# No 5e threads for now, please



## Piratecat (Jul 6, 2009)

It's probably a valid topic of conversation. Unfortunately, it's also a valid topic of conversation that really annoys us. So let's avoid any 5e threads for the time being.

Thanks!


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2009)

Great!  I would prefer to talk about 8e, anyway, which will be a fascinating math-heavy game played by our robot overlords while humans slave away in silicon mines.

Is 6e, 7e, 8e, and 9e conversation verboten, as well?

(we all know there will be no 10e, because the evolved cockroaches who will replace us as the dominant sentient species only play GURPS.)

-O


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 6, 2009)

Thanks! Good call.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 6, 2009)

Well, I liked the discussion on the idea of removing to-hit rolls.  Fresh takes on how to create resolution mechanics.  But certainly not necessary to frame that in a 5E or any type of D&D context...


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 6, 2009)

I think the ban is because of the implicit "cash cow" or "editionitis" criticism behind some of these threads. 4E will likely be around for multiple years, so nobody can claim such threads are needed right now.

Of course, now I am assuming the ban is on D&D 5E; not fifth editions of games in general


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 6, 2009)

Why?  Because it annoys you?  That's it?  There's only been a few threads so far, it's not like it's choking up the first page like the .pdf issue, that eventually required its own sub-forum.  And that no rolling to hit thread was really interesting, even though the concept horrifies me.


----------



## Hellzon (Jul 6, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Of course, now I am assuming the ban is on D&D 5E; not fifth editions of games in general




Nope. God help you if you want to discuss the latest Ars Magica version.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 6, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Great! I would prefer to talk about 8e, anyway, which will be a fascinating math-heavy game played by our robot overlords while humans slave away in silicon mines.
> 
> Is 6e, 7e, 8e, and 9e conversation verboten, as well?
> 
> ...




*Viva la Cucaracha!*


----------



## Jack7 (Jul 6, 2009)

Politics is a fickle and unpredictable mistress.

I've never understood people getting so upset about matters revolving around editions of games and their presentations.

However this ain't my board and I'm also with those who say that the issue could have been discussed generally, without resort to mentioning edition (if that truly upsets people), though I think Xech did it that way because the article framed the argument that way.

Still I thought it was a kinda interesting thread too.
Gave me a few new ideas.

I hope it doesn't, and suspect it really won't, kill those kinda general idea discussion threads.


----------



## lutecius (Jul 6, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Unfortunately, it's also a valid topic of conversation that really annoys us. So let's avoid any 5e threads for the time being.



_


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jul 6, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> And that no rolling to hit thread was really interesting, even though the concept horrifies me.




It seems interesting as well ... however it doesn't really need to be framed as a 5e issue. Many of the 5e threads could still be interesting topics, discussing RPG design in general ... framing it as a 5e thread just makes it a magnet for edition war stuff to derail it from more important manners.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 6, 2009)

Thank you for killing 5E threads. The check is in the mail.

No, it really is!!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 6, 2009)

Well that means it is time to resurrect some of those 4.5 threads then


----------



## Stereofm (Jul 6, 2009)

I am really sad to read this, as I thought that even if some people derailed the thread that probably prompted this, there was promising exchange, and I wished I could have talked further with some of the posters.

Besides, IMHO, it feels like any criticism of the current edition is also targeted.

While I can undertsand your reasons, I don't see how it helps the hobby as a whole.

I still respect your opinions however, and I will abide by your decision.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 6, 2009)

Curious timing, seeing as a 5e-related speculation article is on today's news board.

Does this mean we are not allowed to discuss future (D+D) game evolution at all?  I ask because *any* such discussion is by default going to be in terms of what might be good/bad/etc. for 5e as that is the next logical evolutionary step for the game, ignoring any 4.5-ish oddities.

Lanefan


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jul 6, 2009)

I'm actually pretty unhappy about this decision. If nothing else, I really was enjoying the "What Sacred Cows will be gone in 5E" thread, and it was a remarkably civil and interesting thread considering the topic.

If nothing else, talking about 5E is a way to talk about what people want to see in D&D and how they want it to grow and transform (which can be very positive and valuable discussions) in a way that isn't as bogged down with edition warring and arguments about current editions. The fact that 5E is clearly some time away, due to the recent edition change, helps that a lot. It has been very different from talking about 4e in the latter years of 3.5e.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 6, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> I'm actually pretty unhappy about this decision. If nothing else, I really was enjoying the "What Sacred Cows will be gone in 5E" thread, and it was a remarkably civil and interesting thread considering the topic.
> 
> If nothing else, talking about 5E is a way to talk about what people want to see in D&D and how they want it to grow and transform (which can be very positive and valuable discussions) in a way that isn't as bogged down with edition warring and arguments about current editions. The fact that 5E is clearly some time away, due to the recent edition change, helps that a lot. It has been very different from talking about 4e in the latter years of 3.5e.



Personally, I saw the "5e" threads as a veiled commentary on WotC's now explicitly stated viewpoint that they have to release a completely new, completely different edition of D&D every so-many years, so they are saying there will be a 5e one day, and it will be way different.  Just how different can you make a game and it still be D&D?

It's a long way from when I first started.  My 2e PHB I bought in '98 even had a big introduction saying it's not 3rd Edition AD&D, and they have no plans to ever make such a game because everybody knows the AD&D rules and among other reasons they want old former players coming back to the game to see that not much has changed (after all 2e wasn't that much different than 1e, especially compared to later edition changes).

In the 3.5 era, we heard denials that 4e was in the works even when we found out later on that it had been quietly under development for some time.  Now we know that at least, in theory, 5e is on the WotC radar (even if it's 6, 7, 8, or 9 years from now) and they probably have some ideas, roughly speaking, about how they are going to shake things up.

But, if that is too much too soon, and apparently annoying the mods we can wait.  We know it's time will come.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 6, 2009)

I too, know 5E's time will come, but this early in 4E it seems more like 4E bashing (which mostly 5E threads devolve to) to talk about 5E right now. In other words an edition war between one edition and a hypothetical one.


----------



## yarael (Jul 6, 2009)

Anyone find it ironic that this thread has devolved unto, essentially, a 5E thread......


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 6, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Well that means it is time to resurrect some of those 4.5 threads then




Good one!


Seriously, though, I find this decision to be really odd.  I mean, as others have said, the mods & Morrus run things, so if that's how they want it, so be it, but it seems a bit antithesis to a discussion board about D&D to stop discussion about the progression/evolution of the game.

Strange days...


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 6, 2009)

Well, the topic of the thread IS discussing 5E...

And I disagree with the person who said those threads devolved into 4E basing.  A lot of them seemed to be very civil.  In fact, I was going to comment that this doesn't really bother me because I don't much care about a 5E and hadn't posted in any of those threads, and I was simply appaled at the unnecessary restrictions on speech.

But...the main reason I haven't been active in the 5E threads is because they seem to be mostly started by people who play 4E, and discuss the next edition in a 4E viewpoint, like what other sacred cows will get killed.  While as I'd be more interested in 5E threads talking about how they can come to their senses and take the game back closer to 3E and prior.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 6, 2009)

Yes, it's a shame that a prohibition of 5e discussion quashed a thread on an interesting game mechanic.  It's also a shame that some threads with an earnest interest in comparing 3e and 4e devolved into flamewars and hurt feelings.  Heck, once in a while I personally wouldn't mind a thread that isn't grandma-friendly.  But overall, I agree with the decision in question, and I thank the moderators for working to keep this forum civil.

By all means, someone start a thread on games that do not use dice to determine whether attacks hit or miss.  I see no intrinsic reason why such a thread should mention 5e.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 6, 2009)

1. This thread should probably be locked.

2. The problem with 5e threads is that people take them as a license to engage in what would otherwise be stunningly poor slippery slope reasoning and veiled edition warring: 

"Based on the direction 4e has chosen, it seems likely that 5e will be shrinkwrapped with a rabies infected rat.  You will have to pay a monthly service fee.  If you don't, WotC will break into your house and take your books.  If you do, they give you a new rat each month."

3. This thread should probably be locked.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 6, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Good one!
> 
> 
> Seriously, though, I find this decision to be really odd.  I mean, as others have said, the mods & Morrus run things, so if that's how they want it, so be it, but it seems a bit antithesis to a discussion board about D&D to stop discussion about the progression/evolution of the game.
> ...




Not really considering unlike 3.X, 4e isn't an rules system that's left open for community based "improvements".  Considering WoTC's legal department likes to keep us wringing our hands, maybe discussing how 4e should/might evolve might bring about legal ramifications?  I for one won't want to  see ENWORLD put out of commission as a result of someone stringing together and posting a  ENWorld thread-based non-official 5e ruleset


----------



## Nifft (Jul 6, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> "Based on the direction 4e has chosen, it seems likely that 5e will be shrinkwrapped with a rabies infected rat.  You will have to pay a monthly service fee.  If you don't, WotC will break into your house and take your books.  If you do, they give you a new rat each month."



 Now, now. If this thread were locked, how could I have chuckled about my inevitable Rat of the Month Club subscription?

"_With ketchup please_", -- N


----------



## Khairn (Jul 6, 2009)

I haven't participated in any of the 5E threads, but I have read most of them and found the majority of the recent discussions to be quite interesting, and sprinkled with only a little rage for seasoning.  Besides, if EN is now declaring a moratorium on all 5E discussions, when would you be planning on lifting that ban?  Is there a time frame or a milestone that needs to be reached before we can start discussing them in the future?


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2009)

Some 5E discussions have moved on to another rpg message board forum.

Google around and you can probably find it in no time.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 7, 2009)

Nifft said:


> Now, now. If this thread were locked, how could I have chuckled about my inevitable Rat of the Month Club subscription?
> 
> *"With ketchup please"*, -- N




Heh, heh. That reminds me of that scene in Freejack where Emilio Estevez meets the homeless guy (Frankie Faison) after climbing out of the river...


Frankie/Homeless Guy: _You want some river rat?_

Emilio/Alex: _How the hell do you eat river rat?!_

Frankie/Homeless Guy: _Well, first you have to cut off the head and the tail. And then you gut it. Then it's all a matter of the sauce. Heh! You don't just plop down a boiled rodent on a plate and say; "Here's your river rat. You want red wine or white with it?"!_


----------



## Crothian (Jul 7, 2009)

Khairn said:


> Is there a time frame or a milestone that needs to be reached before we can start discussing them in the future?




More then likely, yes, and when it is reached the ban will be lifted.  More then likely what the time frame or milestone is will not be announced.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 7, 2009)

Khairn said:


> Is there a time frame or a milestone that needs to be reached before we can start discussing them in the future?



I'm not sure two encounters is really enough time. I imagine the mods would like to take an extended rest from the 5E threads.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jul 7, 2009)

Crothian said:


> More then likely what the time frame or milestone is will not be announced.




I thought it was two encounters without an extended rest.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jul 7, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm not sure two encounters is really enough time. I imagine the mods would like to take an extended rest from the 5E threads.




D'oh!  Missed it by 1 minute.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 7, 2009)

Pseudonym said:


> D'oh!  Missed it by 1 minute.



My higher post count gives me an initiative bonus.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 7, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 1. This thread should probably be locked.



Probably.



> 2. The problem with 5e threads is that people take them as a license to engage in what would otherwise be stunningly poor slippery slope reasoning and veiled edition warring:
> 
> "*Based on the direction 4e has chosen*, it seems likely that 5e will be shrinkwrapped with a rabies infected rat.  You will have to pay a monthly service fee.  If you don't, WotC will break into your house and take your books.  If you do, they give you a new rat each month."



Emphasis mine.

I've seen a lot of interesting, non-flaming arguments start with that phrase. I've also seen a lot of "rabies infected rat" arguments start with that phrase.

Here's the problem as I see it: 2nd screwed it up for everyone else. 2e has lots of fans. I have one in my group, and I've talked to some others recently. But I remember when I first started playing during the 2e era, every D&D player I met hated 2e and loved 1e. Every single one. Now, it's possible (even likely) that my experience isn't typical. However, I will note that when WotC took over TSR one of the first things they did was put out new Greyhawk products. The first 3e rumor I heard (after hearing the rumor that they were going to do 3e, was that the monk and half-orc were coming back to the main rulebooks.

Other RPGs have new editions. Shadowrun has 4, Paranoia and Traveller both have several, Vampire: The Masquarade had 3 and many old World of Darkness games had at least 2, but for some reason it seems to me that AD&D 2e ruined it for future editions.



> 3. This thread should probably be locked.



Probably.


----------



## Psion (Jul 7, 2009)

Why do you hate HERO 5e? 



Fifth Element said:


> My higher post count gives me an initiative bonus.




/me backstabs the flat-footed 5E (Fifth Element, that is)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 7, 2009)

I humbly suggest...if you want to discuss these interesting mechanics without raising the specter of a 5Ed thread, you could simply do it in the 4Ed HR section.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 7, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Here's the problem as I see it: 2nd screwed it up for everyone else. 2e has lots of fans. I have one in my group, and I've talked to some others recently.




I agree on blaming 2e...i disagree on why. You see back when 1e became 2e it was alot of little things adding up. Infact many people where useing house rules for 1e simalar to 2e. (I have even herd it ssaid that 'true' D&D is in mixing those two systems.)

How ever it lasted for a long time. Back in the early 90's or mid 90's it was still going, and new products never looked like they would stop. I know my group at the time WotC anounced 3e laughed...how could you improve on perfection. Then I started reading previews in Dragon. I was one of the first to buy the 3.0 book in my group.

As of last saterday when we were all talking about it (me, 3 people from my old 2e days, 2 people who only played 2e a little, and my brother in law that skiped 2e, and 3.0, then only played 3 games in 3.5) and the general thought was weather you liked or hated 3/3.5/4e none of us could go back to thac0 on a regular basies...

Now how is this a problem...people expect 2e life span on all edtions...how ever it just is not hapening...My guess is we will never see a true 10+ year edtion again...and I am very split on how I feel about that...



> Other RPGs have new editions. Shadowrun has 4, Paranoia and Traveller both have several, Vampire: The Masquarade had 3 and many old World of Darkness games had at least 2, but for some reason it seems to me that AD&D 2e ruined it for future editions.






Aren't Gurps and Cathulu both eaither in double digits or close for edtions...and both came out AFTER D&D....

some how D&D was the only system people thought of as "never changeing"


----------



## Noumenon (Jul 7, 2009)

> the mods & Morrus run things,




I was wondering who the "us" was in the original announcement.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 7, 2009)

It is a little weird. I enjoy theoretical ideas of how the game will evolve. I think 4e went a few more steps into asking people what D&D "is" (e.g.: combat-based kill monsters and take stuff, or dungeon survival and resource management), and 5e discussion continues that idea.

But then I realize that people will sometimes take almost any opening to go edition warring...



> While as I'd be more interested in 5E threads talking about how they can come to their senses and take the game back closer to 3E and prior.




Ah, yes, I can see now how 5e discussion can bring out the sniping in posters. Maybe not a bad choice for a few months. 

We've got 4e 'till at least 2013, by the earliest bet, so as long as the ban is lifeted by 2010, that still gives us a year or two to poke and prod the potential designers of 5e with our message board conversations.  

Still, I hope the ban does get lifted, soon. You'd think after a year of edition wars, people would be able to ignore comments like the one above and go on to discuss things of substance, rather than feeding the attack dogs.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 7, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> How ever it lasted for a long time. Back in the early 90's or mid 90's it was still going, and new products never looked like they would stop.



I started playing in the late 90s so, and I didn't think it would stop either.



> As of last saterday when we were all talking about it (me, 3 people from my old 2e days, 2 people who only played 2e a little, and my brother in law that skiped 2e, and 3.0, then only played 3 games in 3.5) and the general thought was weather you liked or hated 3/3.5/4e none of us could go back to thac0 on a regular basies...



It is weird, isn't it? To be honest, I was never comfortable with 2e combat.



> Now how is this a problem...people expect 2e life span on all edtions...how ever it just is not hapening...My guess is we will never see a true 10+ year edtion again...and I am very split on how I feel about that...



Me to. Frankly, I wanted 3.5 to keep going. I knew that a 4th edition would really split the community. Now I love 4th as much as I loved 3.0 and as much as I loved 3.5. It's possible I'm just a D&D slut.



> Aren't Gurps and Cathulu both eaither in double digits or close for edtions...and both came out AFTER D&D....



GURPS is on 4th. 3rd lasted a good long while, but I believe they put out a revised 3rd at some point. IIRC Call of Cuthul is on 6th, not counting the d20 version. Hero put out a revision of their 5th edition not to long ago.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 1. This thread should probably be locked.




Perhaps, but not just yet.  We like feedback, and someone might present a take that we hadn't thought of yet.



> 2. The problem with 5e threads is that people take them as a license to engage in what would otherwise be stunningly poor slippery slope reasoning and veiled edition warring




Yah.  Folks seem to underestimate how... much we rubbed each other raw over the past months.  Even if you had no intention of criticizing any particular prior edition, someone's going to take it that way.  We're sorry that's how it turned out, but it is how things are.

Given that virtually any discussion of new possible mechanics can be had without any mention of edition, this isn't really much of a topic ban.  If you want to talk about diceless combat mechanics, go ahead and start a thread on "Diceless combat mechanics".  Just don't start one on "5e: Diceless combat mechanics"

Heck, I'd welcome discussion about new possible mechanics - let the homebrew roll!  It isn't like worrying about 5e now is going to make your current game any better.  Talking about interesting new mechanics might, though.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 7, 2009)

Its just that talking about 5E a little after the one year anniversary of 4E is a little bit in bad taste. Talking about the upcoming 5th edition kind of implies the death of 4th, be it for accidental or passive aggressive reasons.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

The only thread I'd find interesting would be a pool guessing when it would be released, minimum X years in the future.  But that'd probably violate some laws against gambling.

Contents of the edition might make for side-wagers, but could be difficult. 

I don't see much to discuss that can't be handled elsewhere.  Rules changes would just as easily fit in the house rules sections as anywhere.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 7, 2009)

Pseudopsyche said:


> By all means, someone start a thread on games that do not use dice to determine whether attacks hit or miss.  I see no intrinsic reason why such a thread should mention 5e.



Me either. Someone, start one!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 7, 2009)

> Given that virtually any discussion of new possible mechanics can be had without any mention of edition, this isn't really much of a topic ban.




Well, my own view -- and I preface this by saying that I am a wacky fringe group  -- is that it limits conversation of D&D as a whole. We can't really discuss much of the "direction that the game is taking," or rampantly speculate about what Wizards sees as working or not working, or converse about the changes we'd like to see that would require a new edition, rather than just homebrewing (the benefits and drawbacks to the Powers system, for instance, or how to introduce more resource management without bogging down gameplay).

It's troublesome because, since 4e is still pretty fresh, what kind of direction the game might take (what innovations work, what doesn't, and why) is particularly fresh in the minds of a lot of posters. 

Put another way, a conversation about no roll-to-hit mechanics in general is quite different from a conversation about no roll-to-hit mechanics _in D&D_. 

Not that it's a bad thing to kibosh those latter conversations for a while, but I know people were vehemently arguing against the need for mechanical changes to 3e right up until the announcement for 4e, and still debating those changes today, so I do hope the conversation about where 4e might be headed can be permitted again at some close future point.


----------



## Jack7 (Jul 7, 2009)

> Me either. Someone, start one!




*Okay*


----------



## Noumenon (Jul 7, 2009)

> talking about 5E a little after the one year anniversary of 4E is a little bit in bad taste.




I kind of expected Wizards to do like with Magic the Gathering and start having new editions regularly.



> Folks seem to underestimate how... much we rubbed each other raw over the past months.




There's that "we" again, that isn't me.  I think it's because I just don't keep reading those 20-page-long threads after they devolve into edition wars.  So for me, the edition wars don't exist.  At least not any farther than I'm willing to read them.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2009)

Noumenon said:


> There's that "we" again, that isn't me.




Wow.  Sounds like you had the moral high ground, and you just squandered it in pointless nitpickery.    

Folks, it doesn't matter exactly who did what.  As a practical matter, we _all_ need to deal with how touchy folks have become.  You can be a constructive part of that, or not.  Your choice.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Folks, it doesn't matter exactly who did what.  As a practical matter, we _all_ need to deal with how touchy folks have become.  You can be a constructive part of that, or not.  Your choice.




I'd rather say that *it does matter* who did what. That's the point of taking responsibility for our actions. What we really have to do is deal with how touchy we *ourselves* have become, and that includes moderation. Our reactions to people's posts are the root of the problem and the source of edition wars, not the trolling which should be ignored. Do we let a criticism slide, address it politely, or respond snarkily? Criticism *will* happen and *should* happen.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Folks, it doesn't matter exactly who did what.  As a practical matter, we _all_ need to deal with how touchy folks have become.  You can be a constructive part of that, or not.  Your choice.



Sure, but what's the plan?

The only thing I'm touchy about are the roving band of bi^h^hzealots that jump in on any mention of their pet peeves and use that as an excuse to spew their passive-aggressive hate for their fellow gamers. Call games I like crap? No problem. That's just opinion. Call my play style crap? Well, my skin should be thick enough to handle that. Call me crap because of my play style or what games I like? That's where I get touchy.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 7, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Talking about the upcoming 5th edition kind of implies the death of 4th, be it for accidental or passive aggressive reasons.



Why is this a problem?


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 7, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, my own view -- and I preface this by saying that I am a wacky fringe group  -- is that it limits conversation of D&D as a whole. We can't really discuss much of the "direction that the game is taking," or rampantly speculate about what Wizards sees as working or not working, or converse about the changes we'd like to see that would require a new edition, rather than just homebrewing (the benefits and drawbacks to the Powers system, for instance, or how to introduce more resource management without bogging down gameplay).



Part of the problem with trying to determine the direction WotC is taking D&D is that we only have 2 (3, if you count 3.5 as it's own edition) editions of D&D to discuss.





4e is only WotC's second full edition of D&D.

So, while your are correct that " a conversation about no roll-to-hit mechanics in general is quite different from a conversation about no roll-to-hit mechanics in D&D." it's important to remember that the later is mostly speculation when it comes to what direction D&D is taking under WotC and, in my opinion, not particularly useful.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 7, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I'd rather say that *it does matter* who did what. That's the point of taking responsibility for our actions. What we really have to do is deal with how touchy we *ourselves* have become, and that includes moderation. Our reactions to people's posts are the root of the problem and the source of edition wars, not the trolling which should be ignored. Do we let a criticism slide, address it politely, or respond snarkily? Criticism *will* happen and *should* happen.



Hear hear.

Debates and arguments will and should also happen...isn't that, along with information exchange, in essence what these forums are for?



			
				fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Part of the problem with trying to determine the direction WotC is taking D&D is that we only have 2 (3, if you count 3.5 as it's own edition) editions of D&D to discuss.



In truth, there's been at least 4 editons of the game so far - or more depending how fine one makes the distinctions - designed largely by 4 different batches of people working for two different companies.  Discussing the direction of where *WotC* takes the game matters only if WotC is still at the helm if-when the game takes its next direction change.  Discussing the direction of where the D+D game goes *in general* (i.e. regardless who designs or publishes it) is, or at least should be, valid at all times.

And yes, those discussions will (and, I posit, almost must) at times become confrontational.  We all have different ideas of what we'd like to see or not see in the game, and thus which direction we'd like to try and push the game's direction in...and sometimes those ideas are just plain gonna clash.  It's not that any of us care about the game any the less; we just disagree on where it should go and how it can get there.

In threads like that, I almost want to imagine us as the ultra-preliminary design team, sitting around a great big table arguing over what comes next. 

Lan-"and will there be Flumphs?"-efan


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 7, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> Why is this a problem?




Because some of us come here to talk about the game we love instead of listening to people tell us why they hate the game we love in every single freaking thread. Seriously, why do people spend so much time spreading negativity instead of talking about the things they like, I will never understand. If you do not like 4e, talk about 3.x, 2e, 1e, OD&D or whatever is your poison.


----------



## rounser (Jul 7, 2009)

> Discussing the direction of where the D+D game goes *in general* (i.e. regardless who designs or publishes it) is, or at least should be, valid at all times.



Unless you want to discourage metatalk about the game rules, and have everyone talk exclusively about ways to use the rules as written, and not question them.  

For people happy with 4E, this is obviously preferable to continual implied challenges to it's rules, direction, marketing and philosophy...the idea that some people might be happier with something else as the game's flagship edition....and with these 5E threads, the reminder that it has a limited lifespan.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 7, 2009)

rounser said:


> Unless you want to discourage metatalk about the game rules, and have everyone talk exclusively about ways to use the rules as written, and not question them.
> 
> For people happy with 4E, this is obviously preferable to continual implied challenges to it's rules, direction, marketing and philosophy...the idea that some people might be happier with something else as the game's flagship edition....and with these 5E threads, the reminder that it has a limited lifespan.



This right here is an example of exactly what we DON'T need.

For people happy with 4E? I really don't think it's helpful to generalize the bad behavior like that. If it was true the edition war threads would be 200 pages rather than 20 pages. I don't really think the typical 4E player gives a fast flying flip what you or I think of the marketing and philosophy of his game.

I think there's only maybe a dozen or so constantly 'touchy' guys here that keep the trouble stirred up.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 7, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Hear hear.
> 
> Debates and arguments will and should also happen...isn't that, along with information exchange, in essence what these forums are for?



This is the right attitude.



Jack99 said:


> Because some of us come here to talk about the game we love instead of listening to people tell us why they hate the game we love in every single freaking thread. Seriously, why do people spend so much time spreading negativity instead of talking about the things they like, I will never understand. If you do not like 4e, talk about 3.x, 2e, 1e, OD&D or whatever is your poison.



and this is just about the opposite.



Lanefan said:


> Lan-"and will there be Flumphs?"-efan



As long as there's D&D, there will be flumphs. Someway and somehow.

And commoner killing cats...


----------



## rounser (Jul 7, 2009)

> This right here is an example of exactly what we DON'T need.



What? What are you taking offense to in _that_?


> For people happy with 4E? I really don't think it's helpful to generalize the bad behavior like that.



I'm not.


> I think there's only maybe a dozen or so constantly 'touchy' guys here that keep the trouble stirred up.



Okay.  And I suppose you're automatically not one of them?


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 7, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> and this is just about the opposite.




Sorry, but how is saying, that people should be more positive and talk about what they like instead of constantly trashing what they do not like, the wrong attitude?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 7, 2009)

There were similar rules against 4E threads before 4E was announced.

I personally think that speculating what 5E will be is pretty much pointless. Does 4E look as predicted by anyone in the 4E pre-release-announcement threads? 

What is not pointless is discussing design elements of existing games (not limited to D&D) and how they could be adapted, changed or expanded. I find those discussions very interesting. they don't have to involve denigrating play styles or anthing. One of the big problem of framing it in a D&D xE context is that people with different play styles still see themselves as D&D players, and if the "proposed" edition (as predicted by someone else) doesn't represent their play style, they might get defensive. 
If you discuss design without implying this is what D&D will become next, you can avoid that. The proposed ideas are just ideas for any type of game, maybe D&D like, maybe not, but at least it won't imply that your favorite game moves further away from what you already like.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 7, 2009)

rounser said:


> What? What are you taking offense to in _that_?



You're equating 4E fan with bad behavior. How could that be helpful?

In context, I'm guessing we're both fans of older editions. Did I get that wrong and you're a 4e fan being sarcastic?



rounser said:


> Okay.  And I suppose you're automatically not one of them?



My post count would be much higher if I was.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 7, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Sorry, but how is saying, that people should be more positive and talk about what they like instead of constantly trashing what they do not like, the wrong attitude?



I think it would be better to be able to discuss both what we like and what we don't like as long as we can do it without being a jackass.

Only talk about the positive? This place would be an echo chamber.


----------



## rounser (Jul 7, 2009)

> You're equating 4E fan with bad behavior. How could that be helpful?



No, I'm not, and I'm not sure where you're getting that.  I'm just saying that it's potentially in a 4E enthusiast's interests to shut down perceived challenges to the 4E way of doing things by censoring discussion in this way.  

Under such a ban on meta discussion of the game and it's direction, you could instead just restrict talk to the 4E way of doing things, rather than suggesting that there might be other ways to go, or other such perceived challenges to the current status quo.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 7, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> I think it would be better to be able to discuss both what we like and what we don't like as long as we can do it without being a jackass.
> 
> Only talk about the positive? This place would be an echo chamber.



I think there is a difference between negativism and constructive criticism.

I think there is little point in discussing a game you do not like. You can be more productive discussing a game you do like and help to make it even better for you or others. You can't really critique something constructively you don't like at all. You have to tear it apart. 
You can go the other way - you start with a game you like, and then add elements from a game that itself you dislike, but that has some elements you find attractive. 

But if there are just certain elements of an edition you don't like, that can be discussion worthy. There is a hope that you or someone else finds a way to "fix" it, or maybe someone can even help you understand the element better and maybe you grow to like it after all, once seen in a different context or different focus.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 7, 2009)

rounser said:


> No, I'm not, and I'm not sure where you're getting that.  I'm just saying that it's potentially in a 4E enthusiast's interests to shut down perceived challenges to the 4E way of doing things by censoring discussion in this way.



Trying to shut down discussion like that is bad behavior. I only see four people here trying to do that, so I don't think it's '4E enthusiasts' in general. Do you see my point?



rounser said:


> Under such a ban on meta discussion of the game and it's direction, you could instead just restrict talk to the 4E way of doing things, rather than suggesting that there might be other ways to go, or other such perceived challenges to the current status quo.



I'd hate to see such a ban and I don't think it'll go that far. I agree with your principle but I don't agree that there's much of a threat of that happening. This is just a 5E ban.

And 6E I guess...


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 7, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> I think it would be better to be able to discuss both what we like and what we don't like as long as we can do it without being a jackass.
> 
> Only talk about the positive? This place would be an echo chamber.




You completely missed my point. I am not saying we should be all positive, but I am recommending that people talk about the game they like, not the one they dislike, because as MR mentions, it rarely leads to constructive criticism, which is the only good and valid criticism. 

I like 4e, I guess that's not a secret. That doesn't mean that I love every single aspect of it, or that I wouldn't change certain things, if I was in charge. And I certainly do not mind debating those things. But I can not do that. It takes exactly 3.2 post on average, and we will have the first telling us how 4e is a video-game, how Rouse stole his girlfriend or how Mearls dressed up as a ninja and ruined his D&D game. Or how WotC can't be trusted, how they lied, or how all their digital initiatives sucks and are vaporware, how Pathfinder is the one true D&D, etc etc, ad nauseum. 

That has very little to do with constructive criticism or debating. Where I come from, it's called whining, and it ruins any sort of attempt we have at ever debating and improving D&D. 

So yeah, I think it would be better if people stuck to talking about the game they actually like. I am pretty sure we would get much farther than we do now.

Cheers

Edit: removed something that could have been misunderstood.


----------



## rounser (Jul 7, 2009)

> Trying to shut down discussion like that is bad behavior.



I wouldn't put it that way exactly (and didn't).  I was just pointing out what I'd consider an "obvious" potential conflict of interest in this case.


> I only see four people here trying to do that, so I don't think it's '4E enthusiasts' in general. Do you see my point?



I see your point, but I'm not saying all are trying to do that, simply that it's congruent with such interests.


> I'd hate to see such a ban and I don't think it'll go that far. I agree with your principle but I don't agree that there's much of a threat of that happening. This is just a 5E ban.



I think shutting down discussion in this way does _exactly_ that.  "Just" a 5E ban hits right at the heart of meta discussion of how the game _could_ be, and neatly knocks commie traitor talk of there one day being a 5E on the head, reinforcing the status quo as rightfully having no end, as who can possibly improve upon it?  

4E is your friend, citizen.  

(Not that I think this is necessarily the motivation behind the ban, obviously, but rather a side effect of it.  Come to think of it, Paranoia style moderation next april 1st could be amusing...)


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 7, 2009)

rounser said:


> I think shutting down discussion in this way does _exactly_ that.  "Just" a 5E ban hits right at the heart of meta discussion of how the game _could_ be, and neatly knocks commie traitor talk of there one day being a 5E on the head, reinforcing the status quo as rightfully having no end, as who can possibly improve upon it?



I think the mods have made it clear that discussion is as welcome as it's always been, just don't couch it in terms of a mythical 5E, because it's getting up their goats. Seems simple enough to me.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 7, 2009)

This site doesn't cater only to 4e fans, and I do believe that the mods have stated that they like it that way.

Since some games are better suited to some play styles than others, threads comparing and contrasting the suitability of different versions of D&D for different styles of campaigns can be constructive even if many of the participants don't like every game discussed. Limiting people to only discussing games they like is silly. I don't want somebody to be excluded just because they disagree with you guys. The key here isn't WHO takes part in a discussion, but how somebody behaves in the discussion. If somebody wants to blame everything on Mearl's underwear then ignore it and let the mods deal with it.


----------



## Noumenon (Jul 7, 2009)

Are there any other games like Magic: the Gathering, where you welcome a 5th and 6th edition because they bring in new people but you can keep playing with your 3rd and 4th edition cards?  Or is it going to be like the NBA where new rules mean you have to change your game too?



> Wow. Sounds like you had the moral high ground, and you just squandered it in pointless nitpickery.
> 
> Folks, it doesn't matter exactly who did what.




I don't think I got my point across here.  What I'm saying is most discussion boards don't have any small group of people who can say "We don't like this kind of thread.  We've been getting on each other's nerves too much."  On my Buffy the Vampire Slayer boards, or LiveJournal, or JoeUser.com, if somebody said "I think we need a no-fight policy" or "I think we've all been on edge lately" I'd think they meant to include me as part of the "we," or else they'd say "I."

Maybe that is what you meant by "we rubbed each other raw," that everybody here was doing it.  I was just primed by the first post to read it like you meant a smaller group that was fed up.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 7, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> This site doesn't cater only to 4e fans, and I do believe that the mods have stated that they like it that way.
> 
> Since some games are better suited to some play styles than others, threads comparing and contrasting the suitability of different versions of D&D for different styles of campaigns can be constructive even if many of the participants don't like every game discussed. Limiting people to only discussing games they like is silly. I don't want somebody to be excluded just because they disagree with you guys. The key here isn't WHO takes part in a discussion, but how somebody behaves in the discussion. If somebody wants to blame everything on Mearl's underwear then ignore it and let the mods deal with it.




Of course ENworld doesn't cater only to 4e fans, that's not what I was implying, nor is it something I would want. Diversity is great. And while you might find it silly, it should be pretty obvious by now that the "HOW" doesn't work well, which is why I suggest the "WHO" approach. If people were just a little more restrained, the "HOW"-approach is definitely better, but a lot aren't, and repeated warning/bannings apparently doesn't change things. 

Cheers


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 7, 2009)

> mostly speculation when it comes to what direction D&D is taking under WotC and, in my opinion, not particularly useful.




If you removed speculation from the conversations at ENWorld, you would probably halve the number of posts on the site.  

Speculation is also useful because it lets people tune into what they might view as "D&D." It helps expand and change your own games, and the core game, since WotC does pay pretty close attention to what the fans say (I'm sure filtered through a lot of layers of knowledge, but still). 

It's only harmful to speculate when snark is thrown in. Implying that 5e might have no to-hit mechanic isn't edition wars: there's a lot of discussion about D&D history, the benefits and drawbacks, feel and goals, to be had there. Snarking that 5e will have no to-hit mechanic because players today are coddled and spoiled by constant rewards like in 3e and 4e is getting closer to edition warring, but even then, there's a valid point to be made. Saying just that 5e might come and that you are glad that 4e dies kicking and screaming is pretty blatant edition warring, and the 5e threads do attract that kind of poster, so I think I can see why the mods decided to make this taboo, but rampant speculation threads are part and parcel of talking about the game we all love (perhaps in different versions ) and where it might wind up in the next six or so years.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 7, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> So yeah, I think it would be better if people stuck to talking about the game they actually like. I am pretty sure we would get much farther than we do now.




If we followed this guideline, how would WotC or anybody else potentially involved in the next step in the development of D&D (5e) know what it was that lost us from their market or how they could get us back? Or what supplemental materials might appeal to use from third party publishers?

Besides, we may not like it, but we may actually still be playing it. Why should we be prevented from talking about a game we're playing?


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 7, 2009)

rounser said:


> No, I'm not, and I'm not sure where you're getting that.  I'm just saying that it's potentially in a 4E enthusiast's interests to shut down perceived challenges to the 4E way of doing things by censoring discussion in this way.



Conversely, someone could say it's potentially in a 4E hater's interests to encourage discussion of 5E, either to state how D&D is headed in the "wrong direction" (as happened in the recent no-dice thread after many people first stated that they wouldn't play such a game) or to proclaim a need for D&D to "get back on track".  Ascribing motivations to other posters just doesn't seem productive, and it tends to make people defensive.  As we are already seeing in this thread.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 7, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> I think it would be better to be able to discuss both what we like and what we don't like as long as we can do it without being a jackass.



Yeah, in an ideal world we could all compare and contrast 3e and 4e in a completely civil manner.  In this ideal world, we could also discuss politics, religion, and race, and how these real-world issues might inform RPGs.  In practice, you either have to draw a line somewhere or allow a free-for-all.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 7, 2009)

Interestingly, a lot of posts in this thread are making me reconsider my stubborn objections to the topic. Hmm. Stupid people, be less reasonable!


----------



## La Bete (Jul 7, 2009)

billd91 said:


> If we followed this guideline, how would WotC or anybody else potentially involved in the next step in the development of D&D (5e) know what it was that lost us from their market or how they could get us back? Or what supplemental materials might appeal to use from third party publishers?
> 
> Besides, we may not like it, but we may actually still be playing it. Why should we be prevented from talking about a game we're playing?




Here's the thing - that may be true, but is there anything worng with not having these discussions "for now", and reopening them in a month or two when tempers cool again?


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 7, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Interestingly, a lot of posts in this thread are making me reconsider my stubborn objections to the topic. Hmm. Stupid people, be less reasonable!




Open up a few threads and it just might happen.   And then where would you be?  Damping down the inferno you wanted to prevent?   Doesn't seem to be that much of a dilemma to me.  

A few weeks, or months without the subject won't cause any real harm as far as I know, and it's not like there's anything pressing to discuss. Is there?


----------



## ggroy (Jul 7, 2009)

Another option would be open up a separate forum dedicated to 5E types of discussions.  Any such 5E threads which are posted in the "General RPG Discussion" can and will be moved to the 5E discussion forum.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jul 7, 2009)

To quote a famous pundit, I Called it!

5E threads have become a fad due to things like...
*people realizing that games can change over time
*wishful thinking that 5E will be some perfect RPG
*an excuse to have edition wars
*wondering what the future will hold


----------



## billd91 (Jul 7, 2009)

La Bete said:


> Here's the thing - that may be true, but is there anything worng with not having these discussions "for now", and reopening them in a month or two when tempers cool again?




They're never going to cool. Or, more accurately, if we suppress a topic until "tempers cool" we're leaving board moderation up to the group who raises a snit over a topic, whether reasonable or not. All you have to do is get your temper up to exert a veto on the discussion.


----------



## La Bete (Jul 7, 2009)

Actually we have seen two recent sucessfull interventions:

(1) The "no edition wars" around the time of the 4e launch. This kept the worst of the edition warriors from each others throats for a while, and allowed discussion on more useful areas to flourish.

(2) PDF/WotC is teh suxxorz threads moved to the sewer. Pulling all those threads into a temp forum allowed them to be moderated more easily, and made them "out of sight, out of mind" for many.

There has been a number of comments on a number of forums that the "edition wars" are back - it strikes me as perfectly reasonable that the volunteer moderators of a site like ENWorld choose to temporarily restrict some contentious topics for a limited period.

As I think has been said by the mods: they're here to keep the peace - so if they think that their job would be made easier by this, then fine. And hey - PCat may be changing his mind on this one!


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jul 7, 2009)

La Bete said:


> Actually we have seen two recent sucessfull interventions:
> 
> (1) The "no edition wars" around the time of the 4e launch. This kept the worst of the edition warriors from each others throats for a while, and allowed discussion on more useful areas to flourish.
> 
> ...



You know, people keep comparing the 5E threads to edition wars and such, but I am not really seeing it. There were only really a handful of them for a few days, and of all the different ones I read, none seemed particularly full of flames or hurt feelings. The various threads about the Forgotten Realms and Elminster were far more full of flames and hot tempers, and the 5E threads were fairly civil.

The truth is, while people here are arguing that 5E threads are doomed to failure and edition warring, I think the actual threads prove that it is not the case. Sure, there may be one or two mean-spirited posts, but that is the case no matter what is the subject of discussion, and nothing about the topic itself seemed to actually aggravate it.

Comparing this to the threads discussing 4E after the original 4E announcement and close to the 4E launch is flawed, I think, simply because the situation is totally different. Those discussions were talking about a new edition that was concrete and real, and was clearly going to be something that some people didn't exactly want. 5E, though, is little more than a dream, and it little more than a name to give to what people want to see in an "ideal edition". After all, what we talk about in those threads doesn't have to resemble the eventual 5E in order to be relevant.

Overall, I think I would be happier if the ban was merely on speculation regarding what WotC would do with 5E, rather than the discussion of what people want to see in 5E or what would work in 5E. If that makes any sense...

On a side note, I'm getting a little annoyed at all the people equating the discussion of 5E with people who hate 4E. I love 4E, and prefer it to all previous editions, but I really enjoy talking about the future of the game and the ways in which the game could be improved even further. You don't need to hate the current edition in order to want to see a better new edition.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 7, 2009)

billd91 said:


> If we followed this guideline, how would WotC or anybody else potentially involved in the next step in the development of D&D (5e) know what it was that lost us from their market or how they could get us back? Or what supplemental materials might appeal to use from third party publishers?



The guideline seemed to contain something like "constructive criticism". If that was everyone was doing, there was no "moratorium". 

Personally I think it wouldn't even be wrong when someone started a thread. "I don't like anything about 4E. Recommend a good game system to me that I can play instead." But this kind of thread would most likely go up in flaming between edition warriors. The thing is not that "reasonable" debate is impossible, it's just that unreasonable debate is more likely. That is the same reason why religion and politics are not discussed - they incite peoples emotion and even if there are hundreds of posters that could do so reasonably, there are dozens of posters that won't and those will stick out and make the thread difficult to the other hundreds.



> Besides, we may not like it, but we may actually still be playing it. Why should we be prevented from talking about a game we're playing?



Well, we are definitely not playing 5E yet, right?


----------



## avin (Jul 7, 2009)

Maybe we could have a single topic for every 5E speculation (who doesn't like speculation?) and other topics to be deleted.

Even 4E DMs such as me would like to speculate and express what changed they would made.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 7, 2009)

Could you please reduce your broad statement to yourself, instead of everyone, or even all 4E DMs, because I disagree on both points.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 7, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If you removed speculation from the conversations at ENWorld, you would probably halve the number of posts on the site.



Probably. 



> Speculation is also useful because it lets people tune into what they might view as "D&D." It helps expand and change your own games, and the core game, since WotC does pay pretty close attention to what the fans say (I'm sure filtered through a lot of layers of knowledge, but still).



You are right. Speculation is useful, in general.



> It's only harmful to speculate when snark is thrown in.



I disagree, for reasons I'll get into in just a moment.



> Implying that 5e might have no to-hit mechanic isn't edition wars:



True.



> there's a lot of discussion about D&D history, the benefits and drawbacks, feel and goals, to be had there. Snarking that 5e will have no to-hit mechanic because players today are coddled and spoiled by constant rewards like in 3e and 4e is getting closer to edition warring, but even then, there's a valid point to be made. Saying just that 5e might come and that you are glad that 4e dies kicking and screaming is pretty blatant edition warring, and the 5e threads do attract that kind of poster, so I think I can see why the mods decided to make this taboo, but rampant speculation threads are part and parcel of talking about the game we all love (perhaps in different versions ) and where it might wind up in the next six or so years.



Good points.

Speculation is harmful when there is not enough data to speculate from. The reason is that speculating from to little data attracts the kind of bad posts you just described. Without actual evidence, the speculation is more emotional than factual and is less accurate. Yes, as someone else pointed out, we have more than 4 editions of D&D, but generally speaking, we're talking about the direction Wizards of the Coast of is taking Dungeons and Dragons, not Williams' TSR, not Gygax's TSR, WotC. And for that, we have 2 and half (or 3).

When 4e was announced, speculation was more grounded in reality. We had Book of Nine Swords and Star Wars Saga Edition to base projections on. Eventually, WotC started leaking information and ENWorld even hosted a PDF of what 4e might look like based on everything we knew. That kind of speculation is useful because it helps people make decisions and start making intelligent decisions. At this point, we don't know have a lot of information about what they might have in store for 5e. For one thing, new mechanics in 4e may be discarded in favor of older mechanics or replaced with older mechanics. 3e introduced new mechanics with regards to a PC's or NPC's power lever: level adjustment and effective character level. These mechanics simply don't exist in 4e.

So any argument that says "well, this is a new mechanic in 4e and it was introduced to solve this problem, so we can assume they will continue to go into this direction in future editions and therefore..." is flawed because it assumes that the designers will want to continue in that direction. An assumption that is demonstrably flawed and simply doesn't have enough data to support it.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 7, 2009)

billd91 said:


> If we followed this guideline, how would WotC or anybody else potentially involved in the next step in the development of D&D (5e) know what it was that lost us from their market or how they could get us back? Or what supplemental materials might appeal to use from third party publishers?



Well, you could write them a letter.

Or you could post to Usenet.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 7, 2009)

> Speculation is harmful when there is not enough data to speculate from.




There's _never_ "enough data" to speculate from. That's kind of what makes it speculation. It's theoretical discussion about pie-in-the-sky "what may be." Some things are more realistic than others (I'd say the "no to-hit mechanic" is in the middle), but even the most outlandish speculation is at least of some interest, because, well, if someone seriously thinks 5e might be about Space Aliens, it's interesting to see what kind of D&D they're envisioning. 



> So any argument that says "well, this is a new mechanic in 4e and it was introduced to solve this problem, so we can assume they will continue to go into this direction in future editions and therefore..." is flawed because it assumes that the designers will want to continue in that direction. An assumption that is demonstrably flawed and simply doesn't have enough data to support it.




It's not an argument, it's speculation. It's rampant hypothesis. It's futurism. Maybe in 10 years we'll have flying electric cars. Maybe in 10 years D&D will be mostly online with books considered "loss leaders." Maybe in 10 years, the music industry as we know it will be dead.

This is fun conversation to have, even if there's scads of contradictory evidence, or no real evidence whatsoever, because it involves people's hopes and dreams and nightmares and visions for what may and could possibly happen. 

I don't think a conversation has to be entirely factual to be interesting and relevant, really.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 8, 2009)

Another thought just occurred to me: 

We all know the current game owners (WotC, of late) watch this site and others as a gauge on how the more loyal fans of the game see said game in its past, present, and future.  Well, if we can't discuss its future and by extension tell them what we'd like to see (and thus become/remain loyal to), are we not doing them a dis-service?

By the same token, this also validates expression of the opinion "No 5e at all, please", along with "Things are fine as they are now" and "Things were fine as they were at time x and since then have deteriorated".

And, FWIW, while someone earlier suggested framing discussions in non-D+D terms, I - and I'll go out on a limb here and say I expect many others - assume any and all discussions here are about D+D specifically (whatever editions) unless clearly labelled otherwise; as this is a D+D forum.  Thus, when discussing new ideas, changes, developments, or whatever, we are talking about the future of *D+D*.  And if the game *is* to change and develop (a safe assumption, I think), then that future lies either in significant refinements to 4e, or in some sort of 5e.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, we are definitely not playing 5E yet, right?



You sure about that? 



Lan-"I've lost count of what edition my game is up to"-efan


----------



## GVDammerung (Jul 8, 2009)

I disagree with the ban.

Accepting for purposes of discussion of the ban that “5e” is code for “4e sucks” and hence “edition warring,” something important is being missed, I think. The biggest story to emerge from 4e is how the D&D community has been split; edition wars are merely the most obvious symptom of the split. Banning the most egregious examples of “edition warring” on a poster by poster basis is fine. Banning discussion of a potential 5e throws the baby out with the bathwater. Such an overbroad ban:

1st – Ignores the hulking presence of the split in the D&D community and makes EN World look by turns silly and Pollyanna-like.

2nd – Appears too easily as defacto taking sides in the edition wars - as an endorsement of the status quo or past as the only legitimate discussion, necessarily isolating those unhappy with the status quo and not yet ready to live only in the past.

3rd – Removes any hope of positively addressing the split via a discussion of D&D’s future that perforce is something relevant to all D&D players, not just Edition X or Edition Y. The future is common to fans of all editions.

The split in the D&D community occasioned by the release of 4e happened. The split continues. It is relevant. On any relevant D&D forum it should be able to be discussed as it effects D&D now and going forward. Ignoring it with bans, when individual posters who discuss the split only in terms of “edition wars” can be censored instead, is misguided and destructive of EN World’s reputation as THE place for D&D discussion.

YMMV


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 8, 2009)

GVDammerung said:


> I disagree with the ban.
> 
> Accepting for purposes of discussion of the ban that “5e” is code for “4e sucks” and hence “edition warring,” something important is being missed, I think. The biggest story to emerge from 4e is how the D&D community has been split; edition wars are merely the most obvious symptom of the split. Banning the most egregious examples of “edition warring” on a poster by poster basis is fine. Banning discussion of a potential 5e throws the baby out with the bathwater.



I disagree that 4E "split the community", or that the fractures in the community are somehow the result of 4E. 4E didn't "split" the community any more than a sculptor "splits" a stone when he chisels off a piece. I think some folks tend to grossly exaggerate the proportions of the "split" to be 50/50, when in reality it seems more like 20/80 or more in favour of 4E.

If the community was "fractured" it was already so when 4E was announced.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 8, 2009)

The community is and has been split into myraid small pie es, though two of the larger pieces are 3.X and 4E, there are otehr good-sized pieces like Pathfinder, 2E and so on, plus os many small pieces (other systems and sub-editions) that no one can count them all. 

What we need to do it respect each piece of the community, but that does not mean we need to discuss the different pieces ad nauseum. I know people still play the basic box, some do 2E, some do True20, or other games I have never heard of.  But I have no real need to hear WHY they play those game, and I'll be a dollar to a donut that they care just as much about my reasons for the gaming I do.

I think discussing the split or different editions (including new editions) will jsut be rehashing old ground that has already bred enough flame wars already.


----------



## Bumbles (Jul 8, 2009)

When has the D&D community, let alone the RPG community be a monolithic whole anyway?  I'm pretty sure the first split happened back when Arneson first read this thing a guy put out about some war game.


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb (Jul 8, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> I disagree that 4E "split the community", or that the fractures in the community are somehow the result of 4E. 4E didn't "split" the community any more than a sculptor "splits" a stone when he chisels off a piece. I think some folks tend to grossly exaggerate the proportions of the "split" to be 50/50, when in reality it seems more like 20/80 or more in favour of 4E.
> 
> If the community was "fractured" it was already so when 4E was announced.




And I disagree with your disagreement. 4e has, _at the very least_, split the online gaming community, and in a place like ENWorld, that's what matters the most. The fact that a 5e topic ban exists at all is ample evidence of that.

Hell, because the climate for online discourse of D&D has radically changed in only a year at places like ENWorld and RPGnet, we're getting tons of online refugees to other websites like paizo and therpgsite.

And now I'll go a step further. 5e is not a theoretical nor is it a "mythical game-to-be". On the contrary, it's very much a reality based on WoTC's embrace of the "planned obsolescence model" (_POM_). We can bury our heads in the sand with a 5e topic ban, and not discuss the future of where the D&D brand is going, but the future's gonna happen even if we're not allowed to talk about it on this message board.

Anyone who doesn't recognize that 5e is only a few years away is willfully ignoring the reality of the _POM_. Like it or not, this is the way of things at WoTC. Why ignore it? The edition wars won't stop anyway, especially when _Pathfinder_ comes out, so we might as well stop putting our heads in the sand, and acknowledge this one simple truth:

"5e.....ready or not, here it comes."

This is _ENWorld_. If we can talk about 5e, then maybe we can influence the course of its design. If we're stuck with a topic ban, then we're basically screwed, and will have absolutely no direct input in what they do. Not that they consulted us for 4e anyway, but maybe if we were open to discussion of this, then WoTC wouldn't feel like they have to be so damn secretive about the process....

See....here's the thing. If this infighting continues, then the only solution I can think of is it to split ENWorld into two sites....._ENWorld I_ and _ENWorld II_. _ENWorld I_ would focus on 3e, OGL games, AD&D, and other pre-3e versions of D&D. _ENWorld II_ would focus on 4e and GSL material. Yes, the fragmentation of the D&D hobby really is that bad now, at least online.

People have been discussing these issues outside of ENWorld, and well, this place just isn't as laid back as it used to be, before 4e was announced. ENWorld used to be the _nice_ website, the center for all things d20 and OGL, but now all the fighting is causing this place to fragment and degenerate. Posters are getting more passive-aggressive, and the mods have been more short-tempered. Something has to be done soon, and the 5e topic ban is only a band-aid solution. It's not solving the real problem, and will just bite this place in the arse later on. All in all, I really don't envy the EN mods. If they don't devise a more creative solution to the conflict, then they're gonna be dealing with this insanity for a long time to come...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 8, 2009)

I think what 4E did to create a split was exposing the different play styles people use, and surprising a lot of people that not everyone is playing like they do, and finding them unable to consider playing their game in one of the different ways. 

I don't know if that is just because of the 4E design, or if it is simply because "everyone" is now discussing online about his RPGs, where it was not as big to the release of the 3E. EN World was born with 3E, it wasn't already around before its existence. Maybe it is both.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 8, 2009)

Sacrificial Lamb said:


> Hell, because the change in the climate for online discourse of D&D has radically changed in only a year at places like ENWorld and RPGnet, we're getting tons of online refugees to other websites like paizo and therpgsite.




It would be interesting to look a bit more closely at the numbers for a while forward. EN World has roughly 83 000 members. TheRPGsite has, let's see ... roughly 2300 members. I can't find numbers for Paizo on their site, which is probably a good idea for them. (EDIT: for competition reasons, Paizo might not want to flaunt their numbers. That's my thinking.)

A ton of online refugees from EN World and RPGnet to TheRPGsite should boost the member count significantly over the coming months, which should be very noticable. It's going to be interesting to see exactly by how much!

/Maggan


----------



## Sacrificial Lamb (Jul 8, 2009)

Maggan said:


> It would be interesting to look a bit more closely at the numbers for a while forward. EN World has roughly 83 000 members. TheRPGsite has, let's see ... roughly 2300 members. I can't find numbers for Paizo on their site, which is probably a good idea for them.
> 
> A ton of online refugees from EN World and RPGnet to TheRPGsite should boost the member count significantly over the coming months, which should be very noticable. It's going to be interesting to see exactly by how much!
> 
> /Maggan




therpgsite has gained hundreds of new people in a very short period of time, like in the past month or two. It's really weird. And these aren't just bots either, because we have all these new people who are actually posting, so.....something's up. I suspect the change in atmosphere at both ENWorld and RPGnet might have something to do with it, so if things continue in their current state at ENWorld, we may very well be seeing many more online refugees at the other websites over the next couple years. I love therpgsite, but I don't want us to gain new recruits like this...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 8, 2009)

Well, I gotta say, SL, a lot of your post seems a bit overwrought. I don't think the split -- even amongst opinionated online gamers -- is as deep or irreconcilable as all that, and I think the 3e fans and the 4e fans have a lot of common ground and things to say to each other. I think people get emotional. It's not fun to have your favorite game's imminent demise rubbed in your face, and it's also not fun to have your favorite game _already_ unsupported by the company that created it. 

I don't think the POM is what WotC wants, and I forsee the next edition (or the one after that) being billed as the _final_ edition -- that is, supported through rules updates online and occasional re-prints of the core books. The trauma of birthing a new edition isn't a healthy thing for the game as a whole, even if sales spike. WotC wants off the treadmill as bad as the players do, I think.

"Jane! Stop this crazy thing!"


----------



## Maggan (Jul 8, 2009)

Sacrificial Lamb said:


> therpgsite has gained hundreds of new people in a very short period of time, like in the past month or two. It's really weird.




Interesting. I wonder how this stacks up against EN World? This site also seems to gain new users at a steady clip, so it might not be only TheRPGsite which is gaining, and it could be a natural phase of growth.

The question then is, are the majority of new posters at TheRPGsite people already registered at EN World who stop posting here, are they posters who register at TheRPGsite and continue posting here, or are they single forum users (i.e. stays with only one forum at a time)?

/M


----------



## lutecius (Jul 8, 2009)

Maggan said:


> Interesting. I wonder how this stacks up against EN World? [...]



there was a thread (now closed) about it in meta.


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 8, 2009)

Sacrificial Lamb said:


> And now I'll go a step further. 5e is not a theoretical nor is it a "mythical game-to-be". On the contrary, it's very much a reality based on WoTC's embrace of the "planned obsolescence model" (_POM_). We can bury our heads in the sand with a 5e topic ban, and not discuss the future of where the D&D brand is going, but the future's gonna happen even if we're not allowed to talk about it on this message board.



The message as I read it is: "5E will happen, let's talk about it when it does" not "LA-LA 4E 4EVER!"

No-one's denying it's eventually going to arrive, but for heaven't sake let's give the game that is with us here and now a chance to breathe and grow. It's gonna be here for a few years, like it or not.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 8, 2009)

Here is what seems to be happening with TheRPGSite. There are three groups of new users at TheRPGSite right now I think.

The first group is a handful of users truly left EnWorld for TheRPGSite.  I mean literally a handful, like about 5-6.  However, these were some of the most "vocal" anti-4e folks here at EnWorld.  I won't mention their names, but I think most folks would recognize their names.

Some more people who, perhaps, felt they still had something to say to these more vocal anti-4e folks, followed them in order to say it.  I suspect that second group will get bored of responding to the first group and will eventually stop posting at TheRPGSite, but for now that seems to be happening.

A third group found out about this debate between the first and second group, and decided to go to TheRPGSite to eat popcorn and watch the debate.  This group has no real intention of staying long or posting much at TheRPGSite I suspect.

So that is what I think is going on.  I suspect, given some time (not much time in fact) it will end with 5-6 new active users at TheRPGSite, and a bunch of inactive users who were there just to briefly engage with some folks or watch that engagement.

And, as always, the people who really want to debate an edition war on a longer term basis end up at CircvsMaximvs.com


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 8, 2009)

Holy good god I just went and browsed TheRPGSite's forums for the first time. This place is a paragon of mutual respect in comparison.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Jul 8, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think the POM is what WotC wants, and I forsee the next edition (or the one after that) being billed as the _final_ edition -- that is, supported through rules updates online and occasional re-prints of the core books. The trauma of birthing a new edition isn't a healthy thing for the game as a whole, even if sales spike. WotC wants off the treadmill as bad as the players do, I think.




I disagree with this.  WotC is a company that wants to make money (and no, there is nothing wrong with making money, all companies want to do it).  DnD is an excellent treadmill that turns a good profit for WotC.  Why would it want off of it?

WotC makes a good amount of money on Magic the Gathering as well.  They've established an amazing model of releasing a major set, two minor sets, and a base set every year (basically, new cards once a quarter).  I'm sure they would love to release new editions of DnD on such a regular basis (heck, they may already have this pattern laid in stone and I'm just too blind to see it).


In 1997, WotC purchased TSR and began work on 3E
In 2000, WotC released 3E
In 2003, WotC released 3.5
In 2005, according to the Psion preview article on DDI, WotC began work on 4E
In 2008, WotC released 4E

There will be a 5th Edition.  I'll leave it to the reader to guess as to when it might be.  But saying WotC wants off the DnD treadmill is saying WotC, as a company, wants to stop making money off of DnD.  If and when that day comes, they will most likely sell the IP.


----------



## Stereofm (Jul 8, 2009)

Sacrificial Lamb said:


> See....here's the thing. If this infighting continues, then the only solution I can think of is it to split ENWorld into two sites....._ENWorld I_ and _ENWorld II_. _ENWorld I_ would focus on 3e, OGL games, AD&D, and other pre-3e versions of D&D. _ENWorld II_ would focus on 4e and GSL material. Yes, the fragmentation of the D&D hobby really is that bad now, at least online.




Honestly, I don't believe that would work. Some people want their Edition War like some others want the next episode of their favourite show. That would not stop them from posting negatively if they want to.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 8, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> Holy good god I just went and browsed TheRPGSite's forums for the first time. This place is a paragon of mutual respect in comparison.



The rpgsite is very different than this place, but it's developed a really cool community and some excellent discussion. It's just a different sort of discussion and community than we have here. 

I'd rather not have this thread turn into a discussion of rpgsite though, please. Thanks for that.


----------



## Barcode (Jul 8, 2009)

Wow, way to take the high road on that, PC.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2009)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> There will be a 5th Edition.  I'll leave it to the reader to guess as to when it might be.  But saying WotC wants off the DnD treadmill is saying WotC, as a company, wants to stop making money off of DnD.  If and when that day comes, they will most likely sell the IP.



I don't think that's what KM was getting at. I think he meant changing the delivery model of the game. Getting away from the core books + sourcebook treadmill. They may want to make money off the game, but in a way that doesn't cause the same upheaval that an entirely new edition does.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 9, 2009)

Alexk said:
			
		

> I disagree with this. WotC is a company that wants to make money (and no, there is nothing wrong with making money, all companies want to do it). DnD is an excellent treadmill that turns a good profit for WotC. Why would it want off of it?




Well, for one, I don't think it's as good a treadmill as all that. Every edition fragments the player base, injects bad blood into the community, causes confusion in the newbies, and fans the flames of debates that would otherwise die down. This is only going to get more true as the editions themselves get better, and bigger, and more challenging of what "D&D IS" (tossing away sacred cows and the like). It creates instant competition in the form of retro-editions, because you can't copyright rules. 

If you're WotC, and you're smart, you realize that the healthy, happy player base is the way you get *the most* money. You expand the core game, you get everyone to buy your rules/books/online subscriptions/software/whatever, appeal to the biggest crowd of this niche little market, and you expand that niche because people will bring their friends in. 

Think of the final edition something like the Flat World Knowledge Publishing people: you'll take bits and rules you like, and publish your own customized book for your own personal games.

Or think of something like a "patch" system where most of the rules are online, and books are only published as fancypants special collections of those rules, and more rarely. 

Or think of it as the OGL turned up to 11: "we're giving all of our rules away for free, and we're making money on software and subscriptions, and on "customized content" for your home games written by professional developers."

New editions are a shot in the arm financially, but they're detrimental to the social networks that the game thrives on -- this is a negative externality so huge that I'm pretty sure dodging that bullet is infinitely preferable to taking it. It's also a tremendous risk, because if a new edition doesn't pan out like you hoped, you're committed to a dying horse for at least a few years, trying to prop it up and make it walk again, even though it wants to fall over. 

Heck, the whole "incremental improvements to the game" are showing up in 4e stuff right now -- how MM2 fixes solos, or how rules updates apply to the CB and the compendium, or how the new psion tries to poke a hole in the heremtically sealed valut of the powers system. I'm not sure 4e quite has the strategy for updating where it should ideally be, but they're certainly dedicated to trying to get us consumers to accept that the game ain't complete after the first three books.  




> There will be a 5th Edition. I'll leave it to the reader to guess as to when it might be. But saying WotC wants off the DnD treadmill is saying WotC, as a company, wants to stop making money off of DnD. If and when that day comes, they will most likely sell the IP.




Actually, if they stay on the treadmill, it can only get worse. The more big editions there are, the more the community breaks up, the more people assume that there will be another edition (how many people, if they don't like 5e, will just say "let's wait five years!") so they don't need to buy into this one, the more people mistrust WotC and the D&D brand, the more they loose community goodwill, the more retroeditions pop up to compete, the more people look to other RPGs aside from D&D ("well, WotC stopped supporting the game I love, so I switched to Vampire...or to WoW!")

The edition treadmill is not a strong business model -- planned obsolescence never really is. I'd love to talk more about what the "final edition" could be in a thread, actually, but I think that would probably violate the 5e ban.


----------



## Harlekin (Jul 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> <Snipped most of a great post for brevity>
> 
> The edition treadmill is not a strong business model -- planned obsolescence never really is. I'd love to talk more about what the "final edition" could be in a thread, actually, but I think that would probably violate the 5e ban.




I think you are on to something here. The main purpose of the DDi seems to be changing the business model of RPGs. And it seems to be working for many of us.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The edition treadmill is not a strong business model



Selling dead tree rpgs isn't a strong business model, it never has been. Tying it to minis seems a good move though, from a business PoV.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 9, 2009)

I don't think that WotC will ever move to a "final edition" model.  Look at other game companies that have models similar to that, like Games Workshop.  They still have to sell books, so even when they aren't changing the ruleset, they're slowly updating army books for each army one by one.  And believe me, that doesn't create a less acrimonious atmosphere.

Personally, I think that a big part of the group of people who throw up their hands and scream and quit the game over edition wars are people who were going to quit anyways, simply because people grow, change, like new things, stop liking old things, and sometimes it takes a jolt to get them to actually move on.  New editions can be that jolt.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 9, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I don't think that WotC will ever move to a "final edition" model.




This would be the equivalent of WotC waving a white flag.

Though with that being said, I wouldn't be surprised if WotC releases a "4E Rules Compendium" book in the waning days of 4E, after 5E is announced.

WotC did released a 3.5E Rules Compendium book a few months after the Aug 2007 gencon announcement of 4E.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 9, 2009)

Doug MacCrae said:
			
		

> Selling dead tree rpgs isn't a strong business model, it never has been. Tying it to minis seems a good move though, from a business PoV.




Why bother with the plastic of the 20th century when you can have the bits and bytes of the 21st at your disposal?

Minis -- especially for the high-school-and-up crowd, are even more niche than pen-and-paper RPG's. There's no reason WotC can't also have a good minis line going, but D&D is bigger than minis, and to tie the two together would be to shrink D&D, tethering the success of D&D's medium-sized niche to the minis' itty-bitty niche. 

I'd think that D&D's best bet is in lowering the barriers of entry until they're effectively 0, and selling the goods and services and subscriptions (the DDI!) to players. 95% of the game is free (95% of players play for free), 5% is paid convenience or customization, and that 5% is so big due to the low barrier of entry, that it can pay for the other 95%.

The place where that model works best is online, where Moore's Law kicks in and makes the cost of higher volume (storage, bandwidth, etc.) itty bitty. 

Books have their own advantages, and D&D can (and, IMO, should) keep the book side, but there's no reason that the books have to be published in five-year product line increments that are inflexible within their lifespan. D&D is much better served by being flexible and amorphous enough to ooze into every niche it can, which is better represented by something like the Flat World Publishing model: arrange the rules you want into a custom campaign book for your game, and publish it via Print-on-Demand (or get it electronically via some DDI/virtual table top interface!). 



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> They still have to sell books, so even when they aren't changing the ruleset, they're slowly updating army books for each army one by one.




Well, you don't need to sell books. You can sell print-on-demand luxury items. You can sell customizable online experiences. Heck, look at GaiaOnline, selling you friggin' bunny hats to wear on Easter. The DDI, I think, helps put the first chink in the concept that D&D is tied to books.

I think books are key to D&D, and that they shouldn't go away, but I also think that D&D isn't tied directly to book sales. If WotC stopped publishing books tomorrow, they'd still have monthly income from the DDI...heck, I'd bet a good chunk of people would keep the DDI, even if they didn't have any books to own. Not everybody, but probably enough to keep D&D profitable in that model, given the low cost of adding more stuff to the DDI. 



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> I think that a big part of the group of people who throw up their hands and scream and quit the game over edition wars are people who were going to quit anyways, simply because people grow, change, like new things, stop liking old things, and sometimes it takes a jolt to get them to actually move on. New editions can be that jolt.




Why would OSRIC sell a single copy if people who gripe about edition changes just wanted to stop playing? Why would Pathfinder have a single subscriber? Why would any retroclone ever exist? Why would Necromancer games try for a "1e feel"?

No, there are plenty of folks out there who want to keep playing just fine, and find that the new changes don't groove with how they want things. 

There should be no reason that D&D looses these customers to Pathfinder just because it can't simultaneously publish for two rule sets. If Capcom can make a new 8-bit Megaman game and give Nintendo profit from those who want it, a third party publisher should be able to make a new 3e adventure and sell it through WotC so that WotC gets a cut of those who want it. 

The edition treadmill can't keep going forever (though it could probably go for another edition or two), especially given how each table ultimately plays it's own random D&D pastiche of house rules and homebrews in the end anyway. WotC would be much better served selling people what they want, rather than telling people that they should change their games every five years (which, if you're lucky, is two 1-30 level spreads, assuming you have a group that stays together for that long).


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 9, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why would OSRIC sell a single copy if people who gripe about edition changes just wanted to stop playing? Why would Pathfinder have a single subscriber? Why would any retroclone ever exist? Why would Necromancer games try for a "1e feel"?



I didn't say that ALL people who complain about edition changes are people who really have just outgrown playing D&D.  But obviously you knew that because you are literate and my words were at best at a third grade reading level.

You just chose to pretend otherwise.  Thanks.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 9, 2009)

Cut the crap, guys. You absolutely know better.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 9, 2009)

> I didn't say that ALL people who complain about edition changes are people who really have just outgrown playing D&D. But obviously you knew that because you are literate and my words were at best at a third grade reading level.
> 
> You just chose to pretend otherwise. Thanks.




I did over-state the numbers ("a single copy" and stuff), and I'm sorry for that. I certainly don't have access to the number of people who play retroclones or pathfinder, or who just continue to play Edition X without ever changing over. 

But I don't know why I should assume that people who just stop playing just 'cuz they're ready for a change are a "big part" or even significant minority of the people who don't switch. I don't know why you would assume that is true, and I haven't seen any non-anecdotal evidence to show that, either.

I mean, you obviously got that idea from somewhere -- why do you think that there is a significant number of people who just don't play anymore due to their own changing tastes when a new edition comes out?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2009)

ggroy said:


> This would be the equivalent of WotC waving a white flag.



They'd be surrendering to who or what exactly? Your business model can't remain static throughout the life of your company. You don't want to be in the buggy whip business when the motor car comes along.

Realizing that your market changes over time, and acting on that, is not tantamount to surrender.


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 9, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> They'd be surrendering to who or what exactly? Your business model can't remain static throughout the life of your company. You don't want to be in the buggy whip business when the motor car comes along.
> 
> Realizing that your market changes over time, and acting on that, is not tantamount to surrender.



I agree. I think that eventually, they can and will sort of stop moving the game ahead to new editions, and I'm imagining (hoping?) that at that point, they decide to go back and republish older editions, so that they can make money off of different kinds of D&D, and (re)attract older customers.

I'm not going to speculate how likely this scenario is, but following a revised Fifth Edition, it might be a cool thing to have happen.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 9, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> They'd be surrendering to who or what exactly?




The "white flag" wasn't meant to be taken literally.

A "final edition" sounds like defeatism.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 9, 2009)

Maggan said:


> It would be interesting to look a bit more closely at the numbers for a while forward. EN World has roughly 83 000 members. TheRPGsite has, let's see ... roughly 2300 members. I can't find numbers for Paizo on their site, which is probably a good idea for them. (EDIT: for competition reasons, Paizo might not want to flaunt their numbers. That's my thinking.)



Paizo has over 50,000 members. They're claiming that there have been over 50,000 downloads of the Pathfinder Beta. Since you have to have a board account to download the beta and they only count the first download it can be extrapolated that their board has over 50,000 members.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 9, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> Paizo has over 50,000 members. They're claiming that there have been over 50,000 downloads of the Pathfinder Beta. Since you have to have a board account to download the beta and they only count the first download it can be extrapolated that their board has over 50,000 members.




I downloaded the Pathfinder beta, but I've never used it once in any games.  I just looked over it a dozen or so times, trying to find obvious deviations from 3.5E D&D.

I don't post on the Paizo boards either.  Wonder how many "active" posters they actually really have there.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 9, 2009)

ggroy said:


> I don't post on the Paizo boards either.  Wonder how many "active" posters they actually really have there.



The data can be scraped. How's your Perl?


----------



## ggroy (Jul 9, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> The data can be scraped. How's your Perl?




"while(1) fork();"


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 9, 2009)

ggroy said:


> "while(1) fork();"



Ok, you can write a wabbit, but can you program a scraper?

My point is that the answer to your question is there if you want it.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 9, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> Ok, you can write a wabbit, but can you program a scraper?




I haven't written such a program recently.

I haven't touched perl in over 10 years.  Hopefully it hasn't changed drastically from the camel book days.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2009)

ggroy said:


> The "white flag" wasn't meant to be taken literally.
> 
> A "final edition" sounds like defeatism.



Is admitting defeat a very different thing from surrendering? In most cases I'd say they're pretty much synonymous.

But moving beyond the semantics, my point remains. Why would it be "defeatism" any more than it would be "moving to a different business model in response to changes in the market?"

If a market or product is no longer viable, then making a change is the only rational thing to do. Responding to changes in a market is not "defeatism". _Refusing_ to respond to such changes is plain stubborness or short-sightedness, and can lead to the downfall of a product line.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 9, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> But moving beyond the semantics, my point remains. Why would it be "defeatism" any more than it would be "moving to a different business model in response to changes in the market?"




What I'm thinking of is the perception of a "final edition".  If I was marketing a product, I would certainly not use a name which may have some negative connotations.  Placing a label of "final edition" sounds like the company doesn't have much confidence in their own product.  Shareholders may also catch on to this, and dump their stock in the process (ie. by the "cockroach theory" whether real or perceived).

Cockroach Theory

If a product line is going to be changed to something else, such as D&D moving to an online DDI type of model, I would certainly not put the words "final edition" on the cover of the core books.   Even if the D&D books are going the way of the dodo anyways, I would just let the books sell until hardly anybody is buying them anymore and adjust print runs accordingly.  Putting the words "final edition" on the cover would just look bad.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Placing a label of "final edition" sounds like the company doesn't have much confidence in their own product.



Does it? Why doesn't it sound like they have so much confidence in their product that they can't possibly improve on it?



ggroy said:


> If a product line is going to be changed to something else, such as D&D moving to an online DDI type of model, I would certainly not put the words "final edition" on the cover of the core books. Even if the D&D books are going the way of the dodo anyways, I would just let the books sell until hardly anybody is buying them anymore and adjust print runs accordingly. Putting the words "final edition" on the cover would just look bad.



So don't use the words "final edition". Call it "Ultimate Edition", that's what ultimate means, but it's a much sexier term.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 9, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Why doesn't it sound like they have so much confidence in their product that they can't possibly improve on it?




I wasn't talking about whether a company can possibly improve on their product or not.

I was talking about the "perception" alone.

Personally, the words "final edition" on a D&D book wouldn't faze me at all since I'm familiar with the product line.

Though, if I was an impressionable teenager today (ie. if I was my 13 year old self again) and saw some D&D books with "final edition" written on the front cover, it would certainly color my perception of the product.  My first thought would be, does this book suck and will this company be shortly dropping it anyways.  I probably would just pass it by, and see what other rpgs books are on the shelf.



Fifth Element said:


> So don't use the words "final edition". Call it "Ultimate Edition", that's what ultimate means, but it's a much sexier term.




This would be a better marketing strategy.  At least it doesn't have as many obvious negative connotations.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 9, 2009)

If I was my 13-year-old self again and saw some "D&D Ultimate Edition" books on the store shelf, I would probably be tempted to open the cover and take a look.  If it also had a lot of cool artwork, the more the better.  Perhaps it could even convince me to buy it on impulse.  

I will admit that I actually first bought the Moldvay basic D&D box set on impulse.  I didn't know anything about D&D previously, but I thought the box cover artwork looked cool.  At first before opening up the box, I was thinking the box contained a puzzle or board game of some sort.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 9, 2009)

ggroy said:


> This would be a better marketing strategy. At least it doesn't have as many obvious negative connotations.



I don't think anyone was actually saying they would print the words "final edition" on the cover. If that's what you were protesting, I don't think anyone would really argue with you.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 9, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> If that's what you were protesting, I don't think anyone would really argue with you.




That's exactly what I was protesting about.

Though I wouldn't protest about having "D&D Ultimate Edition" written on the front cover.

Perception is everything when it comes to the impulse buying habits of 13 year old kids.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2009)

ggroy said:


> That's exactly what I was protesting about.



You can understand my confusion then. If you check the posts you were responding to, they were discussing a "final edition" _business model_. I don't see where they suggested the edition would be _marketed_ as the Final Edition.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 11, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> I agree. I think that eventually, they can and will sort of stop moving the game ahead to new editions, and I'm imagining (hoping?) that at that point, they decide to go back and republish older editions, so that they can make money off of different kinds of D&D, and (re)attract older customers.
> 
> I'm not going to speculate how likely this scenario is, but following a revised Fifth Edition, it might be a cool thing to have happen.




This is exactly the kind of "5E should be 3E!" post that infuriates me.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 11, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> Paizo has over 50,000 members. They're claiming that there have been over 50,000 downloads of the Pathfinder Beta. Since you have to have a board account to download the beta and they only count the first download it can be extrapolated that their board has over 50,000 members.




I made a user account on Paizo in order to vote on the first RPG Superstar thing, since a friend of mine made the first cut of the contest (he didn't make the second )

Since those days, I have used that account exactly twice

1.- I bought a flipmat (very good quality product, btw)

2.- I downloaded the Pathfinder Beta (liked the art, a lot; disliked the rules, not enough changes)

I haven't been around the Pathfinder forums since, and my friend (the RPG Superstar candidate) eventually quit that site because of the generalized 4E hate...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 11, 2009)

> This is exactly the kind of "5E should be 3E!" post that infuriates me.




Can I ask why that is? It seemed pretty OK to me, and actually a pretty smart strategy for WotC: not to stop advancing the game, but to bring the fallout communities back under its umbrella.

I didn't get the "5e should be 3e!" vibe from it at all, but more: "Why is WotC not making money from people who are clamoring for 1e material?"

The answer for the last 20 or so years has been that not enough people would buy it to make it worthwhile, financially.

But something the internet is the ultimate economy of scale: you can reach a huge audience for fractions of pennies. Why not make it a profit mill?

I'm sure that when WotC stops making "new editions," they will still be making improvements to the D&D game, it's just that the D&D game will become a very broad thing, rather than being narrowly defined.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Can I ask why that is?




It may be that the original poster did not mean it, but the whole comment just felt like a passive-agressive attack.

But it will be a pleasure to respond to your perfectly reasonable and insightful post  

As I see it, WotC's current business model for D&D is to sell the core rulebooks and a few supplements, and try to motivate third parties to publish supplements and adventures through the strict rules of the GSL.

When that market dries up (let's say every 5-8 years), then it is time to redesign the game and publish a new edition, starting the cycle again.

Now, in this business model, supporting previous editions would be a very bad idea (since it would theoretically eat through the sales of the current edition)

However, let's say that WotC decides to switch models, and take a "Hasbro approach" (that has been selling the same Risk and Monopoly games for decades, with very minor variants)

In this approach, design and development freezes to a halt and instead Hasbro publishes three different games, each on a single boxed set:  

"Dungeons and Dragons Classic" a cleaned up version of AD&D 1st and 2nd editions

"Dungeons and Dragons Worldmaker" a revamped and rebalanced version of 3E, with expanded world-creation rules.

"Dungeons and Dragons Epic Heroes" a cleaned up and errataed 4E

Additional cashflow that would usually come from new versions of the game would instead be generated from the sale of supplements that would support all editions, like miniatures, and dungeon tiles. Also, D&Di would provide support for all three games, with additional content for the different product lines.

Now, this is not to say I would take this path if it were up to me....


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 11, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> In this approach, design and development freezes to a halt and instead Hasbro publishes three different games, each on a single boxed set:
> 
> "Dungeons and Dragons Classic" a cleaned up version of AD&D 1st and 2nd editions
> 
> ...



*This* is one of the more intelligent things I have ever read here.  Were something like this to happen I'd back it to the hilt.  And if the three games were at least vaguely compatible with each other, such that for example material from Worldmaker could be easily used in Classic, I'd be in gamergeek heaven!

However, R+D need not necessarily freeze to a halt; it need merely change its focus to tweaking the existing games instead of inventing new ones. (or, instead, invent new ones but market them under a different banner than D+D)

Lanefan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

While the 3 tiered system has some definite appeal, I doubt Hasbro would try it, given the history of Portal vis a vis M:tG.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure I'd buy revised versions of 1-3.5 Eds, especially if they appeared in a nice, inexpensive, digest-sized format (portability = utility).  That, to me, would have more value than those ludicrous, expensive fancy bound editions of the game books.


----------



## rounser (Jul 12, 2009)

> While the 3 tiered system has some definite appeal, I doubt Hasbro would try it, given the history of Portal vis a vis M:tG.



But D&D is not (or was not?) M:tG, and I understand that it's been done before successfully.  I gather that the BECMI sets were a big success for TSR internationally, according to at least one former TSR staff member.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

Its been done before, but not by _Hasbro,_ and not many companies have had success with it besides TSR.

The risk of cannibalizing your market with your own products has gotten many companies in trouble.  For instance, my beloved Apple had a problem over a stretch of a few years when they were releasing so many models that the computer you bought in January was supplanted by the new, identically priced model that came out 7 months later.  Even devoted Mac lovers like myself had difficulty pulling the trigger on a purchase, so sales lagged horribly.

With 4+ versions of the game in the market at the same time, you'll split your market while increasing costs- you'll need developers for each line...unless you want 3PPs to get that share of the market again.

Plus, no matter how clearly you label your product line, you'll have at least a few people confused about what they're buying.  This will lead to returns, and retailers _hate_ dealing with confusing product lines with higher-than-normal returns/exchanges.


----------



## rounser (Jul 12, 2009)

> For instance, my beloved Apple had a problem over a stretch of a few years when they were releasing so many models that the computer you bought in January was supplanted by the new, identically priced model that came out 7 months later



Even Apple has it's iPod shuffles alongside it's other models as an entry to their line, though.  Perhaps D&D needs an entry game that is not incomplete and unsupported, appearing as an obvious bait and switch for an upgrade to the fully supported game.  

For whatever reason, it hasn't really had that since the red box, and as a result people detect an incomplete game and won't recommend it by word of mouth.  (I think 4E itself is subject to this criticism, arguably, and it is an image problem that I suspect will be exacerbated as the pile of PHBs grows and intimidates newcomers...assuming the economy holds long enough to see the plan through.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

rounser said:


> Even Apple has it's iPod shuffles alongside it's other models as an entry to their line, though.  Perhaps D&D needs an entry game that is not compromised as an obvious bait and switch for an upgrade.




Basic was similar to AD&D, and AD&D was a lot more like 2Ed.  None of those was similar to 3.X, and 4Ed is as much a departure from 3.X as 3.X was to those that preceded it.

IOW, while Basic or AD&D could be seen as an entry level game- its not likely but its possible- re 2Ed, none of that would fly with 3.X or 4Ed.

No...what they'd need is some kind of quick-start rules, or perhaps a setting neutral adventure pack that includes pregens.

Heck...we're talking WotC.  The pregen PCs could be even be released as a randomized collection, 6 to a pack.  With uncommons & rares.





> For whatever reason, it hasn't really had that since the red box, and as a result people detect an incomplete game and won't recommend it by word of mouth.  (I think 4E itself is subject to this criticism, arguably.)




Well, I won't say you're wrong, but I never saw that as a problem- except with 4Ed- since I was perfectly willing and able to initiate the uninitiated myself.

With 4Ed, the perception of "incompletion" is largely due to the absence of several classes & races that had been in the game since the 1970s.  While this in no way made the game incomplete- its perfectly possible to play D&D without Druids & gnomes, for instance- it meant that it was perceived as so by the installed market base...especially in comparison to the game it was supplanting.

For some, this was no problem, but for many (like myself), it was a *huge* deal.  And those people are NOT going to recommend or run that "incomplete" game.


----------



## rounser (Jul 12, 2009)

> No...what they'd need is some kind of quick-start rules, or perhaps a setting neutral adventure pack that includes pregens.



They keep trying that.  I see no-one recommending these incomplete and unsupported intro games, though, because they're obviously a bad deal when compared to "the real McCoy"...which you'll have to buy anyway, if you like them.

As a thought experiment, I'd assume that people won't buy an incomplete Beginners Monopoly that requires you to buy Monopoly after a game or three.  They'll buy Monopoly or not at all.  People are only so stupid, even if the product is provided with sincere intent.  Even as a kid you'd feel gypped by a half-game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

rounser said:


> They keep trying that.  I see no-one recommending these incomplete and unsupported intro games, though, because they're obviously a bad deal.
> 
> As a thought experiment, I'd assume that people won't buy an incomplete Beginners Monopoly that requires you to buy Monopoly after a game or three.  They'll buy Monopoly or not at all.  People are only so stupid.  Even as a kid you'd feel gypped.




I agree- but RPGs are a lot more complex than boardgames, generally speaking.

Still, a lot of people bought the pre-Core 4Ed release stuff, which, AFAIK, didn't have much in the way of material that wasn't subsequently released in the Core.

Still, "quickstart" rules don't _need_ to be a bad deal.  As long as you have enough rules to cover the PCs supplied with the beginner adventures.

In some game systems, they're included with the game itself.

With others, you get a full-sized adventure to run.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 12, 2009)

rounser said:


> Perhaps D&D needs an entry game that is not incomplete and unsupported, appearing as an obvious bait and switch for an upgrade to the fully supported game.



I've always thought there should be a non-violent kid's edition of D&D to boost the market.  The trolls and gnomes and pixies are all there, it just requires some creativity and full modules for parents and teachers to run.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 12, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> I've always thought there should be a non-violent kid's edition of D&D to boost the market.  The trolls and gnomes and pixies are all there, it just requires some creativity and full modules for parents and teachers to run.




This sounds like a good idea... a Boxed Set with a three level adventure with a lot of skill challenge and a few combats against, let's say out-of-control constructs

You could name it_ "Dungeons and Dragons Presents: *Adventure in the Wizard's Tower* (for ages 6 and up!"_, or something like that...

Now that I think about it... ChattyDM had a few blog entries about some roleplaying experiments he did with his preschool kid... maybe we should review that possibility


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 12, 2009)

> With 4+ versions of the game in the market at the same time, you'll split your market while increasing costs- you'll need developers for each line...unless you want 3PPs to get that share of the market again.




IMO, here is what "OGL Turned Up To 11" and internet economies of scale will help a lot.

You've got thousands of people who produce great content for 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e, all doing it effectively for free just to share with the community.

Put those rules in an official content, let the community weed out the good from the bad, have "pro developers" work on the best stuff, and allow it all to be packaged into your own customized rule book that is printed on demand.

You control even the third party information. 3PP's might make a cut of the sales (you can pay the individual authors every time their rules are included in a book that is published), but WotC controls the flow of it, and, of course, gets the bulk of it right up front.

3PP's work for WotC, effectively, unless they just make their own books for the market (which can work, too).


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jul 12, 2009)

Isn't Mirolite D20 the ideal intro game?  It's as simple as possible and its free!  What more could you want?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> Isn't Mirolite D20 the ideal intro game?  It's as simple as possible and its free!  What more could you want?



For it to be available in book and toy stores?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While the 3 tiered system has some definite appeal, I doubt Hasbro would try it, given the history of Portal vis a vis M:tG.



I think the appeal is mostly to customers that play a different system than the current one. But I am not sure it will really work as great.

Look at the WotC release schedule for 4E. This month, we get
- Eberron Campaign Guide
- Divine Power
- Seekers of the Ashen Crown
- Minis.

If we had a 3 tiered system, the 3 books would need splitting among 3 game systems.
The ECG might support all 3 game systems. It's mostly fluff, I suppose. But if there is crunch, this will either increase the cost (bigger book) or reduce the content (more crunch, ness fluff), and might not be finished yet, because it requires twice or three times the design work. Or it could still just be a 4E product.
Divine Power could instead be "Skills & Powers for AD&D Revised". 
Seekers of the Ashen Crown is a 4E adventure now? Should it also be a three-stat book? Should the AD&D and 3E version come out next month or next month after? 
The thing usable across all editions are the Minis. Of course, that's true already. 

Where is WotC getting more people to get their books? It seems to me they are just having a more diverse group of people buying their products. But an AD&D might not be interested in an AD&D Eberron at all, and is definitely not interested in a 4E version of it. 

And for the customer themselves - you now pay either for a lot of stuff you don't want (three-stat books)), or you do have a lot less to pick from. Unless you are one of the few guys that plays both two or three editions of D&D in parallel.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And for the customer themselves - you now pay either for a lot of stuff you don't want (three-stat books)), or you do have a lot less to pick from. Unless you are one of the few guys that plays both two or three editions of D&D in parallel.



*Or* one of those who, like me, wants to steal from one to add to the other; which is why for this to work the systems need to be at least vaguely forward-backward compatible...much more so than 1-2-3-4e are now.

If I'm running Classic and some awesome adventure comes out for Epic Heroes, I'll buy it *if* the conversion to Classic is either dirt simple or is done for me.  But if the conversion is going to represent as much work as writing my own adventure, I might as well write my own.

Lanefan


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 13, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> You could name it_ "Dungeons and Dragons Presents: *Adventure in the Wizard's Tower* (for ages 6 and up!"_, or something like that...




Ooh. Something along the lines of 'Betrayal At House on the Hill' might be cool. A tower map that changes every time (and since it's a wizard's tower, maybe during play as well). Nice chunky components like treasure chests. A 'quest book' with multiple branching paths to determine what you're looking for and what or who your opponent is. And an expansion of the various characters, modified maybe by personality cards or something.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think the appeal is mostly to customers that play a different system than the current one. But I am not sure it will really work as great.
> _<snip many good points>_




Yep- that sums it up pretty nicely.  The risk of cannibalizing your own profits and confusing the consumer is too great a risk compared to the questionable payoff of having several D&D systems on the market simultaneously.

If they were to do it, though, the only way I could see it working would be in distinctive packaging- like having a fat box containing a set of digest-sized softcover *revised & re-edited* AD&D rulebooks with modules on CD-ROM, ditto a different box for 2Ed and likewise for 3.5- and for _a limited time only_.  That would minimize confusion, and would eliminate the need to commit to having staff for each line for a long period of time.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 14, 2009)

> The risk of cannibalizing your own profits and confusing the consumer is too great a risk compared to the questionable payoff of having several D&D systems on the market simultaneously.




If you supported them through in-house development and book publishing, absolutely. 

If you supported them online, with crowdsourced development, and Print on Demand?

There are ways to draw up treaties for the edition wars, they would just require a transformation of the way D&D has been supported. This transformation is probably a pretty smart idea in general, though not without its own risks.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If you supported them through in-house development and book publishing, absolutely.
> 
> If you supported them online, with crowdsourced development, and Print on Demand?
> 
> There are ways to draw up treaties for the edition wars, they would just require a transformation of the way D&D has been supported. This transformation is probably a pretty smart idea in general, though not without its own risks.




The market is the market: too many editions- regardless of form- and you'll cannibalize your profits in some way.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If you supported them through in-house development and book publishing, absolutely.
> 
> If you supported them online, with crowdsourced development, and Print on Demand?
> 
> There are ways to draw up treaties for the edition wars, they would just require a transformation of the way D&D has been supported. This transformation is probably a pretty smart idea in general, though not without its own risks.



"Crowdsourced" development? You mean they don't do anything to support the game, they just put out what they already have, but others can create new supplements? 

That might be cutting down their own profits. Essentially, a gamer gets a choice between buying a WotC product for a supported product line or buy a non-WotC product for a "crowsourced" product line. He has a choice he didn't have before. Maybe he would never buy a WotC product since he doesn't like the supported product line. But some would if they had no choice. 

The OGL also had the idea that WotC would still sell the core books to everyone, even if they relied on 3PP. The assumption was that this would make them the most money. But is this still true when we are talking old-edition PDFs, that are sold at a lower price point and many people don't even need anymore, at the same time cutting into your sale of the higher value current product line core books sales?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 14, 2009)

> The market is the market: too many editions- regardless of form- and you'll cannibalize your profits in some way.




Assuming everyone who is playing a 1e ruleset would be playing a 5e ruleset if 1e was unavailable, yes.

Assuming everyone who is playing a 1e ruleset would be playing OSRIC instead, no.

The truth probably isn't so binary, but I'm not sure cannibalism is a given, at least any more than OSRIC and Pathfinder and Castles & Crusades and WHFRP and blah blah blah already hurt the market.

You'd still find the vast majority under the newest edition, probably, and letting the kids tinker around with earlier editions in your backyard makes sure you keep them where you can still sell them stuff, rather than going off on their own in some dangerous back alley. 

People want WotC to support the game they love. Of course, "the game they love" is always their own home games. 



> "Crowdsourced" development? You mean they don't do anything to support the game, they just put out what they already have, but others can create new supplements?
> 
> That might be cutting down their own profits. Essentially, a gamer gets a choice between buying a WotC product for a supported product line or buy a non-WotC product for a "crowsourced" product line.




My view was more like a Flat Earth Publishing model. Flat Earth Publishing is in the college textbook industry. They don't make anything they publish in-house. What they do is rely on individual professors to find the stuff the professors like, and then they package it together for that specific course and professor, selling the individualized packets in multiple forms (mp3's, for instance).

In this wild theory of an industry, WotC becomes the publisher, but less the designer. They rely on individual DMs to find the stuff the DMs like, and then package it together for that spcific group and DM, selling the packets as PDF's, as PoD books, as customized campaign websites, whatever.

So the idea is that WotC isn't really creating much in-house content anymore.

Rather, they rely on D&D's extensive network of homebrewers, tinkerers, and hobbyists to do most of the design. These gamers submit stuff to WotC to be published, and whenever someone pays for a publication of that gamer's material, that gamer maybe gets a small cut of the profits. 

The submitted material is evaluated based on the users ranking and commenting on them (other hobbyists and creators). The best stuff rises to the surface, and gets published more often. Maybe WotC has a small staff of experts (say, a team of 5 designers) who comb over the best submitted stuff. Maybe they have an in-hosue team of adventure writers and they also sell subscriptions. Maybe. But even that is probably superfluous. 

How much more profit do you think WotC would make if they could eliminate 60% of their staff, and only pay for work that was effectively already selling?

I mean, these are basically just wild ideas, but I don't forsee profitability being a problem under this wild idea.  There are probably other problems, not the least of which is that making this wild idea a reality would require a pretty huge change in the habits of the market and the industry -- that's a pretty significant challenge. 



> The OGL also had the idea that WotC would still sell the core books to everyone, even if they relied on 3PP. The assumption was that this would make them the most money. But is this still true when we are talking old-edition PDFs, that are sold at a lower price point and many people don't even need anymore, at the same time cutting into your sale of the higher value current product line core books sales?




The OGL was never really embraced by WotC, but I'm under the impression that 3e was wildly successful! The OGL might not've helped that, but it certainly didn't hurt it (only the accountants with the numbers from 3e under OGL and 4e under nothing-then-GSL can say for sure if it had any effect for sure, but it certainly didn't seem to be a negative one).

There's people out there buying 3e stuff (Pathfinder) whether or not WotC wants them to be. If at all possible, they should still be buying 3e stuff from WotC. That hasn't been possible in a world where you need to publish books to have a game system, but that's not the only way to have a game, and if WotC doesn't realize that, perhaps some other company will sooner or later...


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2009)

rounser said:


> They keep trying that.  I see no-one recommending these incomplete and unsupported intro games, though, because they're obviously a bad deal when compared to "the real McCoy"...which you'll have to buy anyway, if you like them.
> 
> As a thought experiment, I'd assume that people won't buy an incomplete Beginners Monopoly that requires you to buy Monopoly after a game or three.  They'll buy Monopoly or not at all.  People are only so stupid, even if the product is provided with sincere intent.  Even as a kid you'd feel gypped by a half-game.




Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Keep on the Shadowfell (a three level module), complete with quickstart rules, available FOR FREE on the WOTC site?

How much more do you need?


----------



## Maggan (Jul 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Keep on the Shadowfell (a three level module), complete with quickstart rules, available FOR FREE on the WOTC site?




And the Character Builder, which allows the creation of PCs up to level 3. With that given away for free, it sure feels as if WotC is lowering the threshold to entry for D&D4e.

/M


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2009)

And, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the compendium thingie, or whatever its called, the thing that's got all the monsters in it and whatnot, also free to use up to about 3rd level?

Y'know, throughout the history of WOTC running D&D, critics have constantly shoveled it on top that WOTC was nothing but a bunch of money grubbing suits who do nothing but try to line their pockets.  Yet, I'm having a tough time thinking of all that many RPG companies that give away as much free material as WOTC does.  Free adventures, free rules, free tools.

Hrm.....


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

They just give away the free material to get more customers that bring in the money! 

WotC can't win. 
Or rather, it can't win _that_ battle. But they don't need to.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Assuming everyone who is playing a 1e ruleset would be playing a 5e ruleset if 1e was unavailable, yes.




That has nothing to do with it.

By _definition,_ the mere existence of a competing product that sells eats into the profits of any other product in the same market.  That substitute could be getting 20% or 0.002% of the market, but that is money that's not going to the front runner.

And if the competing product is produced _in-house_, that means that you're not only taking some potential sales away from your lead product (including some would-be new gamers), you're diverting production resources away from that lead product to produce the other one.  IOW, cannibalism.

The ONLY reason a company produces multiple similar product is to capture buyers who would or could not ordinarily buy the lead product.  In those cases, they are hoping to "grow the pie" by making consumers of non-consumers.  With cars, this is done by having entry-level, mid-level, luxury, sport, off-road and other vehicles to appeal to persons in different economic strata, with different needs.

While on the surface, it would seem that this is exactly what we're talking about with the various RPG editions, that perception would be erroneous.  Here, the each version of D&D is a complete game that would cost about the same to produce and purchase, but with differing design criteria...all with essentially the same name.  They're more akin to differing trim lines within a vehicle than distinct vehicles within a product line.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jul 14, 2009)

Even though a lot of online people think WOTC is a fool for not printing out older games, WOTC won't be printing out older games.  To think otherwise is merely wishful thinking.  If there truly was a large demand for old-school gaming, supply and demand dictates that another company will produce old-school style games and become successful because they tapped into such a demand.  

It's all about the Economic Realities.  Of course, if you're still determined to change WOTC's mind, might I suggest you hire a lobbyists?


----------



## ggroy (Jul 14, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The ONLY reason a company produces multiple similar product is to capture buyers who would or could not ordinarily buy the lead product.  In those cases, they are hoping to "grow the pie" by making consumers of non-consumers.




This was probably the purpose of the basic D&D box sets from the late 1970's (Holmes), 1980's (Moldvay B/X and BECMI), and well into the 1990's.  Back in the 1980's, I remember seeing the basic D&D box sets being sold in places like department stores, which otherwise did not stock any of the AD&D hardcover books or modules.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 14, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Assuming everyone who is playing a 1e ruleset would be playing a 5e ruleset if 1e was unavailable, yes.




My hardcore 1E AD&D grognard friends would highly disagree with this statement.  These particular 1E grognard friends generally will not play any 3E/3.5E, 4E, 5E, etc ... games, even if there was nothing available for 1E.

The only way to get these hardcore 1E grognards to stop playing 1E AD&D, would be for them to die and/or taking away their 1E books from their cold dead hands.

I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 15, 2009)

ggroy said:


> The only way to get these hardcore 1E grognards to stop playing 1E AD&D, would be for them to die and/or taking away their 1E books from their cold dead hands.



You forgot the intermediate step: chasing us down after we rise as undead and keep on playing! 

Lan-"in my game, it's called 'Necromantic Continuation'"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Keep on the Shadowfell (a three level module), complete with quickstart rules, available FOR FREE on the WOTC site?



Are you serious?  How long has this been the case?

Lan-"I paid real money for that adventure"-efan


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Are you serious?  How long has this been the case?
> 
> Lan-"I paid real money for that adventure"-efan



Ahahaha!

Oh wait, so did I.


----------



## Starfox (Jul 15, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> It's probably a valid topic of conversation. Unfortunately, it's also a valid topic of conversation that really annoys us. So let's avoid any 5e threads for the time being.
> 
> Thanks!




Just an impertinent question: Who are "us"?


----------



## Maxboy (Jul 15, 2009)

i assume "Us" means the Mods


----------



## Maggan (Jul 15, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Are you serious?  How long has this been the case?




Since 04/28/2009, according to the news item at the D&D website. A smart move by WotC, IMO. And I paid for the module as well. 

/M


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 15, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Are you serious?  How long has this been the case?
> 
> Lan-"I paid real money for that adventure"-efan




Since the end of April; I got mine on the 29th. (I also paid money for it, btw.)

EDIT: Ninja'd by Maggan. I should've refreshed the page before replying. *blush*


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 16, 2009)

Maggan said:
			
		

> And the Character Builder, which allows the creation of PCs up to level 3. With that given away for free, it sure feels as if WotC is lowering the threshold to entry for D&D4e.




Heck yeah! This is pretty smart for WotC, I think: the first taste is free. If someone had to *pay* for these products, even a smaller price, they'd be less useful as that first toe in the water.

But giving it away certainly means that the only thing limiting you from trying out D&D 4e are all those _other_ barriers to entry (Biggest One: Arranging six people's schedules to meet once a week on a regular basis, and keeping it that way). 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And if the competing product is produced in-house, that means that you're not only taking some potential sales away from your lead product (including some would-be new gamers), you're diverting production resources away from that lead product to produce the other one. IOW, cannibalism.




Part of my scheme was that WotC wouldn't be producing much in-house: crowdsourcing could probably work fairly well for D&D design and development. Half the staff for twice the demand sounds pretty good to me. 

The competition from older editions already exists (OSRIC and Pathfinder are what I mentioned). The market is already fragmented (and each edition only increases the fragmenting). The only difference now is that WotC isn't getting money from people following those out-of-print lines. It's possible to support an edition of D&D without an extensive and expensive in-house development staff, because there's not a huge gap between the paid designer and the hobbyist in this industry, at least in terms of game design quality. 

[sblock]
So the flow of information kind of looks like this, theoretically:


 1e D&D Fan makes a really keen 1e D&D adventure!
 1e D&D Fan posts his really keen adventure to the Official D&D Website
 Other users see his stuff online, for free (or maybe for a monthly fee; or maybe that 1e D&D fan had a monthly fee as a "supporter," and most people get it for free, or whatever). Possibly they use it in their own games. So far, WotC hasn't paid out anything (and, in fact, may have already made money), but development and design work is already completed.
 A bunch of other 1e fans see the adventure, and comment on it, and rank it. Seems like they think it is pretty awesome! It gets 4/5 +1 Maces! The comments left say things like "Gygaxian brilliance!" and "OMG Flumphs have never been so cool!" One of D&D's own designers was all "I want to have your babies!"
 Some 1e DM sees the adventure. She thinks it is keen, and wants to use it! Woo! But she also doesn't like using a laptop at the table (she is Old School, after all), so she gives WotC $30 to print it out and send it to her. 
 WotC now has $30 for basically just sitting there. Some of this goes to pay the costs of PoD. Some of this goes to pay the costs of setting this thing up in the first place. Some of it goes to that 1e D&D Fan who made the adventure in the first place. Maybe some of it goes to the current D&D design team, which consists of 4 people who know various points of all editions, and who basically get paid to boink around in the slush pile and critique peoples' work (and, of course, are free to submit their own). Maybe they make a "traditional" book for one of the editions once every three months or so. Making the material better ultimately makes WotC more wealthy, since high quality yields higher demand. 
[/sblock]

WotC would not be competing with themselves if they brought the other editions home to roost, because they would not be developing much in the way of new material themselves -- they'd get the new material for brand spankin' free, and they'd get paid whenever anyone printed out ANYTHING from their website, no matter the edition. 



> Here, the each version of D&D is a complete game that would cost about the same to produce and purchase, but with differing design criteria...all with essentially the same name.




Except it wouldn't cost nearly the same to produce, because WotC doesn't need to produce much of anything (aside from infrastructure). New content would, in fact, be *cheaper* to produce, since 95% of the work would be done by fans, for free.

Again, look at how Flat Earth Publishing supports multiple different kinds of classes and multiple professors. Or, heck, how Wikipedia gets stuff with a higher quality and relevancy than any set of _Encyclopedia Brittanica_, without paying anyone one red cent (aside, of course, from the infrastructure). WotC and the gaming industry couldn't follow any of those models verbatim, but it could certainly exploit the similarities where they exist (in the case of the latter, people who do good work for no pay; in the case of the former, supporting essentially one unique publishing opportunity per customer). 



			
				MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> If there truly was a large demand for old-school gaming, supply and demand dictates that another company will produce old-school style games and become successful because they tapped into such a demand.




OSRIC. Pathfinder. Castles & Crusades. Hell, in a certain light, GURPS and RIFTS and the Storyteller System, and Buffy!

There's plenty of demand out there for stuff that WotC isn't making. Some of it even makes a tidy profit! WotC can certainly plug into a large portion of that, though they'd need to explore _nontraditional_ options.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 16, 2009)

KM said:
			
		

> But giving it away certainly means that the only thing limiting you from trying out D&D 4e are all those other barriers to entry (Biggest One: Arranging six people's schedules to meet once a week on a regular basis, and keeping it that way).




And this is one place where I cannot fathom WOTC's business plan.  The only way around the physical restraints of gaming is a virtual tabletop.  I cannot understand why they aren't pushing this model as a way for people to game when they want, from the comfort of their own house.  It continues to baffle me.

But, that's my own personal drum to bang and is pretty off topic.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 16, 2009)

> And this is one place where I cannot fathom WOTC's business plan. The only way around the physical restraints of gaming is a virtual tabletop. I cannot understand why they aren't pushing this model as a way for people to game when they want, from the comfort of their own house. It continues to baffle me.




Well, they are, but it's a lower priority right now, given what the fans have said they want from the DDI. They'll almost certainly get to it by 5e, which brings up the potential of 5e being primarily an online edition. Even if they don't do anything revolutionary, 5e could, because of simple technology changes, end up being played more by people on VTTs than with good ol' fashioned groups, so their money might be more in subscriptions and less in book sales.

Which would certainly be a subject bound to attract a lot of vitriol: a thread entitled: "5e is going to be a videogame!!!" probably wouldn't get a lot of constructive conversation. 

But, heck, even VTT's aren't flawless. I have constant trouble getting a playable group in my MapTools games. Coordinating 6 people's schedules is hard -- unless you're in high school/college and are just "hanging out" anyway since everyone has very similar schedules. It probably remains D&D's *biggest* barrier to entry, and it isn't a small one. It limits the market to a very small group of people who can actually pull that off once in a whlie.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 16, 2009)

The biggest advantage of VTTs is that you don't need to be physically in the same place, which allows you to play with people that have long since moved away, or entirely new people.

But nothing can fix the scheduling until we get VTTARDISes.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

I find that a large enough player base fixes the scheduling issues, so long as you are willing to play with new people.  If you insist on playing with friends, then scheduling is going to be exactly the same issue as FtF gaming.

But, with a large enough online population, odds are you are going to be able to find a stable group at a particular time that also share your play tastes.  It can be a real trial though, as I can personally attest.  I went through dozens of players before my current group finally solidified.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, with a large enough online population, odds are you are going to be able to find a stable group at a particular time that also share your play tastes.  It can be a real trial though, as I can personally attest.  I went through dozens of players before my current group finally solidified.



I'm currently going through this myself. In many cases, they are becoming my friends.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> I'm currently going through this myself. In many cases, they are becoming my friends.




Oh, totally agree.  Of my current group, 2 have been with me for about 4 years, 1 about 2 years and one since last Christmas.  They have all become my friends, despite never having met in person.

But, for some very bizarre reason, whenever we try for a 5th player, that seat is absolutely cursed.  I ran The World's Largest Dungeon online for 80 sessions.  4 players played in almost all 80 sessions.  Yet, the final tally on players was well over a dozen and possibly close to two.  Sigh.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jul 18, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> OSRIC. Pathfinder. Castles & Crusades. Hell, in a certain light, GURPS and RIFTS and the Storyteller System, and Buffy!
> 
> There's plenty of demand out there for stuff that WotC isn't making. Some of it even makes a tidy profit! WotC can certainly plug into a large portion of that, though they'd need to explore _nontraditional_ options.




Then those who are getting what they want from other companys should be happy that their wants are being meet.  They shouldn't be wondering why WOTC isn't supplying them when there are plenty of others who are willing to.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 18, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:


> Then those who are getting what they want from other companys should be happy that their wants are being meet.  They shouldn't be wondering why WOTC isn't supplying them when there are plenty of others who are willing to.



True enough.

WotC, however, probably *should* be wondering why WotC isn't supplying them...

Lanefan


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 18, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> WotC, however, probably *should* be wondering why WotC isn't supplying them...



I am a big fan of WotC, but I am an even bigger fan of diversity.  The industry needs publishers of different sizes and strengths to cater most efficiently to the various niches in the market.  I don't believe that any one company should seek to be all things to all consumers.  I don't blame WotC for not wanting to support every niche, no more than I blame Paizo for not wanting to support 4E.  Companies should play to their strengths.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 18, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> Then those who are getting what they want from other companys should be happy that their wants are being meet. They shouldn't be wondering why WOTC isn't supplying them when there are plenty of others who are willing to.




Sure, but that wasn't what I was responding to. You said that WotC wasn't providing these older editions because there wasn't enough demand, so I showed how there is plenty of demand for things WotC isn't currently offering.

Effectively, I'm arguing that WotC get out of the "game design" business almost entirely, and instead rely on the extended fan community to design, so it wouldn't be so much that WotC would be supplying these things as it would be that WotC would be making a tidy profit off of the supplying that Random Internet Fans would do for free.



			
				Pseudopsyche said:
			
		

> I don't believe that any one company should seek to be all things to all consumers. I don't blame WotC for not wanting to support every niche, no more than I blame Paizo for not wanting to support 4E. Companies should play to their strengths.




It's easy to be all things to all consumers when you don't actually have to make stuff yourself. Consumers make what they want, and pick what they want, and they just pay you to deliver it to them.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jul 18, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sure, but that wasn't what I was responding to. You said that WotC wasn't providing these older editions because there wasn't enough demand, so I showed how there is plenty of demand for things WotC isn't currently offering.
> 
> Effectively, I'm arguing that WotC get out of the "game design" business almost entirely, and instead rely on the extended fan community to design, so it wouldn't be so much that WotC would be supplying these things as it would be that WotC would be making a tidy profit off of the supplying that Random Internet Fans would do for free.




Personally I don't thing the demand is large enough for it to be worthwhile for WOTC.  The internet community (and the old-school movement) is most likely a vocal minority (IMO).  Will they line up to buy old-school style books if WOTC made them?  Even if they all did, would be enough for WOTC? I imagine a book would have to sell at least 100,000 copies to be even worth doing.  Will that many old-schoolers really show up to buy them?  

As for WOTC's business model, that's a completely different stack of beans.  Web 2.0 style business are the new trend in business.  The OGL is way more open then the GSL.  WOTC may be fools for ignoring it but I really don't know enough about the subject to say either way.

The only example I can bring up right now is Dungeon Magazine.  They literally take submissions from anyone yet almost all the published adventures are from people who had previous working expereince with WOTC; why is that so?  Is WOTC a bunch of cruel jerks  

Did anyone use gaming material they discovered on ENworld?  I hear so many complaints about D&D's hit point system but has anyone decided to create an alternative to it?  Brand name effect buying habits as much as (if not more then) how good the product is.  

Gotta go DM a game now.  I'll clarify myself/respond later.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 18, 2009)

> The internet community (and the old-school movement) is most likely a vocal minority (IMO). Will they line up to buy old-school style books if WOTC made them? Even if they all did, would be enough for WOTC? I imagine a book would have to sell at least 100,000 copies to be even worth doing. Will that many old-schoolers really show up to buy them?




"I imagine a book would have to sell at least 100,000 copies to be even worth doing" is looking at it the wrong way around, at least for my proposed wacky scheme. Make a profit (even a small one) selling memberships to the site, and on each individual book sale, and keep the team small, and you don't need to sell that many individual books to turn a profit. Even better, you don't need to "do" the books yourself -- other people create the material in them, you just print them (again, look at Flat Earth Publishing). Since you're not really producing content (or not producing much), you can decrease the size of your infrastructure, and you make a huge profit over the long term, without very many costs after the initial cost of setting up the system. 

For the TTRPG industry, a format like this makes a lot more sense than the traditional edition format. 

Take a look upthread at where I layed out the theoretical steps in this system. Even if all WotC did was charge something like $20 a month for access to every edition's rules, they would make a profit on it, especially in the long term, after the costs of setting up the system were accounted for in the first year or so. 

You don't need a lot of people. Half the web games being advertised on ENWorld right now only make money on about 5% of the user base, but because the costs of supporting that other 95% are so low, they make a profit.

Essentially, this is about lowering marginal costs, and expanding the market, at the same time. If only 10 people ever print a 2e book with this system, it can still be entirely worth it, because it is so insanely cheap to make that 2e stuff available, that essentially the people playing, say, 4e or 5e or whatever, can subsidize these, and the few bucks that the 2e folks throw your way are still profit. 



			
				MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> They literally take submissions from anyone yet almost all the published adventures are from people who had previous working expereince with WOTC; why is that so? Is WOTC a bunch of cruel jerks
> ...
> Did anyone use gaming material they discovered on ENworld? I hear so many complaints about D&D's hit point system but has anyone decided to create an alternative to it? Brand name effect buying habits as much as (if not more then) how good the product is.




I'm under the impression that Dungeon right now is kind of a special case. It's still trying to figure out what it is. 

As far as using material from ENWorld? Absolutely! Asmor's 4e programs, or, heck, Jamis Buck's 3e programs in the early days of Eric Noah's site...ENWorld was how I found MapTool. ENWorld is the only reason I'm still buying D&D products.  How many threads right now are asking DMing advice, or learning about game design of specific elements, to help people enjoy their game more? When we're not sniping at each other about what kind of rules are the best to dress up and play faerie elves with, ENWorld is an amazingly productive community.

And it's not even just ENWorld. 

Fan stuff for D&D and other TTRPG's tends to be pretty dang high quality. What's lacking -- aside from occasional threads on ENWorld and the like -- is an easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff and quickly and easily monetize it. Add WotC - level production values to get the most out of your Print On Demand item, and I can't help but think it would do quite well for itself.

Traditional book publishing is probably not the best way to serve the TTRPG crowd in the next 10 years, let alone 30 or 40 or 50 years down the line.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jul 21, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Because some of us come here to talk about the game we love instead of listening to people tell us why they hate the game we love in every single freaking thread. Seriously, why do people spend so much time spreading negativity instead of talking about the things they like, I will never understand. If you do not like 4e, talk about 3.x, 2e, 1e, OD&D or whatever is your poison.




Or you can discuss what you do not like about other game systems.

Seems perfectly valid to me.  Criticism is not spreading of negativity.

If you do not like criticism of 4e you do not have to read it.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Jul 21, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the compendium thingie, or whatever its called, the thing that's got all the monsters in it and whatnot, also free to use up to about 3rd level?
> 
> Y'know, throughout the history of WOTC running D&D, critics have constantly shoveled it on top that WOTC was nothing but a bunch of money grubbing suits who do nothing but try to line their pockets.  Yet, I'm having a tough time thinking of all that many RPG companies that give away as much free material as WOTC does.  Free adventures, free rules, free tools.
> 
> Hrm.....




If those companies had megacorporations like Hasbro behind them I am sure they would.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm afk for a week; I think we'll reopen non-edition-warry 5e threads once I'm back. Thanks for the reasoned, interesting discussions.


----------



## CardinalXimenes (Jul 21, 2009)

I have serious doubts about any game support effort hinging on public input, especially one intended to harvest the "best" ideas from them. I think Ryan Dancey was fundamentally wrong about OGL encouraging iterative improvement of the game through public input, and I don't see the idea of an old-edition support system based on public submissions working out any better.

The chief problem is that none of us can agree on what constitutes "better". It's enough of a struggle to even form a consensus about which games are "more appropriate" for a particular end, let alone which among them are the best. Given the notorious difficulty of even identifying the defining features of older-edition D&D, I have small confidence that the masses will all fix on a coherent set of goals for their submissions.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jul 21, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> What's lacking -- aside from occasional threads on ENWorld and the like -- is an easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff and quickly and easily monetize it. Add WotC - level production values to get the most out of your Print On Demand item, and I can't help but think it would do quite well for itself.




And that is the line between your "proposed wacky scheme" and viable business pratice.  

WOTC is not intrested in looking over every 3PP product developed in order to find out what's good and what's bad.  We, as a community, don't do enough to encourage/develop homebrew stuff.  What do we need to do to ensure our great homebrewers get the kudos they deserve?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 22, 2009)

> WOTC is not intrested in looking over every 3PP product developed in order to find out what's good and what's bad. We, as a community, don't do enough to encourage/develop homebrew stuff. What do we need to do to ensure our great homebrewers get the kudos they deserve?




Well, mostly my fever-dream-vision has it being a community thing. Maybe some sort of social currency system like "Yoinks": you make something someone else wants, they "yoink" it. You like something someone else made, you "yoink" it. The most "yoinked" items rise to the top, and then maybe a WotC staffer looks at the top one each month or week or something and does a Pro Game Design revision on it. Works something like a Digg system or a Twitter system: the more people Following your work, the more your stuff is probably worth a look-see.

There's also a potential payment element. If your stuff get used in a PoD book, you get a little stipend for it. You might never make a living off of it, but $5 here and there might add up to free membership, or a free PoD book, or, heck, just an extra set of breadsticks for your gaming group this weekend.

There's a lot of ways out there in the internet world to measure what people are doing. Heck, a good chunk of 'em are right at the top of the thread.  Facebook it, Digg it, Tweet it, Yoink it (okay, that sounds unbelievably sexual, but I think you get the idea), whatever. I know I'd be more active with 4e stuff if I got something out of it, be it community huzzahs or $5 maybe each month, or WotC themselves coming down, looking at it, seeing that It Is Good, and tinkering with it themselves.


----------



## xechnao (Jul 22, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, mostly my fever-dream-vision has it being a community thing. Maybe some sort of social currency system like "Yoinks": you make something someone else wants, they "yoink" it. You like something someone else made, you "yoink" it. The most "yoinked" items rise to the top, and then maybe a WotC staffer looks at the top one each month or week or something and does a Pro Game Design revision on it. Works something like a Digg system or a Twitter system: the more people Following your work, the more your stuff is probably worth a look-see.
> 
> There's also a potential payment element. If your stuff get used in a PoD book, you get a little stipend for it. You might never make a living off of it, but $5 here and there might add up to free membership, or a free PoD book, or, heck, just an extra set of breadsticks for your gaming group this weekend.
> 
> There's a lot of ways out there in the internet world to measure what people are doing. Heck, a good chunk of 'em are right at the top of the thread.  Facebook it, Digg it, Tweet it, Yoink it (okay, that sounds unbelievably sexual, but I think you get the idea), whatever. I know I'd be more active with 4e stuff if I got something out of it, be it community huzzahs or $5 maybe each month, or WotC themselves coming down, looking at it, seeing that It Is Good, and tinkering with it themselves.




I am not sure but I think Blizzard is doing something like this with fanart. Also Bioware did what you are talking about with the NWN modding community and as with Dragon Age, the successor of NWN, a huge part of their business plan lies in developing the modding community and managing quality community content according to this interview:
GameSpy: Voices of Creation: The Dragon Age Builder Interviews - Page 1

Also Games Workshop does something of this sort with the Golden Demon event. 

Wotc did try this with the OGL and Gleemax but both have failed for them.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 24, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Thanks for the reasoned, interesting discussions.



Man, what's a guy gotta do to get a flame war around here?! If we keep this up, I may just go back to Usenet.


----------



## replicaprada (Jul 24, 2009)

Thanks so much for sharing the post.



taux credit auto - Taux crédit auto. Comparatif des
offres! Les meilleurs taux crédit auto sont sur le net !


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jul 25, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, mostly my fever-dream-vision has it being a community thing. Maybe some sort of social currency system like "Yoinks": you make something someone else wants, they "yoink" it. You like something someone else made, you "yoink" it. The most "yoinked" items rise to the top, and then maybe a WotC staffer looks at the top one each month or week or something and does a Pro Game Design revision on it. Works something like a Digg system or a Twitter system: the more people Following your work, the more your stuff is probably worth a look-see.
> 
> There's also a potential payment element. If your stuff get used in a PoD book, you get a little stipend for it. You might never make a living off of it, but $5 here and there might add up to free membership, or a free PoD book, or, heck, just an extra set of breadsticks for your gaming group this weekend.
> 
> There's a lot of ways out there in the internet world to measure what people are doing. Heck, a good chunk of 'em are right at the top of the thread.  Facebook it, Digg it, Tweet it, Yoink it (okay, that sounds unbelievably sexual, but I think you get the idea), whatever. I know I'd be more active with 4e stuff if I got something out of it, be it community huzzahs or $5 maybe each month, or WotC themselves coming down, looking at it, seeing that It Is Good, and tinkering with it themselves.




Okay, let me ask you one more question about your vision; do you acutally want to make it real?  Sure, we can go back and forth for the next 20 pages talking about whether it would work or not but that won't make it happen.  If you seriously think this will work, let's do it.  Let's make it happen.  I'll even help you do it.


----------



## rounser (Jul 29, 2009)

This thread:
Bogleheads :: View topic - No More Bailout or Credit Crises Threads
...reminded me of _this_ thread.

I think their elephant in the room dwarfs ours, though.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 6, 2009)

rounser said:


> This thread:
> Bogleheads :: View topic - No More Bailout or Credit Crises Threads
> ...reminded me of _this_ thread.
> 
> I think their elephant in the room dwarfs ours, though.



Rather. Especially when you consider that their elephant actually exists.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 6, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, mostly my fever-dream-vision has it being a community thing.




Respectfully, you don't generally get high level production values out of community-driven projects, or at least not consistently over time.  The skills required are not trivial to acquire, and therefore the people who possess them tend to use them for things that make more serious money.  

Best example I can think of is community-driven software.  You get some really fine design and execution.  But the documentation?  Typically stinks.  But good documentation is required to consider it "high production value".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 7, 2009)

MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> Okay, let me ask you one more question about your vision; do you acutally want to make it real? Sure, we can go back and forth for the next 20 pages talking about whether it would work or not but that won't make it happen. If you seriously think this will work, let's do it. Let's make it happen. I'll even help you do it.




I personally lack the proper tools. I don't have the capital to design the interface, I don't have the industry pull needed to get good designers and a big user base. Aside from that, at the moment, the investment in 4e or Pathfinder or whathaveyou by the average consumer is big, at least from what I can see -- people have made their decision for the next few years. I could maybe see something launched with a fan-use database in mind, but every wiki needs a community to be successful, and that's something that WotC could bring over, but not something I can individually spontaneously generate (without spending a lot of money on advertising and what-have-you, at least). 



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Respectfully, you don't generally get high level production values out of community-driven projects, or at least not consistently over time. The skills required are not trivial to acquire, and therefore the people who possess them tend to use them for things that make more serious money.
> 
> Best example I can think of is community-driven software. You get some really fine design and execution. But the documentation? Typically stinks. But good documentation is required to consider it "high production value".




Generally, no, but it is entirely possible. Wikipedia is better than the Encyclopedia Brittanica overall, despite the user-generated content on it. Big "freemium" online games have high ENOUGH production values. 

With a solid company standing at the helm, overseeing printing and art and other overhead, we could get fairly high production values, at the very least for the website itself. The community might be giving up those high-class leather-bound editions, and they might get less art, and softcover books more often, more black-and-white, possibly cheaper paper, etc. But in exchange, you would gain a customized rule set for exactly the kind of game you want to run, no matter what it is, mostly for free, or printed on the cheap. And the option to go deluxe could probably still exist, it would just be more costly.

I think that the tabletop RPG industry does not need to tie itself to the publishing industry so intimately, and as it looses these ties, it can more embrace customized game elements. The Monster Builder, for instance, produces high-quality monsters whose marginal cost is essentially nil. The wiki for that showcases those monsters in all their glory for anyone to use. If a rating system were in place, and a designer could look at the highest-rated monsters, I think you'd have the beginnings of what this kind of system would be about.


----------

