply unmoral or amoral, i.e. without any moral orientation whatsoever, neutral if you will.




How do you make money if you don't care about what the customer wants? Caring about customer wants and making money are not antithetical to each other, in fact they go hand in hand. I don't see how a company can be profitable without caring about customer wants. Now I might take issue with the way that WOTC/Hasbro has handled 3.0, 3.5, 3.75, etc., but I can't say that they don't care about what the customers want. They solicited a ridiculous amount of customer input for 3.x.


----------



## fett527

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> I have omitted the smilies from the following, so insert the ones that you think it needs as you read it. Please note that if any of this offends you, then in all likelihood you have completely missed the point that I am trying to make. If any thing does offend,you then I apologize ahead of time that you read something into this that I did not intend.
> 
> 4e, 5e, 6e, and 7e etc will come and go, or not. WOTC/Hasbro made a decision a long time ago to write off a lot of RPG players. WOTC came from the Magic The Gathering background which is antithetical to the roots of D&D and AD&D. Therefore, from the gitgo it was obvious that whatever they did with the game it would not be pleasing to those who really loved D&D or AD&D. And that is the way it worked out, you have today OD&D players, Clessic D&D players, 1st & 2nd Ed AD&D players (although these categories are simplified) and you have 3e players and 3.5e players. Each group pretty much does its own thing and their are not many who play any form of D&D outside their area of preference. However, people in all of these groups for the most part, play other games that offer some of the same things that they like about "their version" of D&D. Some of them actually like the other games better. But for the most part, people play what they like and don't play what they don't like.
> 
> Hasbro on the other hand who bought WOTC out, comes from the background of an extremely large faceless coporate entity that is good at making money from games and toys. They really could care less about what the customer wants, and have no concern whatsoever about the quality of whatever they make. It is completely about making money and there are no other concerns that mean anything to the corporate suits. In other words, just a typical corporation, soulless,faceless and historyless. They are not moral or immoral, they are simply unmoral or amoral, i.e. without any moral orientation whatsoever, neutral if you will.
> 
> Now I started play rpgs and 1st Ed AD&D about 16 years ago (approx 1990) and I was not tempted with 2e, 3e or 3.5e. A little over a year ago, I discovered OD&D (the 3 books originally published in 1974) and have been hooked on it since. I really could care less about 4e, 5e, 6e, and 7e etc since I will never buy any of it for the same reason that I have never bought any of the 3e or 3.5e stuff and none of the d20 stuff except C&C. That reason is that it doesn't offer me personally anything of interest. (Get a grip, I am not putting down 3e or 3.5e, it is just not to my taste)
> 
> Along with discovering OD&D, I also discovered Mythus (Dangerous Journeys) and Arduin and Lejendary Adventures. I also got access to First Fantasy Campaign (the early one) and Adventures in Fantasy. Between these and the internet, I have enough material that is easily ported to OD&D and 1e, to keep me busy playing and having fun for the rest of my life. There are literally hundreds of free modules along with the OOP stuff, that anything my own creative juices run low, I will never run out of things to use.
> 
> So WOTC/Hasbro lost all possible business from me when they chose to walk away from what I want to buy. How many people like me are there, who knows and most likely who cares. If whoever owns D&D ever decides to publish the type of stuff that I am interested in I would buy it. If they reprinted the old OOP stuff again, I would buy some of it too. For instance if the original 3 books of D&D where reprinted in the same format and in the same type of box as they were at the beginning, clearly marked "REPRINT 200X" then I would buy several, one for myself about 10 for gifts.  And so on for many other OOP products.
> 
> 
> Of course that will never happen.



This post made baby jesus cry.


----------



## Llaurenela

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> Wow is this far from the truth. The main reason TSR failed as a company was they never found out what people wanted. All they did is released products they wanted to release and they suffered for it. You may like OD&D and I have no qualms with that at all, but the pattern with Wizards has certainly been one where they look for feedback from the fans and incorporate into the game.
> 
> Every product I buy has a marketing survey and the folks in D&D R&D are always very helpful and listen to feedback. Hasbro may be faceless, but Wizards certainly isn't. And of course they aren't going to release products to support a dead edition. What's the point in that? And if you claim the fact that people still play the old versions of D&D as Wizards failure to bring D&D to the masses, that is just misguided as they can't please everyone...





There is a thing called on demand printing. It could be being used and those of us who would like to buy replacement copies of things that are not going to last forever if you use them (and I use them) could buy them. They have not even released the original three books as pdf for legal purchase and download. I don't think they have failed to bring D&D to the masses, but I do believe that they have looked at the market and decided to just write some of us off.  Besides they don't have to release products to support a "dead" edition, all they have to do to be ethical is to allow others to produce what I want to buy, if they are not interested in my money themselves.


----------



## Llaurenela

dcas said:
			
		

> How do you make money if you don't care about what the customer wants? Caring about customer wants and making money are not antithetical to each other, in fact they go hand in hand. I don't see how a company can be profitable without caring about customer wants. Now I might take issue with the way that WOTC/Hasbro has handled 3.0, 3.5, 3.75, etc., but I can't say that they don't care about what the customers want. They solicited a ridiculous amount of customer input for 3.x.




Hasbro sells what they want to sell, and prevents the sale of other things, that is clearly not caring about what their customers want. I have money that I will and would spend to purchase new copies of products if they were available and permitted to be sold. They do not want my money or they would allow someone to produce and sell those items.


----------



## Llaurenela

fett527 said:
			
		

> This post made baby jesus cry.
> __________________
> Roll your heal check, BITCH!




If you have a problem with me, I suggest that you take it up with the moderators!


----------



## rounser

> How do you make money if you don't care about what the customer wants?



Easy.  What the customer wants is good products for free.  No viable company is going to give them that, so then the thinking goes - how can we extract the maximum amount of milk with the minimum amount of moo?  Miniatures are an example of a business model that could be imposed on 4E which is designed to extract a large amount of such milk, without the customer's interests at heart.  Built in redundancy is a tried and tested business model from games to operating systems to lightbulbs...sell the handle cheap, then once they're hooked into your system, profit from the blades...if you want a man's luxury money, market to his children and wife...put the beer next to the diapers.  There are countless other tricks...corporations interested in TV advertising have regular conferences full of psychologists giving advice on how to exploit your children, for heaven's sake.

I'm surprised that you've lived under capitalism so long and not noticed.


----------



## Numion

rounser said:
			
		

> Easy.  What the customer wants is good products for free.  No viable company is going to give them that, so then the thinking goes - how can we extract the maximum amount of milk with the minimum amount of moo?  Miniatures are an example of a business model designed to extract a large amount of such milk, without the customer's interests at heart.  Built in redundancy is a tried and tested business model from games to operating systems to lightbulbs.  Sell the handle cheap, then roll in profit from the blades is another.  If you want a man's luxury money, market to his children and wife is another.  Put the beer next to the diapers is yet another.  There are countless other tricks.
> 
> I'm surprised that you've lived under capitalism so long and not noticed.




Capitalism is about maximizing profits (in case of milk it might be max milk - min moo). The part you quoted was in response to someone stating that the Hasbro "doesn't care about quality since they are a big corporation". Of course they do - but their caring is directly related to how much their customers care about quality.

In each case it's about what the customer wants. Nobody is going to buy stuff they don't want. The examples you give don't make people buy stuff they don't want - they're just different strategies to get people want or notice/then want stuff.

Some people want to buy minis in random packs  :\


----------



## Jupp

dcas said:
			
		

> How do you make money if you don't care about what the customer wants? Caring about customer wants and making money are not antithetical to each other, in fact they go hand in hand. I don't see how a company can be profitable without caring about customer wants. Now I might take issue with the way that WOTC/Hasbro has handled 3.0, 3.5, 3.75, etc., but I can't say that they don't care about what the customers want. They solicited a ridiculous amount of customer input for 3.x.




Perhaps that's a bit simplified, but: You do not have to care what the customer wants as much as you have to create a demand for something in the customers mind. It is pure marketing, nothing else. You could sell a mediocre or even crap product to a truckload of people if the marketing is able to create the demand, the "I wanna have that"-feeling in the customers brain. Most of those trading card games and miniature games are a good example for that (home trainers sold over TV shopping channels too  ). And those products do not need as much workpower/time investment/money to create and maintain as RPGs, they just need good marketing


----------



## Umbran

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> WOTC/Hasbro made a decision a long time ago to write off a lot of RPG players.




Hr.  You know, this seems to  conflict with your later statement:



> How many people like me are there, who knows and most likely who cares.




If you don't know how many of you exist, you can't really say they're writing off "a lot".  The last market research data I've seen them release (back in 1999, iirc) suggested that the total RPG player population was somewhere between 2 and 3 million.  That's not a big market.

Moreover, you make it sound as if they had any other choice in the matter - you can't please everybody, you know.  No matter what they made, significant numbers of people would not have liked it.  Tastes vary, and no one game is going to be good for everyone.


----------



## Llaurenela

Umbran said:
			
		

> Hr.  You know, this seems to  conflict with your later statement:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't know how many of you exist, you can't really say they're writing off "a lot".  The last market research data I've seen them release (back in 1999, iirc) suggested that the total RPG player population was somewhere between 2 and 3 million.  That's not a big market.
> 
> Moreover, you make it sound as if they had any other choice in the matter - you can't please everybody, you know.  No matter what they made, significant numbers of people would not have liked it.  Tastes vary, and no one game is going to be good for everyone.




Again, they have made the decision not to release OD&D as a pdf file, they have made the decision not to reprint or let anyone else reprint OD&D and its supplements etc, and they have made the decision not to use on demand printing for those who want to buy older products or let anyone else sell them that way. That to me is writing off those who prefer the older products in a very emphatic way.


----------



## dcas

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> Again, they have made the decision not to release OD&D as a pdf file, they have made the decision not to reprint or let anyone else reprint OD&D and its supplements etc, and they have made the decision not to use on demand printing for those who want to buy older products or let anyone else sell them that way. That to me is writing off those who prefer the older products in a very emphatic way.




Either that, or they do not feel that they will be able to make a return on their investment. Maybe each of the things you described would be too expensive. Or maybe they don't want to be competing with their own products. I don't think it has anything to do with writing people off -- WOTC would be delighted to have old-schoolers as customers.


----------



## dcas

Jupp said:
			
		

> Perhaps that's a bit simplified, but: You do not have to care what the customer wants as much as you have to create a demand for something in the customers mind. It is pure marketing, nothing else.




I don't think you could create a demand for something without having some sort of insight into customer wants. If the customer doesn't want something, ultimately he won't buy it.

I don't believe in the "mindless automaton controlled by marketing" paradigm. I may not agree with what people want to buy, but that's another subject entirely.


----------



## Grazzt

dcas said:
			
		

> Or maybe they don't want to be competing with their own products.




I believe, sir, you hit it right there.


----------



## Umbran

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> That to me is writing off those who prefer the older products in a very emphatic way.




Why?  Those who prefer the older product will, by and large, already _have_ the older products.  Is a publisher "writing you off" just because they fail to keep copies of your favorite book in print?  

Your phrasing, to me, implies that WotC has the resources to put into supporting older products, but chooses not to.  I suggest to you that small publishers like WotC generally don't have spare resources around - WotC can't generally even manage to keep up with errata on their major line, which suggests they've got little leeway to put into older stuff.  So, it may be less "written off" than "simply not feasible with our current resources".


----------



## Llaurenela

Umbran said:
			
		

> Why?  Those who prefer the older product will, by and large, already _have_ the older products.  Is a publisher "writing you off" just because they fail to keep copies of your favorite book in print?
> 
> Your phrasing, to me, implies that WotC has the resources to put into supporting older products, but chooses not to.  I suggest to you that small publishers like WotC generally don't have spare resources around - WotC can't generally even manage to keep up with errata on their major line, which suggests they've got little leeway to put into older stuff.  So, it may be less "written off" than "simply not feasible with our current resources".




You are assuming that only those (some of those) who purchased the older products while they were in print would prefer them. I, on the other hand, think a lot of people might prefer the OOP stuff where they to have the opportunity to make the choice. Letting someone else sell pdfs and pay you a fee for doing it uses zero resources and brings in revenue, that is clearly  "written off" instead of "simply not feasible with our current resources" when they don't allow the sale of OD&D. They could also easily license reprinting to someone else for a fee.


----------



## Llaurenela

Grazzt said:
			
		

> I believe, sir, you hit it right there.




Since it is their product, they do own the OOP stuff the last time I checked, that is a non-arguement.


----------



## Kanegrundar

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> Since it is their product, they do own the OOP stuff the last time I checked, that is a non-arguement.



 UHm...how do you figure?  If WotC released old edition material, it would indeed be competing with their flagship line (and likely cause confusion with players that have only played 3.x).  I'm all for supporting your favorite game, but this is getting silly.


----------



## Llaurenela

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> UHm...how do you figure?  If WotC released old edition material, it would indeed be competing with their flagship line (and likely cause confusion with players that have only played 3.x).  I'm all for supporting your favorite game, but this is getting silly.





What is silly is you thinking that any reasonably intelligent person would be confused. DM or player of 3.x goes to online store of WOTC and sees a statement that says, "If you interested in replacing a worn out copy of our gaming materials from the 1970's or 1980's or if you would just like to take a look at what was going on in the early days of gaming, you can check out this link ___________. We have licensed reprinting rights for these materials to the ______ . Please note that these materials are not directly compatible with our current 3.x games. Many of the adventures do have current counterparts and others may follow." IMO anyone who would be confused by that is probably not capable of playing 3.x in the first place.


----------



## dcas

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> Since it is their product, they do own the OOP stuff the last time I checked, that is a non-arguement.



No, because whatever they might possibly gain in market share may not make up for the added cost of supporting two wholly different product lines.


----------



## Kanegrundar

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> What is silly is you thinking that any reasonably intelligent person would be confused. DM or player of 3.x goes to online store of WOTC and sees a statement that says, "If you interested in replacing a worn out copy of our gaming materials from the 1970's or 1980's or if you would just like to take a look at what was going on in the early days of gaming, you can check out this link ___________. We have licensed reprinting rights for these materials to the ______ . Please note that these materials are not directly compatible with our current 3.x games. Many of the adventures do have current counterparts and others may follow." IMO anyone who would be confused by that is probably not capable of playing 3.x in the first place.



 Wow.  There's really no getting through on this issue is there?  Keep on dreaming about being able to buy old material again (beyond the pdf's scans that are already available).  I hope you don't get to worked up about it, because all this fervor is not going to get them to re-release material for older editions.  Might I suggest OSRIC for you needs?


----------



## Grazzt

dcas said:
			
		

> No, because whatever they might possibly gain in market share may not make up for the added cost of supporting two wholly different product lines.




Exactly. Which, is similar (not quite the same thing though) to what happened to TSR in the mid to late 90s. They had so many campaign worlds out there they were trying to support (Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, etc) that they fractured their own market...and many of those said campaign worlds did not do all that well (from a profit-margin POV I mean).

Like I said...not quite the same...but yeah, WotC would be foolish to reprint material for older editions (Id love to see it and be the first to buy it..well actually probably not since I have everything WotC/TSR has done since the Chainmail days ) Like DCAS said above, they would be supporting two totally different product lines...just isnt gonna happen.


----------



## dcas

WOTC is in the business of making money. If they seriously believed that the additional investment required to support both "new" D&D as well as "classic" D&D could be recouped in the market, and their profits increased proportionally, they would be doing it.

This is business, not personal.


----------



## Kanegrundar

dcas said:
			
		

> This is business, not personal.



It always comes back to The Godfather.


----------



## Kaodi

*Hmmm...*

Umbran, your bringing up the gamer population has given me a somewhat radical idea. We should drop this pretense of fitting in with the normal population, and build our own city, the City of Gamers! 
Oh, a city of social misfits, predominated by males, you say? Maybe at the outset, but as new generations of gamers are raised in a society where they are the norm, then they will grow up more confident and better in social environments! Then, to keep our population growing, we will send our young men out into the surrounding cities of non-gamers, and they will spend time living and working there, meeting new people, and finding mates. There will be a full service for online gaming, so they won't be cut off, and when they come home to visit and relax, we will have gaming marathons to reinvigorate them!
Muahahaha! Now, remember what Bill Gates said? " Be nice to geeks. You'll probably end up working for one. " So, we take the helm of major corporations, buy up their ownership, and fund our existence full of gaming goodness! 
4e isn't really about changing the rules, it's about changing a way of life. Or maybe 5e. Whatever. Gamers will inherit the Earth! Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## Llaurenela

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Wow.  There's really no getting through on this issue is there?  Keep on dreaming about being able to buy old material again (beyond the pdf's scans that are already available).  I hope you don't get to worked up about it, because all this fervor is not going to get them to re-release material for older editions.  Might I suggest OSRIC for you needs?





I am not worked up, I am just pointing out that all of the straw man arguements that people want to put forward for why Hasbro/WOTC doesn't release all of the old stuff on pdf or give someone else the reprint rights for a fee  are ridiculous. There are no valid arguements that are legitimate for why they don't do it. Those of you who are defending them are doing so with no valid arguements. I know they are not going to make the materials legally available, but please do not try to claim that they have any legitimate reason for not making them available. They do not have any legitimate reason. Releasing those old materials could only make them more money without costing them a dime. Anyone who claims otherwise it out of touch with reality or has some personal axe to grind, because no one can truthfully claim that there is any legitimate reason to without those OOP products from the marketplace.

Now as for dcas, his disagreement is solely due to his presonal hatred of me. He will automatically disagree with anything I say, as will a few others at DF. His points are not valid.


----------



## Llaurenela

dcas said:
			
		

> No, because whatever they might possibly gain in market share may not make up for the added cost of supporting two wholly different product lines.




There is no added cost for what I suggest that they do. Your point is without any merit whatsoever.


----------



## Llaurenela

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Exactly. Which, is similar (not quite the same thing though) to what happened to TSR in the mid to late 90s. They had so many campaign worlds out there they were trying to support (Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, etc) that they fractured their own market...and many of those said campaign worlds did not do all that well (from a profit-margin POV I mean).
> 
> Like I said...not quite the same...but yeah, WotC would be foolish to reprint material for older editions (Id love to see it and be the first to buy it..well actually probably not since I have everything WotC/TSR has done since the Chainmail days ) Like DCAS said above, they would be supporting two totally different product lines...just isnt gonna happen.




They can lease the reprint rights to someone else or release more material on pdfs at no cost to themselves and reap greater profits. They are not producing new materials so there is no socalled support costs. The comparison to TSR is without merit and is a straw man.


----------



## Llaurenela

dcas said:
			
		

> WOTC is in the business of making money. If they seriously believed that the additional investment required to support both "new" D&D as well as "classic" D&D could be recouped in the market, and their profits increased proportionally, they would be doing it.
> 
> This is business, not personal.




First of all, there is no additional cost to sell pdfs or lease the rights to reprint to someone else. The whole additional investment part is completely untrue, it is a red herring. 

Second of all, it is not a sound business decision that they have made, therefore it must be personal.


----------



## Kanegrundar

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> First of all, there is no additional cost to sell pdfs or lease the rights to reprint to someone else. The whole additional investment part is completely untrue, it is a red herring.
> 
> Second of all, it is not a sound business decision that they have made, therefore it must be personal.



 Not a sound business decision?  Here I thought WotC was doing pretty darn good...

Look, just because you say something over and over and over and over ad nauseum doesn't make it reality.  Plus, coming out and derailing a thread about 4E with all this hoopla about how WotC isn't listening to their consumers by not printing old edition material and then making all sorts of wild *unsubstantiated* accusations about WotC and (more importantly) other posters isn't a good way to get your point across.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> I am not worked up...
> 
> There are *no valid arguements that are legitimate*...
> 
> Those of you who are defending them are doing so with *no valid arguements*.
> 
> They do *not have any legitimate reason*.
> 
> Anyone who claims otherwise it *out of touch with reality* or has some personal axe to grind...
> 
> ... *no one can truthfully claim* that there is any legitimate reason....
> 
> ... His points *are not valid*.
> 
> Your point is *without any merit whatsoever*.
> 
> ...*completely untrue*, it is a red herring.
> 
> The comparison to TSR is *without merit* and is a straw man.



Frankly, when someone tosses out self-assured absolutes as freely as you seem to enjoy, I would think they were a _little_ worked up about something.  Plus it betrays an attitude of superiority that is more than a little off putting and undermines whatever point there might be.

And an aside... can one have a valid argument that is not legitimate? Or an invalid argument that is legitmate?  Curious minds...


----------



## Llaurenela

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Not a sound business decision?  Here I thought WotC was doing pretty darn good...
> 
> Look, just because you say something over and over and over and over ad nauseum doesn't make it reality.  Plus, coming out and derailing a thread about 4E with all this hoopla about how WotC isn't listening to their consumers by not printing old edition material and then making all sorts of wild *unsubstantiated* accusations about WotC and (more importantly) other posters isn't a good way to get your point across.





There are no unsubstantiated accusations about WOTC, just the facts. The truth is all of the OOP products could be sold today, if someone at WOTC did not have an axe to grind against the original game. Anyone who says otherwise must own a lot of stock in WOTC. Or more likely is a complete fool. As for my comment about dcas, that is fact and can be documented if anyone wants to go do some reading.

It is obvious that you and a few others have a vested interest in the status quo pravda style "truth" about why the OOP are OOP. You can attack me all you want to, however, you can try telling the truth. My first post in this thread had nothing to do with this thread being derailed and to say otherwise is a bald faced lie. This thread got derailed when personal attacks where posted in response to my first post in this thread. My attempting to defend myself is not derailing a thread, if you say it is then you are a liar. I did nothing to derail this thread until I was attacked. If you don't like the facts, then try leaving me alone.


When someone replies to a post of mine with the comment:



> This post made baby jesus cry.
> __________________
> Roll your heal check, BITCH!




I do go on the offense; if you have a problem with that then you might want to advise people, that when they make anti-religious vulgar attacks on me they will have to live with the results. You all want a fight, then you can have one. That quoted comment, that was allowed to stand gives me the right defend myself and I will. I do not take kindly to be called a "BITCH," especially in response to a quite reasonable statement of fact that the quoted poster was responding to.


----------



## zoroaster100

Maybe WOTC doesn't want to help fragment the D&D market by providing help to those who want to support editions other than the one for which they are currently putting out product.  Whether or not you agree with that decision, I'm pretty confident that whatever their reasoning, it is based on business and profitability, and not some nefarious scheme to keep a few individuals from playing the edition they want to play.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> I do not take kindly to be called a "BITCH," especially in response to a quite reasonable statement of fact that the quoted poster was responding to.



You are taking offense to his sigfile.  He didn't call you BITCH.


----------



## Kanegrundar

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> There are no unsubstantiated accusations about WOTC, just the facts. The truth is all of the OOP products could be sold today, *if someone at WOTC did not have an axe to grind against the original game*.



Ok, I'm getting tired.  Prove it or just go away.  Seriously, prove it.  Otherwise you're just blowing a ton of hot air.



			
				Llaurenela said:
			
		

> Anyone who says otherwise must own a lot of stock in WOTC. Or more likely is a complete fool. As for my comment about dcas, that is fact and can be documented if anyone wants to go do some reading.



You know 2 things about me, sweetheart: jack and crap.  I don't own stock in WotC and would actually enjoy seeing more of the OOP catalog back in print.  However, what I don't like is someone going around making hilarious judgements against companies like they're run by a cliquish pack of high schoolers.  Once again, so the documentation.  Prove you claims.




			
				Llaurenela said:
			
		

> It is obvious that you and a few others have a vested interest in the status quo pravda style "truth" about why the OOP are OOP.



Nope.  Wrong.  BZZZT.  I could care less about the status quo.  What I don't like is this guns blazing, but hitting nothing style of argumenation that you have.   All that I ask is that you prove one single accusation, or at least not attack anyone who disagrees with you as being some moron that can't see the "truth".

<snipped a bunch of stuff>



			
				Llaurenela said:
			
		

> I do go on the offense; if you have a problem with that then you might want to advise people, that when they make anti-religious vulgar attacks on me they will have to live with the results. You all want a fight, then you can have one. That quoted comment, that was allowed to stand gives me the right defend myself and I will. I do not take kindly to be called a "BITCH," especially in response to a quite reasonable statement of fact that the quoted poster was responding to.




LOL!!!  That's his sigfile!  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should have figured that out!  LOL!!!!


----------



## Maggan

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> Anyone who says otherwise must own a lot of stock in WOTC. Or more likely is a complete fool.




Hey! I'm not a fool! So where are my stocks!!!

Are they included in the books? <starts to frantically search his shelves>

Sigh ... I don't find any. I guess I'm a fool then ...   

/M


----------



## dcas

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> Maybe WOTC doesn't want to help fragment the D&D market by providing help to those who want to support editions other than the one for which they are currently putting out product.  Whether or not you agree with that decision, I'm pretty confident that whatever their reasoning, it is based on business and profitability, and not some nefarious scheme to keep a few individuals from playing the edition they want to play.



Exactly.

WOTC is in the business of making money, not in the business of making old-school gamers unhappy. I might disagree with their decision not to support both AD&D and 3.x, but it doesn't follow that their decision is due to some personal animus against the old game.

Now, WOTC could change my mind if they came out with something like the joke "Castle Greyhawk" released by TSR in the late 1980s. Then maybe I could conclude that someone at WOTC has an axe to grind.


----------



## Rel

Llaurenela said:
			
		

> There is no added cost for what I suggest that they do. Your point is without any merit whatsoever.




MOD HAT ON

ENOUGH, Llaurenela!  We get it.  Your hat of WotC for not reprinting old products no know limit!  Point taken.  You've been clear.  Your argument is made and you consider it irrefutable.  You are no longer influencing people and you certainly aren't making friends by telling anybody they their "point is without any merit whatsoever".

This thread is not about the point you are making and that point is no longer welcome in it.

I hope I've made myself clear.

Oh and nobody else respond to any of the posts already made on this point either please.  Save it for another thread.


----------

