Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kadeity 08-28-07, 08:43 PM	4th edition is coming out. but this is more about the transition. WHY doesnt wizards let us get a discount on 4th edition books if we own the corresponding 3.5 book? i mean... i think thats a reasonable move. Then i couldnt be nearly as mad about having tons of 3.5 books that seem obsolete now. If they let us get the books at like...20% off... if we owned the 3.5 book... that would be enough to make me feel like i was being rewarded for being a WOTC customer. But as it stands now.... i was punished for being loyal during 2.0,3.0 and now 3.5 and im not very happy.
dknight100 08-28-07, 08:59 PM	When half-life 2 came out, did you want a discount for having half-life 1?
revnk 08-28-07, 09:31 PM	When half-life 2 came out, did you want a discount for having half-life 1? Hardly the same thing. The example you're looking for is probably more along the lines of: "Did Microsoft give customers a discount for upgrading from XP to Vista?" or "Did people who owned 486 machines get a discount from Intel when they purchased first-gen Pentiums?" kadeity, while a discount would certainly generate goodwill, it wouldn't be all that economically feasible. If you've been playing since 2e, you surely realize that the past is strewn with dead and wounded game companies: TSR, FASA, GDW and (the real) Avalon Hill all leap immediately to mind as sadly dead and gone. West End Games, which used to occupy something like the niche now occupied by Wizards, is a pale shell of its former self (and one might say that's being charitable). Chaosium has managed to limp along--partly by diversifying into non-gaming publishing. Games Workshop has stripped their products lines down to the minis. Etc. An easy way for Wizards to avoid that fate is by re-selling titles to their existing market. It sounds ugly, but it's true. Whether it will be a sustainable strategy may be another matter entirely, but the alternatives may be worse and sooner. None of that means you have to be happy with 4e, nor does it mean you have to buy 4e. (I'm not planning on it.) Don't think about it in terms of branding, think about it in terms of gaming, and what you want to play and how much you're willing to spend on the hobby.
OKCPayne 08-28-07, 09:39 PM	A lot of bookstores (not game shops) sell books for a 20% discount the first week they are released. Some of the bigger chains have a club (that costs $10 to join) that lets you get 10-20% off each purchase for one year.
Kensan_Oni 08-28-07, 10:27 PM	OMG, I'm Playing A Game! No! You Can't Make Me! Oh, No! i was punished for being loyal during 2.0,3.0 and now 3.5 Please, get over yourself. No one is punishing you. You are buying something because you enjoyed it. You bought games you enjoyed, you played them, and you've had good times. Don't give me this "I'm loyal! I should get special privileges!" bull. The second you crossed the line from "I enjoy this game" to "I am privileged to own this game", is the time you need walk away and take a break. No one is entitled to a discount for being 'loyal' to a game. If you enjoy the new game, that is reward enough. If you won't enjoy it, find a better way to spend your money. Don't go feeling all empowered cause you've played this game for a decade or two. That's stupid.
rkr1970 08-28-07, 10:31 PM	You still own those 3rd Ed books. You can still use them. These past 7 years, I have heavily mined my 1st and 2nd Ed books for material. Not that I can use the game mechanics involved, but they are rich with ideas!! Especially the Spell Compendiums and Encyclpaedia Magica...
Stormonu 08-28-07, 11:11 PM	If you want a refund on your books, sell them on e-bay.:smirk:
KillerGM 08-28-07, 11:14 PM	OMG, I'm Playing A Game! No! You Can't Make Me! Oh, No! Please, get over yourself. No one is punishing you. You are buying something because you enjoyed it. You bought games you enjoyed, you played them, and you've had good times. Don't give me this "I'm loyal! I should get special privileges!" bull. The second you crossed the line from "I enjoy this game" to "I am privileged to own this game", is the time you need walk away and take a break. No one is entitled to a discount for being 'loyal' to a game. If you enjoy the new game, that is reward enough. If you won't enjoy it, find a better way to spend your money. Don't go feeling all empowered cause you've played this game for a decade or two. That's stupid. Ditto.
ArcTan 08-28-07, 11:17 PM	4th edition is coming out. but this is more about the transition. WHY doesnt wizards let us get a discount on 4th edition books if we own the corresponding 3.5 book? It's somewhat unlikely that the new books *will* "correspond" all that closely, excepting the DMG, PHB and MM. i mean... i think thats a reasonable move. Then i couldnt be nearly as mad about having tons of 3.5 books that seem obsolete now. I really don't. You have the books. They have just as much utility now as they did before. It's not like a computer game that has to connect to an online service for you to play it. Your only valid complaint is that new books won't be compatible with the old books, in which case the simple solution is not to buy the new ones.
Vaelan 08-29-07, 03:03 AM	The idea of a coupon that would get you a discount on the core books if you own the 3.5 books has been discussed in the 4e forums (Doomsaying thread, I think) and a WizO has forwarded the idea. Remember when 3.0 was released and you could buy the core three for $60? The idea of a discount for early adopters is not by any means unfounded.
Ranger REG 08-29-07, 03:12 AM	Remember when 3.0 was released and you could buy the core three for $60? The idea of a discount for early adopters is not by any means unfounded. When 3e was hyped, WotC noticed the fanbase interest in it, that they're willing to drop the price down. But when they wanted to revert to the standard price of $30, that generated a lot of complaints. (Yes, the D&D fan community can't tell the difference between the "upgrade price" limted-time promotion to the standard price. We need more Mensa members to offset the fanbase's collective Int score of 7.) So far, 4e hasn't generated that much interest from the fanbase yet. They're not that convinced that 4e is better than 3e.
Seeker95 08-29-07, 08:16 AM	WHY doesn't wizards let us get a discount on 4th edition books if we own the corresponding 3.5 book?Why doesn't Madden 2007 give you a discount if you own the corresponding Madden 2006? Why doesn't your bank give you discount on the mortgage for your summer home when you have a corresponding mortgage on a year-round home? Why doesn't a publishing company give you a discount on the third volume of a science fiction series when you own the corresponding first and second volumes?
OKCPayne 08-29-07, 09:14 AM	Why doesn't Madden 2007 give you a discount if you own the corresponding Madden 2006? Why doesn't your bank give you discount on the mortgage for your summer home when you have a corresponding mortgage on a year-round home? Why doesn't a publishing company give you a discount on the third volume of a science fiction series when you own the corresponding first and second volumes? Everytime a new word is added to the dictionary, I demand a refund!
Carmine_the_Wolf 08-29-07, 09:15 AM	Maybe there'll be something in the 4th Ed changes that'll make you disdain your 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 3.5 Ed books as backwards and relics of the past...maybe the reward for loyalty will be a spanking new version of D&D that wipes the floor with all the stuff that went before?:D From the reactions of some people, you'd think that WOTC were doing away with the game rather than offering a new edition!:rolleyes:
Cartigan 08-29-07, 09:37 AM	Hardly the same thing. Entirely the same thing. Valve is a brand. With tons of expansions on it. There was Half Life with expansions Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, Blue Shift, etc. Then here comes the Source versions: Half Life 2, CS: Source, DoD: Source, etc. You bought all the old pre-Source games, do you want a discount on the Source ones? No one has brand loyalty like he is proposing, at least not any business I know of that sells products instead of services. If you want a refund on your books, sell them on e-bay.:smirk: Win.
CharlieRock 08-29-07, 09:52 AM	Many game stores do let you "trade in" old game books for discounts on new ones. I am a big fan of my game store's "used book shelf". :D
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-29-07, 10:05 AM	i mean... i think thats a reasonable move. Then i couldnt be nearly as mad about having tons of 3.5 books that seem obsolete now. Key word there is "seem." our current books will no more be obsolete in a year than they are right now or the day you bought them. They will continue to perform the purpose for which you purchased them until the day you die.
Korith 08-29-07, 10:07 AM	If you own the 3.5 rule books, then you really don't ever need to switch to 4.0. Oh man, I'm already refering to it as 4.0. Assuming there will be a 4.5.:rolleyes: Honestly, Sword & Sorcery games alone makes over 180 titles for the D20 3.5 rule set. Not to mention that Privateer press now has over a dozen titles. All the DL books from Margaret Weis Production, the Midnight series by Fantasy Flight Games, and last but not least, Mongoose publishing another 50 titles. I swung by Drive Thru RPG to get an idea of how many titles there are for d20-Fantasy (Dungeons and Dragons), and doing a quick and dirty count got me a number around 3,500 titles. That means, hundreds of campaign settings, adventures, scenarios, and monster books for you to choose from. In those hundreds of books are thousands upon thousands of monsters, basic and prestige classes, feats, equipment, spells, variant rules, and races. All this amounts to some amazing 3.5 campaign settings. If I tried to use half of the books available now, I would have enough gaming material to never have to come up with an original idea for the rest of my life.:weep: (I'm so happy.) So if you can't find enough books out of 3,500 that you would like to use, then you really need to switch to either 4.0 or another system entirely. By the way, I am one of those people who insists on having a physical book in front of them. Most of those books are either on ebay in almost new condition and the prices will only be getting cheaper as we get closer to the release of 4.0.:)
Toran_A_Sunder 08-29-07, 10:25 AM	Honestly, the "punishment" can't have been too severe if you still bought 3.0, 3.5, and have pans to buy 4e. I think this is my biggest gripe about people who complain about 4e. "WotC is forcing me to buy a new edition when the old one is just fine!" I don't know about any of you, but none of the authors have showed up at my home or place of business and put a gun to my head, demanding I purchase 4e on threat of my life as well as my family.
revnk 08-29-07, 12:29 PM	...and the prices will only be getting cheaper as we get closer to the release of 4.0.:) Indeed, this is part of the silver lining. The "loyalty discount" some people are looking for will be found, so to speak, when retailers start dumping their old stock with clearance stickers and gamers start clearing space on their shelves by posting eBay listings. If you're loyal to 3.x, I expect you'll be seeing some great "discounts" in around six months.:D
Otto the Bugbear 08-29-07, 12:46 PM	I've paid my income taxes every year since I started working... Time for that Loyalty Discount!
Korith 08-29-07, 04:08 PM	Exactly. I already have my eye on an entire section of the shelf at my local gaming store.:D So depending on how well I do on the 3.x fire sale, I may never switch to 4.0!:eek: I have to thank wizards for putting out the OGL for 3.x in such a way that I will never have to update my system again, if I don't want to. If I only get 10% of the books that are available under D&D 3.x/D20 Fantasy system I will have quite a collection. I think that 300-400 books can keep me up to my neck in dungeons and dice rolls for many years to come.:D God, I think I may weep with joy :weep: just thinking about all the material I can get. Thank you WotC!!!!
WizO_Mimir 08-29-07, 06:44 PM	Whether you agree or disagree with someone, let's keep things from getting personal. Thank you!
Stardust 08-29-07, 07:13 PM	Indeed, this is part of the silver lining. The "loyalty discount" some people are looking for will be found, so to speak, when retailers start dumping their old stock with clearance stickers and gamers start clearing space on their shelves by posting eBay listings. If you're loyal to 3.x, I expect you'll be seeing some great "discounts" in around six months.:D No kidding, a bunch of the splats are already less than £6 (i think that's around $11 or so) on amazon marketplace. I wasn't going to buy anymore 3.5 books in case I like 4e enough to switch, but at those prices I'm still really tempted :/
DaidojiTaidoru 08-29-07, 07:16 PM	Money spent on 3.0 & 3.5 stuff. ~ $800 American. Time spent gaming with 3.0 & 3.5 rules ~ 2600 hours. Cost per hour of 3.X ~ $0.31 American. That number should be less but I made the mistake of getting the BoVD and the BoED at the same time. Still irked about that one. In any case, I got my moneys worth out of this system. Now I'm itching to see some upgrades.
Stardust 08-29-07, 07:20 PM	Cost per hour of 3.X ~ $0.31 American. Including pizza and minus rules arguments? :P But yeah, I don't regret any of my 3.5 purchases for a minute, nor do I feel Wizards are doing anything shocking by releasing 4e. I just hope it's a good system and will judge it when it comes out.
ArcTan 08-29-07, 07:28 PM	Many game stores do let you "trade in" old game books for discounts on new ones. I am a big fan of my game store's "used book shelf". :D And that sort of thing is and really ought to be the store's business, not the publisher's, since the economic feasibility of this has a lot to do with the local market and not much to do with the national (and would be enormously more expensive at the national level -- trade-ins of this kind are almost the definition of "diseconomy of scale").
ArcTan 08-29-07, 07:30 PM	A discount for early adopters, BTW, is a great idea. It's also not at all the same thing as a "loyalty bonus". I would be kind of ticked if people who want to start trying the game with 4e and come out to buy 4e on the day it's released get short shrift relative to the DMs who are just coming in to "upgrade" their 3.5 books. That would actually be doing the *opposite* of what WotC wants to do -- it would be *discouraging* the hobby from expanding to new people.
DaidojiTaidoru 08-29-07, 07:33 PM	Including pizza and minus rules arguments? :P Pizza was not included as I would have bought food for survival anyway. Also slight of hand can be used to recoup lost cash. Rules arguments were handled simply. Iaijitsu at dawn. Admittedly some people said that was unfair as I had all the katanas, but after a few rules discussions that opinion went away. ;)
DeathByRodent 08-29-07, 08:43 PM	Almost all consumer based businesses stink with respect to handling their current customers. They tend to be overfocused on acquiring new customers and are all too happy to ignore current customers in the process. A great example of that was the long distance wars between at&t, mci, sprint, and whoever during the '90s. Each was so eager to get customers to switch, that the best way to save on long distance was to change your carrier every 6 months. Unlike others, I don't believe companies owe their current customers anything. Just because I buy a product, that company has no obligation, moral or legal, to give me a good deal on something else. But it is good business sense to pay attention to current customers, after all, your competitors are targeting them! Most consumers would prefer instead of always having to hunt down the best deal to get a reasonable deal with companies they have a history with. Should wotc somehow find a way to give previous customers a discount or some other bonus/gift/whatever? Sure, if they can find a practical way to do it. Why, because playing d&d is one of the few things most of us prefer over spending money on d&d. Are the obligated? Not in the least. I am still trying to figure out how a company that offers a new product has done something wrong. What am I missing? Obviously there is some capitalist evil quality at work here. :rolleyes:
bonethug0108 08-29-07, 09:03 PM	Rules arguments were handled simply. Iaijitsu at dawn. Admittedly some people said that was unfair as I had all the katanas, but after a few rules discussions that opinion went away. ;) That opinion went away, or the heads of your players.:P
kadeity 08-29-07, 11:13 PM	i am amazed at how rude some of these replies were. i thought more of this community than that. It seems alot of people see dnd 4.0 as a sequel...like in videogames. not a patch, to fix things that were already broken. thats fine, i can understand that. i guess i just wonder about my players. ALL of my players are excited, and EXPECT me to upgrade. i own more books than any of them, so they arent really feeling my pain at all. And honestly, im their DM. they want 4th ed, then i dont feel like i can just say "no, ive decided to just keep running the houseruled 3.5 weve been playing." i guess im just frustrated that im going to ahve to buy these new books... and that id be hard pressed to find players for a 3.5 game after may. we played saga edition. we used tome of battle. my players have high hopes. and expectations. and they are my friends. so... i guess im just frustrated. p.s. thanks to WizO_Mimir for noticing how rude some of these responses were.
Zousha_Omenohu 08-30-07, 01:01 AM	Key word there is "seem." our current books will no more be obsolete in a year than they are right now or the day you bought them. They will continue to perform the purpose for which you purchased them until the day you die. This is true. I mean, my books are pretty obsolete at the moment since I barely get a chance to use them!:(
ArcTan 08-30-07, 01:42 AM	i am amazed at how rude some of these replies were. i thought more of this community than that. It seems alot of people see dnd 4.0 as a sequel...like in videogames. not a patch, to fix things that were already broken. thats fine, i can understand that. i guess i just wonder about my players. ALL of my players are excited, and EXPECT me to upgrade. i own more books than any of them, so they arent really feeling my pain at all. Tell them you don't have the money. It's really no different from if a sourcebook comes out and your players want it and you don't want to buy it. There's an easy solution for this -- ask them to be patient or else buy it and run it themselves. I don't see the part where this is WotC's problem. It's like blaming Disney for creating Disneyland and making my kids want to go to it.
Korith 08-30-07, 03:13 AM	Almost all consumer based businesses stink with respect to handling their current customers. They tend to be overfocused on acquiring new customers and are all too happy to ignore current customers in the process. As an accountant I can tell you that it costs 3 times the amount of money to acquire a new customer as it does to keep a current customer. As my cousin once said, "To get the girl I have to go all out on dates, gifts, restaurants, and compliments. -Blank-, to keep a current girlfriend. All I have to do is not -blank- her off." (Sorry, he was raised in Jersey.) In the case of 4.0, I hate to say it but wizards maybe right in switching systems from a business standpoint. 3.x works excellently and is a very versatile system, (wait for it) but 40 of the 50 rpg books I own which were released under the 3.x system are not WotC books. So I have spent approximately $1,500 on the 3.x, but of that WotC received only about $300.
Korith 08-30-07, 03:18 AM	i am amazed at how rude some of these replies were. i thought more of this community than that. I just have to add that this statement is sadly true. On my guilds forum, any member who posted some of the statements that these people have been doing would find themselves, warned, deleted, and finally removed from the forum. Unfortunately, too many forum's have been letting the clicks dictate policy and behavior. They don't know how many people that drives away.
Ranger REG 08-30-07, 03:45 AM	Whether you agree or disagree with someone, let's keep things from getting personal. I vote we close the thread. All this about money is annoying me. If you don't want to upgrade, don't upgrade. But please do it quietly. We don't need grand gestures of announcements. :nonono:
CharlieRock 08-30-07, 09:55 AM	I've paid my income taxes every year since I started working... Time for that Loyalty Discount! :heehee And that sort of thing is and really ought to be the store's business, not the publisher's, since the economic feasibility of this has a lot to do with the local market and not much to do with the national (and would be enormously more expensive at the national level -- trade-ins of this kind are almost the definition of "diseconomy of scale"). Well, yeah. Being an RPG player is a lot more involved then being a member of a video rental outlet. ;) We have the whole "hang out at the game store and talk to the only guy in town who was lucky enough to go to GenCon" ,or the "I can randomly say things like 'the original turtles with the red bandanas blah blah' outside the game room and everyone nods their heads and grins" going for us. :cool:
revnk 08-30-07, 12:00 PM	ALL of my players are excited, and EXPECT me to upgrade. i own more books than any of them, so they arent really feeling my pain at all. And honestly, im their DM. they want 4th ed, then i dont feel like i can just say "no, ive decided to just keep running the houseruled 3.5 weve been playing." i guess im just frustrated that im going to ahve to buy these new books... and that id be hard pressed to find players for a 3.5 game after may. As ArcTan wrote, this is really a matter of dealing with your players, who (in my opinion) appear to have unrealistic expectations of you. Even if you were running to jump on the 4e bandwagon, it wouldn't be fair for your players to expect you to just drop a wad of cash on all the available 4e books as soon as they were available. Most gamers would buy the books when they could afford them. And, as DM, you have the final say about rules and rulesets. If using the 3.x rules is dictated by your preferences (or budget), your players have the choice of playing by those rules or getting someone else to DM (it might be a golden opportunity for you to get some time in on the other side of the screen if one of your friends is going to spend the money). In other words, you can say, "No, I've decided to just keep running the house-ruled 3.5 we've been playing. Sorry. I'm just not willing/able to convert right now, and I hope you like gaming with me enough to stick with what we have. If not, I have no problem with one of you running a 4e campaign and I'd love to play in it if you do. Some of you may be disappointed, but things are what they are." Reasonable people will accept that. To wrap things up with an analogy: if your friends came over and said something like, "Hey, your place would be so much better if you had a hi-def widescreen TV, an XBox360, a full library of our favorite games and a $3000 leather couch in front of it for us to sit on!" you wouldn't reply, "Frak!" and immediately run out to BestBuy and Ikea, would you? If you switch to 4e, do it for the right reasons: because you want to. Happy gaming!
green_yawgmoth 08-30-07, 12:32 PM	No one is punishing you. Actually, this would be negative punishment. WotC is taking away something (money) for your continued playing of the game. While I'm sure the game will continue on, it will continue on with a different player base. Prepare for another mass exodus, WotC. Hope the stock doesn't drop too much. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Bob Loblaw 08-30-07, 01:07 PM	I don't really understand the "I spent X amount" argument. You were going to spend another $30 on a book in May, June, July, etc. This isn't really that big of a deal. The money was already spent, and upcoming money was budgeted to be spent. I know that I would have spent that $30 on something other than gaming stuff. I haven't purchased MMV, and probably won't. That's $35 bucks I get to spend on dinner, movies, other books, charity, whatever. It's not something that was going to sit in my bank account otherwise (of course that's also an option: 8 months x $35 dollars = $280 bucks plus interest, that's enough for a flight to see family). I plan on taking all my books to someone who does not wish to upgrade. Once I sell them for 25%-50% of their face value, I can take that money and reinvest it back into the new edition. I got more than my money's worth out of most of the books I bought. I would hope everyone complaining about how much they've spent also got their money's worth.
Seeker95 08-30-07, 02:38 PM	Prepare for another mass exodus, WotC.You say another mass exodus as if there was one before. More people play D&D today than at any point in the game's history. As far as WotC stock goes, you're talking about Hasbro (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAS&t=5y). Looks like it is doing just fine, and did just fine throughout the 3.5 revision. In fact, it climbed at the start of the 3.5 revision, and remained stable. If it weren't for the Chinese toys issue over the past month or so, there wouldn't be any major dips over the last 5 years.
Jexil 08-30-07, 03:25 PM	WHY doesnt wizards let us get a discount on 4th edition books if we own the corresponding 3.5 book? If you're looking for a substantial discount, get your books from Amazon.com or some other online retailer instead of from your local book/game store. You can easilly find a $30 book for about $20 that way, and even with the shipping your savings should be around the 20% you're asking for.
Ranger REG 08-31-07, 02:34 AM	If you own the 3.5 rule books, then you really don't ever need to switch to 4.0. No, but you'd want to, like I did my transition from 2e to 3e. :P Besides, I thought only old-timers like me won't move to the new edition because they're pretty much set in their way. :evillaugh To see so many young'uns staying with 3.5e, I wished you pen-n-paper roleplayers had said that when MMORPGs were created. Hehehe. :smirk:
SenorToenails 08-31-07, 04:08 AM	Amazon already gives ~30% off. That is a better discount than what you propose.
Carmine_the_Wolf 08-31-07, 06:56 AM	The change from 2nd to 3rd Ed was something that came as a shot in the arm to my own gaming group. Rather than causing consternation and resentment amongst a group of veteran players it rekindled our love of the game and brought in new gamers to the fold. I still can't believe people are spreading so much doom and gloom even before we've seen the books released!:D
Ranger REG 09-01-07, 02:46 AM	I still can't believe people are spreading so much doom and gloom even before we've seen the books released!:D Because it has happened before. :bored: I mean, I have every legitimate right to complain after having bought shelves-full of 2e products when WotC announced 3e back in 1999. It was only because of leaked and released information about how the game will be more improved than 2e that I jumped on the 3e bandwagon. But I got wise, I am more selective (finicky) in my purchase of 3e products than I am of 2e products. It helps when 3e products are more about crunch than about inspiring imagination that 2e fosters. I mean, instead of giving you a working PC, they give you circuit boards and expect you to put it together.
ArcTan 09-01-07, 02:50 AM	To wrap things up with an analogy: if your friends came over and said something like, "Hey, your place would be so much better if you had a hi-def widescreen TV, an XBox360, a full library of our favorite games and a $3000 leather couch in front of it for us to sit on!" you wouldn't reply, "Frak!" and immediately run out to BestBuy and Ikea, would you? ...Nor would it be the fault of Samsung, Microsoft, Bungie and IKEA for creating those products and making them available and more appealing than what you already have.
Bogwater 09-01-07, 03:00 PM	Amazon 30-40% off
xmen510 09-01-07, 05:11 PM	If you don't like the business practices of the company then go play Palladium Fantasy RPG. All games update the rules. They do this to stay competative. If we still only had Basic D&D, D&D wouldn't be around anymore. You can only sell a product for so long before people get bored of it. Take a look at any other game company. All of them have multiple editions of their games. Even the Table Top Miniature games have multiple editions in them. At least with D&D we can still use the fluff. If you play with Minatures and they don't update all of the figurines, you are completely lose your investment in those figurines in many cases as you can no longer use them in official turnaments and many players will not use outdated figs either. If you don't like the update when it comes out, don't upgrade. Just keep playing the older editions like many others do. i know many players that only play Basic or 1st Edition. If you don't want to upgrade because of finances then get them to buy the products they want and you borrow them. There are many ways around this.
Yadot 09-01-07, 05:24 PM	...Nor would it be the fault of Samsung, Microsoft, Bungie and IKEA for creating those products and making them available and more appealing than what you already have. Which is why I don't get this uproar about upgrading. When 3ed came out my group was obstinate about upgrading. "Wizards will make DnD just like Magic:tG" was the talk of the day. But when we actually got our hands on the 3ed rulebooks, it was so much better than 2nd ed that we switched right away. It'll be the same with 4ed. Groups will moan and groan, yet switch when they see the new rules. For those that don't, they can keep on playing in 3ed just like 2eders still play with other like-minded RPGers. Either way there's no reason to be in a frothing rage about it.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-01-07, 08:33 PM	Heh, this whole thing reminds me of the great 3E conversion a while back. So much nerd-rage on these boards lately, just like last time. And I bet when 5E comes out down the line, all the 4E fans will be yelling about the edition change too. (Personally, I am waiting until I see the finished version before I make a judgement.)
Wolfvyn 09-01-07, 11:31 PM	there's no reason to be in a frothing rage about it. Sure there is, everything is a reason to go into a frothing rage. Seriously those are fun. Who doesn't like going on a rampage while shouting obscenities at the top of your lungs. Hell cutting another person off on the freeway is grounds for execution in my book. Anyway I wouldn't say that no one is being punished. The people who convert are being punished in the sense that all the old stuff for their settings will be up in the air. They will either have to go through and hot fix their stuff for 4e until (to bad they don't make duct tape or super glue for game systems eh?) the new setting books come out or put those campaigns on hold and play new ones. I mean it's not that bad, but it will probably be pretty annoying for them. personally I'm a little disappointed about 4e, not because of any fears of a new system or about my old books being worthless (because obviously they are not), but because there is not going to be another splat book about martial adepts. I Absolutely love swordsages, the flavor of the class and their mechanical abilities just rock. If a "complete Sublime" came out or something along those lines I would buy it in an instant because I can't get enough of it. I want to know more about the Sage of Snow and Shadow. They barely mention him in the Tome of battle and he has completely caught my attention. He is the only notable swordsage that really doesn't have any information on him. nothing at all that gives you a clue about what he is like other than the fact that the notable warblade that is hunting down the seekers of Reshar has been able to keep his motivation hidden from even the sage of snow and shadow. Why is that worthy of note? Does the sage of snow and shadow have a spy network? Is he a diviner or oracle? Are they friends or old acquaintances? Is the sage just so wise and intuitive he can figure out just about anyones motive? The fact that I will never get a clue from the designers about that is disappointing to me. Sure I could just make something up and maybe they are keeping it purposely vague in order to force me too, but a little something more to work with would be great.
PhaedrusXY 09-01-07, 11:41 PM	If you want a refund on your books, sell them on e-bay.:smirk:Exactly. Do it quickly, so you can find a sucker who hasn't heard of 4.0 yet.
ArcTan 09-02-07, 12:05 AM	personally I'm a little disappointed about 4e, not because of any fears of a new system or about my old books being worthless (because obviously they are not), but because there is not going to be another splat book about martial adepts. I Absolutely love swordsages, the flavor of the class and their mechanical abilities just rock. If a "complete Sublime" came out or something along those lines I would buy it in an instant because I can't get enough of it. I want to know more about the Sage of Snow and Shadow. They barely mention him in the Tome of battle and he has completely caught my attention. He is the only notable swordsage that really doesn't have any information on him. nothing at all that gives you a clue about what he is like other than the fact that the notable warblade that is hunting down the seekers of Reshar has been able to keep his motivation hidden from even the sage of snow and shadow. Why is that worthy of note? Does the sage of snow and shadow have a spy network? Is he a diviner or oracle? Are they friends or old acquaintances? Is the sage just so wise and intuitive he can figure out just about anyones motive? The fact that I will never get a clue from the designers about that is disappointing to me. Sure I could just make something up and maybe they are keeping it purposely vague in order to force me too, but a little something more to work with would be great. While I know nothing about whether the whole lore surrounding "The Nine Swords" will continue to exist, I do know that they've repeatedly said that ToB was a test bed for concepts that will be in 4e, and that 4e's core martial classes will probably be based on ToB's martial adepts.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-02-07, 12:59 AM	Exactly. Do it quickly, so you can find a sucker who hasn't heard of 4.0 yet. Actually, if I can find a deal, I might purchase some 3.0 and 3.5 books. I'm still not entirely sure I'm converting yet, I just don't know enough to decide.
Alex_P 09-02-07, 01:35 AM	All games update the rules. They do this to stay competative. If we still only had Basic D&D, D&D wouldn't be around anymore. You can only sell a product for so long before people get bored of it. Take a look at any other game company. All of them have multiple editions of their games.In a niche industry like TRPGs, it's hard to distinguish "this is the only thing that works" from "this is just the thing that everybody does." The range of possible business models has been rather poorly explored. At best, you've got a bunch of conflicting anecdotes about what works and what doesn't. -- Alex
Yadot 09-02-07, 02:10 AM	In a niche industry like TRPGs, it's hard to distinguish "this is the only thing that works" from "this is just the thing that everybody does." The range of possible business models has been rather poorly explored. At best, you've got a bunch of conflicting anecdotes about what works and what doesn't. -- Alex There is a simple way to solve this. We study the mechanics and profits of game companies that don't update editions every five years. I submit Palladium.
Alex_P 09-02-07, 03:28 AM	There is a simple way to solve this. We study the mechanics and profits of game companies that don't update editions every five years. I submit Palladium.Palladium has had several massive business screw-ups. The very technology they use to produce their games is, at this point, horribly dated. Rifts is absolute ****, in my opinion. And yet they're still holding on, somehow. Holding on despite that whole embezzlement thing, which they reacted to by reprinting the same old stuff -- and people bought it to bail them out. This is what I mean about the evidence being largely anecdotal. You've got a few convoluted cases to go on. It's my opinion that Palladium should be a horrible failure. But it's not. It's just hidebound and troubled... but still around. All of their bad design and horrible mistakes don't hurt them nearly as much as it seems they should. Really, what Palladium tells me is that you can make tons and tons of mistakes as long as you still have "fan loyalty" going. Sure, most RPG publishers are trying to do the "supplement treadmill + edition reboots" model right now. It is definitely a time-tested model. But you've got absolutely no basis to argue that it's the optimal one here. Look at two industries very similar to TRPGs in concept, for example: board games and video games. Are those full of edition reboots? Nope. The standard business model is "make a game, sell it, then make a different game and go sell that, with plentiful sequels and the occasional re-release or expansion." The big exception here is stuff like EA's sports franchises. Those basically do get new editions all the time. Mostly a roster change, a graphics update, maybe some gameplay kludges. All those sports games with the year at the end. They're financially successful, but widely regarded as bad for both the video game industry and the video game arts. People point to "Madden" (or whatever) and say "Is this really the kind of thing we should encourage and emulate? Do you want the whole industry to turn into this pointless waste of time?" And, really, I can totally see pen-and-paper RPG companies publishing games rather than a game line. I feel like this used to be more common a long time ago. We're seeing a bit of a resurgence of that now, too. Which approach is better overall? Nobody knows for sure. And that's the point. -- Alex
bonethug0108 09-02-07, 06:03 AM	Actually madden has sold about 2.24 million copies and has been and will be a good model for them. It doesn't work with everything, but people love madden and continue to buy it year after year despite detracters. http://vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=7105 But this in no way should be compared to rpgs and how they should model their business. Even things within the same business need different business models that suit their product best. There is no one best universal way, and also no one best universal bad way(unless it is a completely dumb way like selling tires with the books or something).
Seeker95 09-02-07, 08:32 AM	The people who convert are being punished in the sense that all the old stuff for their settings will be up in the air. They will either have to go through and hot fix their stuff for 4e until the new setting books come out or put those campaigns on hold and play new ones.Campaign settings are not mechanics-dependent. I am still using the exact same campaign setting I used in 1983. Same giant Greyhawk map and Greyhawk gazetteer. My campaign setting has worked just fine through three edition changes, and I suspect it will work just fine through this one too.
Wolfvyn 09-02-07, 11:09 AM	Campaign settings are not mechanics-dependent. I am still using the exact same campaign setting I used in 1983. Same giant Greyhawk map and Greyhawk gazetteer. My campaign setting has worked just fine through three edition changes, and I suspect it will work just fine through this one too. Yes they are not mechanics dependent in the sense that for the most part the background is unchanged, but what the PC's and other beings of note can do and how thy use their new abilities will have a major impact not only on actual game play, but also how the rest of the world views and interacts with them. If you want to play around in th old setting with the new rules you are going to have to update and until they have a good deal of the new stuff out a lot of it will be left in the dark. Meaning that you are either going to have to improvise o just plain wait. Also if you bothered to read what I wrote instead of just picking a part of it to comment on, you would know that I said it isn't so much a problem as an annoyance.
Seeker95 09-02-07, 12:03 PM	Yes they are not mechanics dependent in the sense that for the most part the background is unchanged, but what the PC's and other beings of note can do and how thy use their new abilities will have a major impact not only on actual game play, but also how the rest of the world views and interacts with them.Not in the least. Who is king, wehre the temple of deity X is located, and who runs the thieves' guild in the town of Y have nothing to do with the mechanics or the edition. If you want to play around in th old setting with the new rules you are going to have to update"Have to update" what? If I *want* to use 4e rules, then that is my choice. But it does not affect my campaign at all. and until they have a good deal of the new stuff out a lot of it will be left in the dark.The only things I need if I choose[/]i to play a 4e-mechanics game is the core three rule books. That's it. That's all. I don't need any other "new stuff" to play 4e D&D. Meaning that you are either going to have to improvise o just plain wait.I guess I have no problem with improvising. I've done it in every edition since I started playing in 1978. I still have to improvise in 3e/3.5 because not every possible situation has a published game mechanic. But that is a traditional part of being a DM. Improvising. Also if you bothered to read what I wrote instead of just picking a part of it to comment on, you would know that I said it isn't so much a problem as an annoyance.What is annoying is the extreme lengths some posters are reaching in order to paint the announcement of 4e as something negative. What is annoying is the way many posters are throwing around terms and phrases like "have to" and "must", as if there is some sort of 4e Task Force that will hold a gun to my head to make me change. What is annoying is the way some posters are pretending that what we have done for the past 30 years with the publication of a new edition is somehow not going to work just as well during the transition from 3.5 to 4e. D&D has worked just fine for me since I played at summer camp in 1978. It worked just fine when I bought the Basic Set a few years later so I could own my own game. It worked when they through out this weird Expert Set that implied you could go higher than 3rd level. It worked just fine when TSR announced Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and I learned that I could pick both a race and a class. The transition to 2e AD&D was almost seamless... such that I wasn't always aware of when I was using new rules or old. The transition to 3e was welcomed with a sigh of relief. The game was saved from obscurity. The transition to 3.5 was painless and welcome as well. And from what I have read about 4e thus far, I will welcome the change with just as much enthusiasm and gusto. My [i]campaign will remain the same. The mechanics will be different. And from what advance previews I've seen, different once again means better.
Yadot 09-02-07, 07:56 PM	Palladium has had several massive business screw-ups. The very technology they use to produce their games is, at this point, horribly dated. Rifts is absolute ****, in my opinion. And yet they're still holding on, somehow... -- Alex Perhaps I should have added a smiley to the end of that post. I wasn't entirely serious (and how could I be) when I mentioned Palladium. As for alternate business models, the only way to make a non-edition-updating game is to make the core rules so good out of the box that the designers can't think of anything major to revise. I just don't see how that type of game can be made to support a continuous steam of supplements that is a company's profit. Eventually the well is just going to run dry.
ArcTan 09-03-07, 04:41 AM	Look at two industries very similar to TRPGs in concept, for example: board games and video games. Are those full of edition reboots? Nope. The standard business model is "make a game, sell it, then make a different game and go sell that, with plentiful sequels and the occasional re-release or expansion." The two concepts are not as dissimilar as you're making them out to be. The Sims 2, for instance, really is, essentially, a better version of The Sims. You can say it's a "different game" in a fundamental sense, but so is D&D 3e different from AD&D 2e. It's not *just* a different game -- almost all the differences you can think of are things that were *added* to the game to improve it. If you separate games from the stories that the games tell -- which are nearly nonexistent for a game like The Sims, and might as well be nonexistent for the multiplayer functionality of games like Starcraft or Quake -- yes, most game "sequels" are re-releases of the original game designed to be better. Starcraft 2 isn't going to be a different game, equal to the original Starcraft in everyone's eyes, that simply "explores different ground". It will be the new, improved, better Starcraft. In a sense this has always been true in video gaming, especially back *before* the story a game tells became important. Galaga was, in a very vague blurry-text-box-stuck-on-the-machine-facade kind of way, a "sequel" to Galaxian (your spaceship flew to a new galaxy to fight new aliens or some crap). Really, it was just a new, improved, better Galaxian. Ms. Pac-Man was a better Pac-Man. Duke Nukem II was a better Duke Nukem. Mortal Kombat 3 was a better Mortal Kombat 2, which was a better Mortal Kombat. I mean, it's a continuum. In certain ways when the designers change something they sometimes really are making a "lateral" move -- "We don't think this is *better*, as such, but we want to try something different this time". Much of the time, however, the changes are clearly intended to be improvements. Half-Life 2 tells the story of what happened after Half-Life, but it's *also* an improved, better Half-Life. The push for the better version of the old thing is universal and kind of essential to any market for things that can rightly be called technology, like toys, games and tools. Only when the value of something is totally abstract, like in a novel or a movie or something, can you say it's not part of it (and even then, it's a rare remake that doesn't claim to be at least trying to "fix" some of what was wrong with the first movie -- if only by having a bigger budget -- as well as "update it for our times").
bonethug0108 09-03-07, 01:45 PM	I think the best game to look at would be civilization. The mechanics of civ 4 are VASTLY different than the orginal, and it got that way because civ 2 improved alot of things, then civ 3. Civ 4 had a few major changes to how things worked, but in the end civilization is still the game about building that first city and then trying to expand your empire while trying to live with or defeat your neighbors. D&D will still be the game about making your character and telling his story.
ArcTan 09-04-07, 01:55 AM	Actually madden has sold about 2.24 million copies and has been and will be a good model for them. It doesn't work with everything, but people love madden and continue to buy it year after year despite detracters. Comparing Madden's updates to the updates or sequels or reboots or whatever the hell you wanna call them other games get is massively unfair. Madden games get updated because Madden games are simulations of the *real-life* NFL, and the real NFL's roster changes every year, and when your entire game is built around the idea that, unlike other football sims, you're going to actually try to mathematically model each player's strengths and weaknesses as a set of stats, then yes, you will need an update every year to do this. You could offer the update as a free download, but 1) this was a foreign concept to the world of console gaming until relatively recently, and 2) if the one selling point of your game *is* the NFL licensing, then you might as well make money off it, since, after all, getting that license cost you through the nose anyway. If there were a football tabletop RPG, I wouldn't expect it to work any differently -- every year would have a new Roster book with updated stats for each of the players in the game. It's no different from music games like DDR releasing a new version of the game just so you can play with new songs.
bonethug0108 09-04-07, 02:51 AM	That was my point of the madden sample, not only is it unique in video games(not totally, but it is unique in the fact it is highly saleable year after year), it would make a very poor comaprison in the rpg market. My point is that video games cannot be comapred to rpg's because of the vast differences, and that even one rpg may have a system that works for that rpg, but may be horrible for another.
Khadmus 09-04-07, 07:17 AM	If you want to play around in th old setting with the new rules you are going to have to update... Using the new rules is, by definition, an "update".
Bogwater 09-04-07, 09:12 AM	3.0 was an update. It was also a new set of books. 3.5 was an update. It was also a new set of books. 4e will be an update. It is also a new set of books. Edition or no, it's still a new set of books. If I keep playing in the future, it will be as a player, not as a DM. I'm not interested in buying all those books again, even if I can get them for 30-40% off at Amazon.
Man in the Funny Hat 09-04-07, 10:12 AM	If they let us get the books at like...20% off... if we owned the 3.5 book... that would be enough to make me feel like i was being rewarded for being a WOTC customer. But as it stands now....And the years of entertainment you enjoyed with those books, the value of the $90 or so you spent for the 3.5 core books, when amortized over the 5 years of their useful life comes out to (strangely enough) $0.35 a week. That's pretty good value - but because they're not going to give you a discount now for 5 year old book purchases (that WERE available at discount from many major retailers/etailers in that period) you think they're shafting you to SPITE your loyalty? i was punished for being loyal during 2.0,3.0 and now 3.5In what way? and im not very happy.Clearly, but if this is your reason why you haven't a whit of sympathy coming your way. The kind of discount you're talking about would generally be reserved for people who might buy, say, the 3.5 core books just 3 months prior to the beginning of 4E releases - and then with reciepts to prove the purchase. - PLUS, you have another 8 months to TRY to scrape together the exhorbitant price you don't think you should have to pay.
Seeker95 09-04-07, 11:43 AM	If I keep playing in the future, it will be as a player, not as a DM. I'm not interested in buying all those books again, even if I can get them for 30-40% off at Amazon.So don't buy "all those books" again. If you intend to play 4e, as a player, buy a Player's Handbook. Nothing more. If you don't intend to play 4e, you don't need to buy anything.
Bogwater 09-04-07, 08:18 PM	So don't buy "all those books" again. If you intend to play 4e, as a player, buy a Player's Handbook. Nothing more. If you don't intend to play 4e, you don't need to buy anything. I would be interested in seeing some statistics concerning new editions and sales figures over time when new editions arrive with greater frequency. If they can succeed in the publishing business by releasing three editions in eight years (and don't argue that one with me), then more power to them, but something tells me their fan base will erode over time.
Grimaryl, King of Atyar 09-04-07, 08:39 PM	4th edition is coming out. but this is more about the transition. WHY doesnt wizards let us get a discount on 4th edition books if we own the corresponding 3.5 book? i mean... i think thats a reasonable move. Then i couldnt be nearly as mad about having tons of 3.5 books that seem obsolete now. If they let us get the books at like...20% off... if we owned the 3.5 book... that would be enough to make me feel like i was being rewarded for being a WOTC customer. But as it stands now.... i was punished for being loyal during 2.0,3.0 and now 3.5 and im not very happy. 3.5E is a perfectly viable game. You don't like how WOTC is treating you? Don't buy into 4E. You already have one of the greatest fantasy RPG's on earth sitting on your shelf. So why switch?
Seeker95 09-04-07, 08:55 PM	I would be interested in seeing some statistics concerning new editions and sales figures over time when new editions arrive with greater frequency.The 3.0 PHB Amazon.com sales rank is #136,430 in Books The 3.5 PHB Amazon.com sales rank is #5,540 in Books. The newer edition ranks higher in total sales than the older edition -- Amazon has sold way more 3.5 Player's Handbooks than 3,0 Player's Handbooks. This is for Amazon.com only, but confirms statements others have made that more people play D&D now than ever before. And based on conversations I have had with young and old gamers, on and off these Boards, I see no reason to disagree. Despite the number of folks that claimed they were going to boycott WotC when it released 3.5, more people play now than ever before. And I am confident that 4e will follow the pattern. Do I *need* a new edition? No. Am I afraid of a new edition? No.
friedmad 09-04-07, 10:04 PM	I for one will never buy another WotC product again. I've spent oodles of cash on 3.5 books only to learn that, "hey, guess what, we at WotC think everything youve spent money on to put wings on our houses is crap, and we're totally rewriting everything...hehehee...sucker."
dknight100 09-04-07, 10:16 PM	I for one will never buy another WotC product again. I've spent oodles of cash on 3.5 books only to learn that, "hey, guess what, we at WotC think everything youve spent money on to put wings on our houses is crap, and we're totally rewriting everything...hehehee...sucker." I too am strongly against game designers learning from their mistakes/experiences then releasing new editions? Everything since civilisation 1, Wolfenstien 3d, Super Mario Brothers, and Rogue should never have been made, and only incremental changes made. Companies are evil when they learn to make a potentially better game then try to do so, and earn money in the process.
IlmrynXiltyn 09-05-07, 12:31 AM	Why doesn't Madden 2007 give you a discount if you own the corresponding Madden 2006? Why doesn't your bank give you discount on the mortgage for your summer home when you have a corresponding mortgage on a year-round home? Why doesn't a publishing company give you a discount on the third volume of a science fiction series when you own the corresponding first and second volumes? Well, EB usually offers you a trade-in for your previous versions when you upgrade from say Madden 0x to the next years version. Discount might be the wrong word, maybe trade in is what you are after.
BlaineTog 09-05-07, 01:13 AM	Key word there is "seem." our current books will no more be obsolete in a year than they are right now or the day you bought them. They will continue to perform the purpose for which you purchased them until the day you die.Currently, your 3.5 books allow you to play D&D. When 4e comes out, they will only allow you to play "old edition D&D." While you can still play 3.5, it will become increasingly difficult to find groups that use 3.5, making the necessity of switching to 4e greater and greater as time progresses. Frankly, I'm not sure I even have the possibility of playing 2nd ed, even if I wanted to. In the case of 4.0, I hate to say it but wizards maybe right in switching systems from a business standpoint.Madness!!! If you're looking for a substantial discount, get your books from Amazon.com or some other online retailer instead of from your local book/game store. You can easilly find a $30 book for about $20 that way, and even with the shipping your savings should be around the 20% you're asking for.Super Saver Shipping ftw. I too am strongly against game designers learning from their mistakes/experiences then releasing new editions? Everything since civilisation 1, Wolfenstien 3d, Super Mario Brothers, and Rogue should never have been made, and only incremental changes made. Companies are evil when they learn to make a potentially better game then try to do so, and earn money in the process.Improper analogy. Better might be if they re-released, say, TES:Morrowind after having updated the graphics and mechanics, but even then, this still doesn't model things correctly, because Morrowind is neither multiplayer (specifically, multiplayer without a single-player mode), nor does playing it involve a huge investment of time and effort (while you can blow of a lot of time on the game, you never have to schedule times to play). A better analogy might be MMO updates (which are often clearly money-making ventures), though even then, they are less of an investment. You can pick up and put down the game at your leisure (addiction aside). Don't get me wrong, I don't think WotC is evil for releasing 4th ed or anything, but let's be honest here: they're releasing a product that does basically what the old product did, just potentially a bit easier, and by releasing it, they increasingly restrict the degree to which you can use the old product.
Bogwater 09-05-07, 01:29 AM	The 3.0 PHB Amazon.com sales rank is #136,430 in Books The 3.5 PHB Amazon.com sales rank is #5,540 in Books. The newer edition ranks higher in total sales than the older edition -- Amazon has sold way more 3.5 Player's Handbooks than 3,0 Player's Handbooks. This is for Amazon.com only, but confirms statements others have made that more people play D&D now than ever before. And based on conversations I have had with young and old gamers, on and off these Boards, I see no reason to disagree. Despite the number of folks that claimed they were going to boycott WotC when it released 3.5, more people play now than ever before. And I am confident that 4e will follow the pattern. Do I *need* a new edition? No. Am I afraid of a new edition? No. That's not what I meant. I meant diminishing returns over time as new editions are released at an increasingly faster rate, not the current standing of one edition verus an older one. If Wizards can attract MORE players by relaesing editions with increasing frequency, then more power to them, but again, I find it hard to believe people actually want to keep buying the same books over and over again every few years. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
bonethug0108 09-05-07, 01:43 AM	Time between 3e and 3.5- 3 years Time between 3.5 and 4e- 5 years Seems to me that time is increasing if you are of the mindset that 3.5 was a separate edition.
dknight100 09-05-07, 04:59 AM	Improper analogy. Better might be if they re-released, say, TES:Morrowind after having updated the graphics and mechanics, but even then, this still doesn't model things correctly, because Morrowind is neither multiplayer (specifically, multiplayer without a single-player mode), nor does playing it involve a huge investment of time and effort (while you can blow of a lot of time on the game, you never have to schedule times to play). A better analogy might be MMO updates (which are often clearly money-making ventures), though even then, they are less of an investment. You can pick up and put down the game at your leisure (addiction aside). Don't get me wrong, I don't think WotC is evil for releasing 4th ed or anything, but let's be honest here: they're releasing a product that does basically what the old product did, just potentially a bit easier, and by releasing it, they increasingly restrict the degree to which you can use the old product. That is pretty much accurate to the anology i posted - wolfenstein 3d let you walk around, shoot nazis. Doom 1-3 are pretty much the same game, half life 1 was an impressive upgrade to the FPS genre, but its still walk around, shoot things. half life 2 was an even better game, but its still an FPS. Civ 1 and onwards even moreso - its not even a matter of telling a story, civ 2 is just a better version of civ 1, civ 3 is just a better version of civ 1, civ 4 is just a better version of civ 1. On the morrowind note, its like a less successful version of that - Oblivion was pretty much: this is morrowind, but we've just some mechanics to what we think are better, and have upped the graphics. the land is different etc, but effectively its the same thing. Except the changes in oblivion, IMO were for the most part, utter rubbish. 1st ed, was dnd. Adnd expanded 1st ed, 2nd ed adnd improved adnd, and 3rd ed improved 2nd ed adnd - however it was a drastic change, and they learnt some stuff, and released 3.5. Now, 4th ed is on its way out. Like everything that came before it, it will be dnd. Like everything before it, its developers have been learning from what came before, and now they reckon they have a substantial release to make a wad of money off, making it an opportune time for both the designers, and the publishing company.
friedmad 09-05-07, 11:35 AM	Time between 3e and 3.5- 3 years Time between 3.5 and 4e- 5 years Seems to me that time is increasing if you are of the mindset that 3.5 was a separate edition. time between releasing AD&D and D&D 2.0 - 17 years time between releasing D&D 2.0 and D&D 3.0 - 8 years 3.0 to 3.5 (not truly a upgrade, just an update) - 3 years
Seeker95 09-05-07, 12:14 PM	time between releasing AD&D and D&D 2.0 - 17 years time between releasing D&D 2.0 and D&D 3.0 - 8 years 3.0 to 3.5 (not truly a upgrade, just an update) - 3 yearsYour facts and your math are a little bit off (okay... a LOT off) Chainmail: 1971 (this is "pre-D&D) Dungeons & Dragons: 1974 D&D Basic Set: 1977 AD&D 1e: 1977 D&D Basic Set re-release: 1981 D&D Expert Set: 1981 D&D Companion Rules: 1983 D&D Master Rules: 1984 D&D Immortal Rules: 1985 AD&D 2e: 1989 Basic Set revised: 1991 AD&D 2e revised: 1995 AD&D 3e: 2000 AD&D 3.5: 2003 AD&D 4e: 2008 Release Pacing Fifteen distinct releases. Thirty-seven years. Average years between revisions: 2.5 Advanced D&D Six distinct rule sets Thirty-one years Average years between revisions: 5.1 "Core" Releases 0e to 1e: 3 years 1e to 2e: 12 years 2e to 3e: 11 years 3e to 4e: 8 years Average: 8.5 years "Core" + Revisions 0e to 1e: 3 years 1e to 2e: 12 years 2e to 2.5: 6 years 2.5 to 3e: 5 years 3e to 3.5: 3 years 3.5 to 4e: 5 years Average: 5.6 years I'd say 4e is a right on time. Maybe even a year or two late.
Vaelan 09-05-07, 04:12 PM	Bogwater, the returns you get on your investment in D&D books is entirely dependant upon your actions. You can keep playing 3.5 and thus get more out of the same books.
BlaineTog 09-05-07, 04:19 PM	That is pretty much accurate to the anology i posted - wolfenstein 3d let you walk around, shoot nazis. Doom 1-3 are pretty much the same game, half life 1 was an impressive upgrade to the FPS genre, but its still walk around, shoot things. half life 2 was an even better game, but its still an FPS.Beside the point. Presumeably these games were still telling different stories, still using different settings, still employing different enemies. Civ 1 and onwards even moreso - its not even a matter of telling a story, civ 2 is just a better version of civ 1, civ 3 is just a better version of civ 1, civ 4 is just a better version of civ 1.Yes -- but Civilization has a rather robust 1st-person mode. The same cannot be said of D&D. On the morrowind note, its like a less successful version of that - Oblivion was pretty much: this is morrowind, but we've just some mechanics to what we think are better, and have upped the graphics. the land is different etc, but effectively its the same thing. Except the changes in oblivion, IMO were for the most part, utter rubbish.You're glossing over things you really shouldn't, but even so, the fact remains that it's a 1-player game. My point was basically that unlike most of those games, you don't actually need an update to keep playing something fresh; you could play Morrowind through using different classes or strategies, but you'll eventually run out of things to do, and you'll need to add more (be it mods or, more broadly, a new game, an update); with D&D, however, you could still play 1e if you want just fine -- but here's the rub: because you need a bunch of other people to be motivated to play a D&D game in order to play it, releasing new editions does effect the basic functioning of the old editions. Releasing a new video game* doesn't hurt the functionality of the older game, but it also expands the amount of material you can play that uses that game idea, but releasing a new edition of a PnP roleplaying game does harm the functionality of the old edition while at the same time not really offering at least novel situations. You could even port your old campaign if you wanted. I'm not saying WotC is evil or anything for releasing a new edition, but such a release does hurt the older editions, and in a way not really analagous to at least most video games. * Obviously this depends on the game in question, but I think it's largely true.
Seeker95 09-05-07, 04:33 PM	I'm not saying WotC is evil or anything for releasing a new edition, but such a release does hurt the older editions, and in a way not really analagous to at least most video games.How does it hurt the older editions? What is your working definition of "hurt"? The older editions still work just fine, regardless of the number of players that are using them. My 2e operates the same way it did when I first bought it. (Finding people willing to play 2e is also just as difficult today as it was back then. ;) ) Releasing a new edition may leave suppliers with surplus stock. However, I suspect WotC has given enough advance notice of 4e to prevent even that. I can't see any negative impacts of releasing a new edition. The old editions work just fine. The new edition already promises to bring improvements. The optional computer component is likely to attract folks who never gave D&D a thought. D&D gets more press as the release gets covered. My Hasbro stock is potentially improved.
BlaineTog 09-05-07, 04:56 PM	How does it hurt the older editions? What is your working definition of "hurt"?I believe I already explained what I meant by this: Currently, your 3.5 books allow you to play D&D. When 4e comes out, they will only allow you to play "old edition D&D." While you can still play 3.5, it will become increasingly difficult to find groups that use 3.5, making the necessity of switching to 4e greater and greater as time progresses. Frankly, I'm not sure I even have the possibility of playing 2nd ed, even if I wanted to.The game doesn't function without players, and it doesn't function as well when players are harder to find. The older editions still work just fine, regardless of the number of players that are using them.That's clearly untrue at extreme levels, if we take their functioning to include the ease of finding and maintaining a gaming group, expesially in a new area. After all, if you're the only one who wants to play 2e, you're not going to be able to. I have a hard enough time putting together a 3.5 group. How hard is it going to be in two or three years? My Hasbro stock is potentially improved.And the truth finally comes out! :)
bonethug0108 09-05-07, 05:40 PM	time between releasing AD&D and D&D 2.0 - 17 years time between releasing D&D 2.0 and D&D 3.0 - 8 years 3.0 to 3.5 (not truly a upgrade, just an update) - 3 years But then you are ignoring that 4e is now increasing the time between.:P Your facts and your math are a little bit off (okay... a LOT off) Chainmail: 1971 (this is "pre-D&D) Dungeons & Dragons: 1974 D&D Basic Set: 1977 AD&D 1e: 1977 D&D Basic Set re-release: 1981 D&D Expert Set: 1981 D&D Companion Rules: 1983 D&D Master Rules: 1984 D&D Immortal Rules: 1985 AD&D 2e: 1989 Basic Set revised: 1991 AD&D 2e revised: 1995 AD&D 3e: 2000 AD&D 3.5: 2003 AD&D 4e: 2008 Release Pacing Fifteen distinct releases. Thirty-seven years. Average years between revisions: 2.5 Advanced D&D Six distinct rule sets Thirty-one years Average years between revisions: 5.1 "Core" Releases 0e to 1e: 3 years 1e to 2e: 12 years 2e to 3e: 11 years 3e to 4e: 8 years Average: 8.5 years "Core" + Revisions 0e to 1e: 3 years 1e to 2e: 12 years 2e to 2.5: 6 years 2.5 to 3e: 5 years 3e to 3.5: 3 years 3.5 to 4e: 5 years Average: 5.6 years I'd say 4e is a right on time. Maybe even a year or two late. Thank you. I've seen this posted before. People tend to forget the many changes throughout history.
Alex_P 09-05-07, 09:54 PM	Currently, your 3.5 books allow you to play D&D. When 4e comes out, they will only allow you to play "old edition D&D." While you can still play 3.5, it will become increasingly difficult to find groups that use 3.5, making the necessity of switching to 4e greater and greater as time progresses. Frankly, I'm not sure I even have the possibility of playing 2nd ed, even if I wanted to.... which puts you in the same position as anyone playing any tabletop roleplaying game other than D&D. -- Alex
asdfff 09-06-07, 12:19 AM	from Cpt. Malcolm Reynolds that describes each and every one of you "What a whiner". Seriously people, pull your heads out. Ironically, YOU are also whining about the 3e grognards on this board. They have every reason to do so, and are usually more than happy to describe for us each and every one of them. According to yourself, if YOU cannot sympathize, at least, (ironically,) quit-cher bellyaching.
DrowBattlemind 09-06-07, 12:42 AM	No, but you'd want to, like I did my transition from 2e to 3e. :P Besides, I thought only old-timers like me won't move to the new edition because they're pretty much set in their way. :evillaugh Actually, I think I might actually be slightly older, according to some of the postings we've had before, and I plan on switching (if it's an improvement, a la Star Wars Saga edition was over RCR) even if I have to buy new Players Handbooks for myself and our other six members of my gaming group. Because it has happened before. :bored: I mean, I have every legitimate right to complain after having bought shelves-full of 2e products when WotC announced 3e back in 1999. It was only because of leaked and released information about how the game will be more improved than 2e that I jumped on the 3e bandwagon. But I got wise, I am more selective (finicky) in my purchase of 3e products than I am of 2e products. It helps when 3e products are more about crunch than about inspiring imagination that 2e fosters. I mean, instead of giving you a working PC, they give you circuit boards and expect you to put it together. POV and opinion, REG. 1st Ed was mostly crunch and 10% fluff, 2nd ed was 25-35% crunch and 65-75% fluff, 3rd/3.5 is about a 50-50 mix of crunch and fluff; for every Races Of Stone you also seem to have a Secrets of Sarlona, for every XPH we've got a Lost Empires of Faerun. Sometimes the CONTENTS of the books are skewed, but the end result seems roughly 50-50. And besides, as SO many others have said, if someone likes all the 3.5 stuff he or she has purchased, why bother switching? All the old 3.5 stuff will still work. And if he or she DOES switch, the conversion between 3.5 and 4th ed shouldn't be as rough as the switch between 2nd ed and 3rd was, it's still using the D20 mechanic for everything except damage dice (from what little we've seen, anyway), while 2nd ed switched back & forth willy-nilly between 20-sided rolls and percentiles. Since I still use 75% of all my old 1st & 2nd ed Greyhawk and Realms stuff with our 3.5 game campaigns, I see no reason why the original poster cannot do so with his 3.5 source/splat books in 4th ed (besides the 3.5 core three, that is.)
sigma999 09-06-07, 12:56 AM	We have 3.5 SRD. It's free. I have a copy DL from Sovelior or whatever. When 4e comes, wait for the SRD. You don't need those fancy pictures and layout. Or do you?
Ranger REG 09-06-07, 04:04 AM	I'd say 4e is a right on time. Maybe even a year or two late. No. Despite the 11-year gap between 2e and 3e, I'd prefer a 10-year gap between an edition turnover. If it was a year or two late, then you'd subscribe that 3.5e release is the mid-point of a new edition turnover: released 2003 -- three years after 3.0e -- one would expect 4e to come out in 2006. 2e Revised only came out six years after 2e.
Seeker95 09-06-07, 08:26 AM	If it was a year or two late, then you'd subscribe that 3.5e release is the mid-point of a new edition turnover: released 2003 -- three years after 3.0e -- one would expect 4e to come out in 2006. 2e Revised only came out six years after 2e.You are using a single transition point. I am using averages across all editions. I do not evaluate a single transition in the context of a single transition. The gripe many are voicing is that 4e is too soon. But viewed in the context of the 37 year history of D&D, such a gripe has little statistical support. How one views the status of 3.5 is immaterial to such an approach. "Core" releases were separated by an average of 8.5 years. 4e is released 8 years after 3e. "Core+Revision" releases were separated by an average of 5.6 years. 4e is released 5 years after 3.5. Either way, it is pretty much on target when measured against the history of the game.
BlaineTog 09-06-07, 09:48 AM	... which puts you in the same position as anyone playing any tabletop roleplaying game other than D&D. -- AlexWhich only highlights what I mean. D&D's biggest strength is it's brand recognition. It's the easiest game to get into because it's the easiest to find fellow players and DMs.
Seeker95 09-06-07, 10:36 AM	D&D's biggest strength is it's brand recognition. It's the easiest game to get into because it's the easiest to find fellow players and DMs.I agree with your statement, but I don't see how it is relevant to the claim that releasing a new edition "hurts" older editions of the game. D&D's brand recognition is improved with each new edition, if for no other reason than press. A new edition generates new press releases. New press releases invariably reach new people. A portion of those new people become new players/customers. Yes, more people switch to a new edition of a game than remain with an old edition of a game. And yes, it becomes more difficult to find other players who want to play an older edition of a game. But it remains easier to find players of an older edition of D&D than to find players of an older edition of any other role-playing game. D&D's brand recognition is one reason WotC bought it from TSR in the first place. It did so as a sound business-decision. Continuing to make sound business decisions is what will keep D&D brand recognition at the forefront of the RPG industry.
WizO_Gaelin 09-06-07, 10:38 AM	Just a reminder folks - it is ok to be upset over the product, and complain about it here - but it is not ok to attack other users. Please keep it friendly in here.
celtredleg 09-06-07, 10:52 AM	How does it hurt the older editions? What is your working definition of "hurt"? Releasing a new edition may leave suppliers with surplus stock. However, I suspect WotC has given enough advance notice of 4e to prevent even that. I can't see any negative impacts of releasing a new edition. The old editions work just fine. The new edition already promises to bring improvements. The optional computer component is likely to attract folks who never gave D&D a thought. D&D gets more press as the release gets covered. My Hasbro stock is potentially improved. My FLGS has had a drop of over 50% in 3.5 book sales from the week of the announcement. They say they may not get any new DnD books after October except special order. This is a direct financial hurt to them. Almost 50% of thier shelf space is devoted to D20 products. Most of those are now not moveing. This has moved them from makeing a little money, to makeing no money. If it continues, it will drift into loseing money. Saying "well we are going to make a ton of money when the new edition comes out" to the power company will not keep the lights on. This has been a disaster for them. A few regulars like me still spend as much as we did before, just on Mongoose for me, and that helps a bit. But it doesnt solve the problem, of what to do with all the inventory now chokeing his shelves and tieing up his assets. Yes, go ahead, tell him to discount them. He figured that if he was to sell them at 50%, he might just as well give them away, and close the doors sooner, as 50% will put him out of buissness. And of course, WoTC has told him it is his problem not thiers, he should not have had such a large inventory. I may or may not buy 4.0. It depends on the quality of the product. But I shall be deeply offended if the announcement kills off the last game store in town.
Bob Loblaw 09-06-07, 12:19 PM	My FLGS has had a drop of over 50% in 3.5 book sales from the week of the announcement. They say they may not get any new DnD books after October except special order. This is a direct financial hurt to them. Unfortunately, this is the nature of doing business, especially in a niche market such as gaming. Almost 50% of thier shelf space is devoted to D20 products. Most of those are now not moveing. This has moved them from makeing a little money, to makeing no money. If it continues, it will drift into loseing money. They're going to have to adapt to the changing situation. They put too many eggs in one basket. It's time to do everything they can to move that product. They may have to sell the product cheaper than they wanted. They may have to come up with some promotional ideas. There is no reason why they can't start some sort of Gamer Day of their own to get new customers. Even someone new to the game is going to want some books. Saying "well we are going to make a ton of money when the new edition comes out" to the power company will not keep the lights on. This has been a disaster for them. I hope they find a way to sell more product then. They are going to have to expand their non-d20 stuff for a while. Looking at the releases that WotC planned prior to the announcement, I have a feeling they were going to be in the same situation. Fluff books don't sell as well as crunch. There's a lot of fluff coming out. A few regulars like me still spend as much as we did before, just on Mongoose for me, and that helps a bit. But it doesnt solve the problem, of what to do with all the inventory now chokeing his shelves and tieing up his assets. They need to look into finding new ways to move that product then. Relying on their base isn't going to pay the bills. Yes, go ahead, tell him to discount them. He figured that if he was to sell them at 50%, he might just as well give them away, and close the doors sooner, as 50% will put him out of buissness. And of course, WoTC has told him it is his problem not thiers, he should not have had such a large inventory. They don't have to give a 50% discount. That would be foolish. They could consider bundling some of the books so they can get new gamers. Maybe they can give a 15% discount for each book purchased after the first. Maybe they can give discounts to those who bring new gamers into the store. They could come up with a punch-card like coffee stands have; buy 5 books, get the 6th free (up to a $30 value). Unfortunately, It's not WotC's problem. They need to come up with a different plan for handling their inventory. It's nothing personal from WotC, it's just business. I may or may not buy 4.0. It depends on the quality of the product. But I shall be deeply offended if the announcement kills off the last game store in town. See if you and your friends can come up with ideas to help them out. See about mini-conventions held at the store. Try to get new people into the game. Do they have a website? If so, do you have a link in your sig so the online community can find another great place to shop? Do everything you can to help them. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
DoveArrow 09-06-07, 02:51 PM	I actually think it would be nice if Wizards does what they did when 3.0 came out. At first, the core rulebooks were sold at a discounted price of $19.95. Then, after a few months, the price was moved up to $29.95. It might be too much to ask, but if they were to do the same thing with 4.0, it might go a long way to fostering good will towards people upset about a new edition coming out so soon after the introduction of 3.5.
Stormonu 09-06-07, 03:23 PM	Well, WotC is putting out preview books for $19.95 a few months before the PHB. However, rather than be suckered into this kind of marketing ploy, I think I'll wait for the 4E SRD, or just peruse the books in the bookstore as they come out. However, there's so many changes coming with 4E, I'm not 100% sure I'm going to move to the new system...
asdfff 09-06-07, 04:33 PM	Paraphrasings: celtredleg: the local FLGS is hurting, and may really, really hurt in the months to come. That 4e announcement came without warning and is far earlier than they ever promised. Bob Lablow: Don't worry, those FLGS' hurt by the sudden and early announcement of 4e are trying to be un-profitable by choice. If they go out of business, it is because they CHOSE to. These "Retail Queens" have been living large off the welfare money of companies like WOTC and it's high time we stopped supporting them.
Seeker95 09-06-07, 04:55 PM	asdfff is demonstrating bias in his paraphrasing. However, his intentionally sarcastic paraphrasing of Boblaw's post is not all that inaccurate. Most FLGS' are run by folks who love gaming. But in the 30 years I have played D&D, I have found that few are run by folks who love gaming *and* business. Even fewer are run by folks who love business and gaming (in that order). FLGS' made very poor business decisions in the 90s. Gaming store owners refused to create an ordering coop to gain bulk purchase power. (This idea was discussed and rejected numerous times throughout that decade.) Local gaming stores are likely to have large amounts of floor space dedicated to allowing non-paying-patrons to play for free. While these patrons might be spending 50-cents on a can of Mountain Dew from the machine leased on the premises, they are not likely to make additional purchases during the visit. Those allowing onsite games tend not to charge an onsite gaming fee. Most gaming stores avoided market techniques like subscription ordering, online storefronts, order-on-demand, or print-on-demand services.They have been suffering (and in many cases perpetuating) the consequences of placing pleasure before business in this business of pleasure. A successful entertainer is one who makes money entertaining. Not one who entertains to make money. The FLGS that places the gaming ahead of the business is destined to fail. And most FLGS are distinguished from "corporate gaming stores" by this exact characteristic. The FLGS cannot offer me the pricing that I can get from Amazon. If it cannot offer me the pricing on products, it cannot compete on the aspect that makes its survival possible. Services in a self-expert hobby like gaming are practically unnecessary. And in the world of business, "practically" is something most FLGS' lack. WotC is not the only gaming publisher. D&D is not the only game. d20 is not the only gaming system. If a local gaming store goes out of business because a single company announces that it is releasing a new product line (not even its most profitable line), that gaming store deserves to go out of business, because business was not high on its list of priorities in the first place.
Bob Loblaw 09-06-07, 05:09 PM	Paraphrasings: celtredleg: the local FLGS is hurting, and may really, really hurt in the months to come. That 4e announcement came without warning and is far earlier than they ever promised. Bob Lablow: Don't worry, those FLGS' hurt by the sudden and early announcement of 4e are trying to be un-profitable by choice. If they go out of business, it is because they CHOSE to. These "Retail Queens" have been living large off the welfare money of companies like WOTC and it's high time we stopped supporting them. My point (and Seeker got it right), is that they can make a choice to be profitable again. I have managed to be the guiding force with 2 unprofitable business and bring them to the top of the heap again. It takes hard work and and understanding of the business. I was a manager in a restaurant that was #96 out of 96 stores. Within a year, we were #1 in all ways. Other restaurants nearby were closing early or simply moved locations. Currently I work in a pharmacy that was doing only ok, but wasn't really going anywhere (we were about average). We are now #11 out of 1288 pharmacies. It can be done, but you have to want it. You can't blame others for the failure of your business. You either adapt or you go out of business.
Derren S. 09-06-07, 05:10 PM	I'm amazed how many people get angry about the thought that other people play a different edition as they do. WHen you don't want to spend money on 4E books then continue to play 3.5.
dknight100 09-06-07, 05:16 PM	Paraphrasings: celtredleg: the local FLGS is hurting, and may really, really hurt in the months to come. That 4e announcement came without warning and is far earlier than they ever promised. Bob Lablow: Don't worry, those FLGS' hurt by the sudden and early announcement of 4e are trying to be un-profitable by choice. If they go out of business, it is because they CHOSE to. These "Retail Queens" have been living large off the welfare money of companies like WOTC and it's high time we stopped supporting them. Actually, Bob said that if something isn't profitable, they shouldn't devote so much to it. If any company goes out of business, it is because they chose to. In this example, the FLGS is apparently clinging to stock it can't shift easily. Which, as bob mentioned, isn't a good business practice. The store probably shouldn't have devoted 50% of its space to a single 'product', rather, expanding into other geek products more would probably be a wise move, especially during the transition between 3.5 and 4.
celtredleg 09-06-07, 08:18 PM	This particular store has 3 things that sell consistantly enough to keep it open. GW, D20 products, and Flames of War. If any of them stop, the store stops. If they stop stocking one of them, there simply is not enough volume left to pick up the slack. Games stores are kind of a catch 22. If they are a good buisseness, they usualy suck as a game store. In fact I dont know of a single one of them that was very good. And, us geek gamers just didnt go there. We go to the place with the mountan dew machine and the free tables. Only, those places dont make it in the long term either. It seems as if FLGS is to join the dodo. I for one mourn the lose, but dont make enough to bail one out.
Alex_P 09-06-07, 08:34 PM	Which only highlights what I mean. D&D's biggest strength is it's brand recognition. It's the easiest game to get into because it's the easiest to find fellow players and DMs.True enough (though I'd say that trying to start up a game with your existing friends is generally much more satisfying than looking for preexisting players to befriend, usually). Of course, if one thinks D&D's main strength is its popularity, the edition change-over does make it a good time to contemplate jumping ship. -- Alex
celtredleg 09-06-07, 08:40 PM	I have jumped ship before. I disliked 2nd ED so much I dropped DnD until 3.5 came out. The brand survived my loss. I have no doubt it can survive loseing me again. I know that in other industrys, cars for one, brand loyalty is a major thing the companys work for. I dont understand why it is such a low priority for certain game companys( GW, WoTC)
The_Jester 09-06-07, 09:24 PM	A discount *might* not be a bad idea. Hear me out. Books eat up alot of paper. And, let's be honest, once you switch game editions you're likely never, ever going to use your old books. I have piles of old 2E books I've barely even glanced at in over half a decade. Oh, campaign settings and the like I flip through but the old DMG has a nice layer of dust and if it wasn't for trying to design a 3E rogue that would act like a 2E thief a couple months back my PHB would be covered right along sit it. So what about a recycling program? You sent back your old 3E books and WotC recycles them, and uses the paper to make more 4E books while giving you a small credit new books. They could do it though Gaming Stores to take advantage of established distributor channels. WotC pays less for paper, cuts down fewer trees and guarantees a sale of their book to someone who might otherwise decide to just play with the books they already have. What's the other option? eBay? Riiight. There are people selling the book for .99 cents. That's a nice 1/40 of the cost of new book.
Vrykolas2k 09-06-07, 09:41 PM	Not in the least. Who is king, wehre the temple of deity X is located, and who runs the thieves' guild in the town of Y have nothing to do with the mechanics or the edition. "Have to update" what? If I *want* to use 4e rules, then that is my choice. But it does not affect my campaign at all. The only things I need if I choose[/]i to play a 4e-mechanics game is the core three rule books. That's it. That's all. I don't need any other "new stuff" to play 4e D&D. I guess I have no problem with improvising. I've done it in every edition since I started playing in 1978. I still have to improvise in 3e/3.5 because not every possible situation has a published game mechanic. But that is a traditional part of being a DM. Improvising. What is annoying is the extreme lengths some posters are reaching in order to paint the announcement of 4e as something negative. What is annoying is the way many posters are throwing around terms and phrases like "have to" and "must", as if there is some sort of 4e Task Force that will hold a gun to my head to make me change. What is annoying is the way some posters are pretending that what we have done for the past 30 years with the publication of a new edition is somehow not going to work just as well during the transition from 3.5 to 4e. D&D has worked just fine for me since I played at summer camp in 1978. It worked just fine when I bought the Basic Set a few years later so I could own my own game. It worked when they through out this weird Expert Set that implied you could go higher than 3rd level. It worked just fine when TSR announced Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and I learned that I could pick both a race and a class. The transition to 2e AD&D was almost seamless... such that I wasn't always aware of when I was using new rules or old. The transition to 3e was welcomed with a sigh of relief. The game was saved from obscurity. The transition to 3.5 was painless and welcome as well. And from what I have read about 4e thus far, I will welcome the change with just as much enthusiasm and gusto. My [i]campaign will remain the same. The mechanics will be different. And from what advance previews I've seen, different once again means better. When were D&D/ AD&D ever obscure...?
Ongorth 09-06-07, 09:53 PM	I have jumped ship before. I disliked 2nd ED so much I dropped DnD until 3.5 came out. The brand survived my loss. I have no doubt it can survive loseing me again. I know that in other industrys, cars for one, brand loyalty is a major thing the companys work for. I dont understand why it is such a low priority for certain game companys( GW, WoTC) Well, I'm not sure about comparing WotC to GW in this regard. D&D 4e is instituting sweeping changes in the game system. As much as I've read, these changes are actually targeted at changing the gameplay experience in noticable ways. The switch between second and third edition was also a set of sweeping changes that altered the gameplay experience. Now, take a quick look at the differences between 40k 3rd and 4th edition. No mechanical overhaul. No major system tweeks. Basically, they took a few houserules and put them into the rulebook, then expected you to buy it and an army book. Nevermind the fact that GW has absolutely understanding of how their game is played and completely ignores both mathematical evidence and the results from oraganized/tournement play in making there decisions. I realize GW sells it product on the "hobby" aspect, but anyone who's been to a US RTT knows the gamist appeal is there, or it would be if the game adequately supported it. WotC is trying to refine the gameplay experience. Even if you don't like the direction the game is heading, you have to at least admit its heading in a direction. GW just sells you the same exact product over and over again is minor edits. You have to go back to 2nd edition 40k and who knows how many editions of fantasy to find a product that actually plays in a functionally different manner. In this way, I guess they do encourage "brand loyalty" by keeping things exactly the same. And yet, you still have to buy new books to do it. . .
celtredleg 09-06-07, 10:40 PM	It is the planned discarding aspect I am compareing. They claim to have been working on 4E for 2 years. So they already knew that everything put out in the last year was going to be dumped. I agree with many here, I have gotten good value from my PHB, DMG, and MM. I like the SC, and MIC, but the will be useless so soon that I did not get good money for them. The complete champion I got just before the anouncement will be money thown away. Yes I know, many will say I can still play with them. And yes I can....all by my self. Makes a great game. Try solo DnD sometime. Everybody I know is either annoyed and dumping WoTC, or alll excited, and wont start a 3.5 game, because they plan on dumping it as soon as 4.0 comes out. And yes, WoTC might not be GW yet. But you did mention that they are headed in a direction, and GW seems to be it.
DrowBattlemind 09-06-07, 10:40 PM	Just a reminder folks - it is ok to be upset over the product, and complain about it here - but it is not ok to attack other users. Please keep it friendly in here. Oh, drat! And just when I got finished wiring the C-4 to the goldfish, and shaved the polar bear (and dyed the wolverine shocking pink!) :D
Ongorth 09-07-07, 12:00 AM	Yes I know, many will say I can still play with them. And yes I can....all by my self. Makes a great game. Try solo DnD sometime. And 3 out of the 4 RPG players I know in the city where I live refuse to play D&D. In fact, they only play Feng Shui. However, somehow, I find it in my heart not to hate Atlas Games for having the hubris to create a competing product that splits my player base. A new product line isn't some kind of sin. It isn't WotC's fault everyone you know is a mindless sheep that cares more about the brand then the product. (Either because they feel that changes in the product line somehow makes the product they own less valuable or the fact they will follow the product line regardless of its direction) When it became clear to me that 40k organized play was going downhill, I started playing Confrontation instead, even though it took some work convincing people to play Confrontation. I mean, this is like part of life. People's tastes change. You can blame others for creating products that are enjoyable, but where does that get us?
celtredleg 09-07-07, 12:20 AM	With another shelf of books I can put beside Airwar, and White Bear Red Moon. It is not like this is the first time this has happened to me. It is just that the experience has not improved with practice.
Ranger REG 09-07-07, 01:57 AM	Well, WotC is putting out preview books for $19.95 a few months before the PHB. However, rather than be suckered into this kind of marketing ploy, I think I'll wait for the 4E SRD, or just peruse the books in the bookstore as they come out. However, there's so many changes coming with 4E, I'm not 100% sure I'm going to move to the new system... And that's why I propose to WotC to delay the 4e SRD release until a year AFTER 4e PHB release. :devil:
BlaineTog 09-07-07, 03:44 AM	I agree with your statement, but I don't see how it is relevant to the claim that releasing a new edition "hurts" older editions of the game.I don't know how else I can explain it. Here, I'll put it in a syllogism: 1) Releasing a new edition makes it harder to find players for old editions. 2) It hurts the edition if it's harder to find fellow players. 3) Therefore, releasing a new edition hurts the old edition. Yes, more people switch to a new edition of a game than remain with an old edition of a game. And yes, it becomes more difficult to find other players who want to play an older edition of a game. But it remains easier to find players of an older edition of D&D than to find players of an older edition of any other role-playing game.Irrelevant. The question of whether it harms 3.5 has nothing to do with the state of other games.
Ongorth 09-07-07, 08:17 AM	I don't know how else I can explain it. Here, I'll put it in a syllogism: 1) Releasing a new edition makes it harder to find players for old editions. 2) It hurts the edition if it's harder to find fellow players. 3) Therefore, releasing a new edition hurts the old edition. Here's mine 1) Releasing a new edition makes published material for the incumbent edition less expensive and more readily avaiable. 2) It strengthens an edition if published material is less expensive and more readily available. 3) Therefore, releasing a new edition strengthens the old edition. But, we both know that these claims are understated.
BlaineTog 09-07-07, 11:22 AM	Here's mine 1) Releasing a new edition makes published material for the incumbent edition less expensive and more readily avaiable.It is no longer being produced, and is therefore not more readily available. Rarer books could even potentially be even more expensive, though this is unlikely. 2) It strengthens an edition if published material is less expensive and more readily available.Unsound premise. We've already shown that it's not more readily available. Cheaper material doesn't necessarily make for a better game since more material doesn't necessarily make for a better game. The material could be unbalanced, or unimaginative, or it could drown the players in choices, or it could detract from the part of the game that isn't number-crunching, or it could simply detract from the other parts of the number crunching that are more interesting, and it would certainly slow down game play. Arguably, the current price of the books is the ideal, since it is not to the point of utter unbuyability, but most people will only buy those books which specifically interest them, thus only buying the books that they intend to specifically use, whereas cheap books would cluter up everything. Additionally, WotC could cease hosting the 3.5 SRD (and it would most likely at least be more difficult to find on the website), which would make access to the most important information harder, at least for new players. And in any case, owning every 3.5 book is existence is pointless if you don't have players.
revnk 09-07-07, 01:55 PM	And in any case, owning every 3.5 book is existence is pointless if you don't have players. My personal experience since I started playing Basic D&D during the age of dinosaurs is that gamers like to game, and can be persuaded to play nearly anything to get their fix in. Basic, even though Advanced was on the shelves. "First Edition" even though TSR was mightily pimping 2E. And there are still plenty of 2E players--throw a rock at a con or click "I'm Feeling Lucky" on google and you're bound to hit a few. (Let me add for the record that there were as many grumbles when 2E came out--and more pointed grumbles, since it was an open "secret" that 2E was related to Gary Gygax's ouster from TSR and the change in TSR's ownership and publishing policies. I skipped 2E altogether--I'd already moved to other RPGs and then was on a gaming hiatus for the late '90s--but I imagine there were similar grumbles when Wizards bought TSR's intellectual property and announced 3E.) Point being, if a DM tells his friends "I can't afford/I have no interest in 4E, but I have all the 3x books," I can't believe that everyone is going to storm off in a huff. And if they do storm off in a huff, it's hard to imagine they were really worth gaming with, frankly. Certainly, someone might say, "Well I'm buying all the 4E books, and I'd love to DM." If the group assents, huzzah. Many DMs complain they never get to play--here's a chance. In fact, perhaps the group spends even weekends playing 3.x and odd weekends playing 4E. I wish that 4E was a less radical change--by comparison, a player who has the third edition of Call Of Cthulhu and a Keeper (i.e. GM) who has the sixth edition will find that there's very little substantive difference--the sixth edition contains far more material, but the fundamental mechanics and terminology are identical. I expect 4E will follow SWSE in merging combat rolls and saves, to cite one instance, which is a significant mechanical change (logical, yes, but still...). I'm concerned that 4E will encourage powergaming and munchkinism by pumping up class abilities at earlier levels. I have issues with the way Wizards attempts to make minis integral to play--I understand why, and it's arguably sound business--I just don't care for it much. And I'm concerned about the way Wizards may tie the paper product to the online, subscription-based service. (On a related note, I'm sympathetic to 3rd party vendors like CMP that are getting shafted as a result.) But there's no doubt Wizards has a right to do all of the above. Just like there's no doubt I can "vote with my dollars" and not buy into the new edition. And I feel comfortable in adding that any gamer I've ever met will work with me on that, either playing 3.x (if he or she wants me to DM) or DMing 4.x (if he or she wants to buy all those books). Or, there's always Call Of Cthulhu or Shadowrun or even old-school LBB Traveller....:plotting: (Or should that be: :coolcthul ?)
Ongorth 09-07-07, 04:10 PM	It is no longer being produced, and is therefore not more readily available. Rarer books could even potentially be even more expensive, though this is unlikely. That may have been true years ago, but no longer. You can find any first party book and most third party books in six seconds on Amazon. Many of them are now being sold for $4. With shipping. Not being produced doesn't make it less readily available. Either way, you point is just as poorly thought out. I guess a new edition makes players harder to find. But so would any leisure time activity. I've asked people to play D&D and they've said, "No, I'd rather play Feng Shui." "No, I'd rather play Guitar Hero." "No, I'd rather play baseball." From people who have, at points, expressed interest in D&D. If we're going to complain about WotC's alternate products draining the player pool, shouldn't we also complain Robin D. Laws, Alex Rigopulos and Abner Doubleday for draining the player pool too.
BlaineTog 09-07-07, 04:35 PM	That may have been true years ago, but no longer. You can find any first party book and most third party books in six seconds on Amazon. Many of them are now being sold for $4. With shipping. Not being produced doesn't make it less readily available.First, they're still currently being produced, and frankly, it's still easier to get stuff in stores, if for no other reason than so you can preview it. Either way, you point is just as poorly thought out. I guess a new edition makes players harder to find. But so would any leisure time activity.This doesn't harm my point, first of all, but you're also missing my point; perhaps I'm using ambiguous terms. Let's assume the amount of total D&D play time stays the same: in this case, time shifted to 4e means time shifted away from 3.5 (not that I'm saying the playtime is actually static, just that my argument is speaking from the standpoint of "If they're going to game, for that amount of time anyway, which edition will they prefer?" If we're going to complainI'm not complaining, nor did I ever intend to imply that I was, just that these 3.5 players who are worried about finding fellow 3.5 aficianados because of 4e don't have unfounded fears. about WotC's alternate products4e is not an alternate product. It is a new version of a current product. 3.5 doesn't simply have to compete with 4e, it has to struggle with being forgotten as well. draining the player poolNot draining, redirecting.
Ongorth 09-07-07, 05:53 PM	This doesn't harm my point, first of all, but you're also missing my point; perhaps I'm using ambiguous terms. Let's assume the amount of total D&D play time stays the same: in this case, time shifted to 4e means time shifted away from 3.5 (not that I'm saying the playtime is actually static, just that my argument is speaking from the standpoint of "If they're going to game, for that amount of time anyway, which edition will they prefer?" However, that's not really how it works. Player pools don't stay the same and people's change interests. I know in college we lost our D&D campaigns to Bridge. 5/7 of the players in the campaign were also part of a bridge group (including me, the DM) and decided to end the game so we'd have more time for Bridge. The two players left out weren't mad at Bridge for redirecting the player pool. They were made at us for canceling the game on them. Frankly, if you're going to be mad (the royal you), that's who to be mad at. 4e is not an alternate product. It is a new version of a current product. 3.5 doesn't simply have to compete with 4e, it has to struggle with being forgotten as well. 4e is an alternate product. 3.X still has its own merits and if it turns out the system has real value, it'll stand up in the face of the new ones. While WotC will no doubt market it as an update, new version and continuation, it really is its own thing. I mean, if we take out the ownership and branding, Castles and Crusades could easily be viewed as a new version of D&D. King of Fighters 98 still stand today as some of the most popular fighting games in spite of the countless sequals that have "obsoleted" it. I mean, really, Bridge killed a D&D game I was in. Whether or not WotC (or anyone) choses to support D&D 3.5 doesn't make it any less of a game with its own merits, flaws and doubtlessly followers.
Alex_P 09-07-07, 07:49 PM	My personal experience since I started playing Basic D&D during the age of dinosaurs is that gamers like to game, and can be persuaded to play nearly anything to get their fix in. Basic, even though Advanced was on the shelves. "First Edition" even though TSR was mightily pimping 2E. And there are still plenty of 2E players--throw a rock at a con or click "I'm Feeling Lucky" on google and you're bound to hit a few.Well, there's "[TRPG] gamers" and there's D&D players. Those worlds strongly overlap, but a lot of D&D players are just D&D players. I think that's the spirit of BlaineTog's complaint, I suppose. -- Alex
zzo38 09-07-07, 08:06 PM	I think it is worth playing a free game instead of one you have to pay, in case you don't want to deal with such things as this. Still, you can continue D&D 3.5 (I still do continue 3.5 and probably still will do so), or even play 4e when it comes out (or do both), or play 2e if that is what you prefer. But, eventually old products become obsolete and if you want to continue support of it then is harder. When people prefer the old one and it isn't available anymore, that is what is the problem, making new version isn't the problem. Free stuff is harder to become obsolete, because even if new version, old version is still not too harder to find and stuff, and you do not have to pay to upgrade in case you do want to upgrade! If WotC was sell dice, card-sleeves, etc, then they could get more money than before, and even from people that did not play D&D, if they play game using same dices.
Alex_P 09-07-07, 08:17 PM	I think it is worth playing a free game instead of one you have to pay, in case you don't want to deal with such things as this.Err, free games such as? I get the feeling you're not talking about 1kM1kT here. -- Alex
Bob Loblaw 09-07-07, 08:45 PM	Something that people sometimes forget is that the new edition does have to compete with the old edition, at least for a while. I don't know if anyone remembers Champions and Fusion. Champions (HERO System) came out with the new Fusion system. It was supposed to be the newest edition, replacing the old. After a little while of falling sales and outcry from the community, they replaced the new system with the old (with some changes). If 4E is poorly done, I can see a switch back to something the community does like. It's happened with SAGA (Dragonlance in 2nd edition switched). WotC wants to remain profitable. Anything can happen.
celtredleg 09-07-07, 08:49 PM	Many of the younger crowd around here are DnD or XBOX. It is not as easy now as it used to be to get people to try new games. Part of that is because it is a lot more expensive to get into a new game. I bought my RuneQuest 1 book, and was ready to go. $8 and I had all I needed. I realize prices have gone up, and a single book is roughly the same now. But I cant get by with one book, I need 3 to start up a 4ed game. That is a heavier investment, especialy as the patern looks like they will also be outdated before the pages get wrinkled. Here is an idea, since WoTC is going to make throw away games anyway, why not go to softcover, cheap paper, and staples. They only havce to last 3 years anyway, so back the price back down to $12-$15.
ShadowX222 09-07-07, 10:55 PM	The only reason I'm upset about 4E is because I bought the 3.5 edition cores, basic game, and minis basic game. The DAY the SITE when DOWN for the timer and I couldn't print charter sheets! :weep:
Bob Loblaw 09-08-07, 12:23 AM	The only reason I'm upset about 4E is because I bought the 3.5 edition cores, basic game, and minis basic game. The DAY the SITE when DOWN for the timer and I couldn't print charter sheets! :weep: Can you still return the products? Most business have a return policy of some sort. Barnes and Noble has a 30 day return policy, for example. Then just go and buy them all used. I just picked up a 3.5 PHB for $7 for a new player we are going to have on Sunday (I always buy new players their first PHB and set of dice).
Ruk 09-08-07, 12:51 AM	This thread seems to have the subtext 'stop whining - its just capitalism.' And that has provoked me to respond. I really liked 3.0. It made D&D so much better laid out, so much easier. When 3.5 came out, so soon after, there wasn't anything to fix. In order to carry on playing in LG and in Living Force, I had to buy 2nd copies of the rule books in order to carry on playing the same characters. I gave my 3.0 books to the children of the family, so they could run and write games for their own, non-official campaigns. I could pick up half a dozen sets of mint, 2nd hand 3.0 core rules so the whole group has the same great material. But they regard them as useless because they 'aren't right.' They aren't the same thing that the rich kid at school has. They aren't the same thing that the on-line forums are using. My young relations want games - but they don't want 3.0. And next year, they won't want 3.5. I find they won't accept the argument that the books are just the same as they ever were. Because RPG rule books aren't just a static text like a novel, they are also a passport into the gaming community. WotC feeds off that community. OK - WotC needs to be fed in order to keep providing us with fun. So we need to be buying something from them. And I know that I only bought three Eberron books. Lots of people write their own games, use their own campaign settings. So they won't buy splat books and guides to the LG / LF / LFR campaigns. But I'm buying the occasional 3.5 book for LG and other campaigns I'm in. I'd still have bought those books if we were all on 3.0. Those kids would be buying a lot of 3.0 product - if it were still current. Maybe WotC feel they need to keep churning the core rules to make us rebuy the basic game. It makes the market much bigger in the short term. But it's making established gamers re-buy their passport. And that isn't an essential feature of capitalism. When did golf last have a new edition where you no longer put the ball into a little hole, but have to put it into a little basket hanging from a pole ? When did bass fishing change so you have to catch catfish instead ? But changing the official rules would compel all the golfers and fishermen to buy so much extra stuff ... doesn't the dead hand of the market demand that the manufacturers of sporting kit do that ? Evidently not. Therefore, the creator of this thread has a valid point, and I feel that the contemptuous tone of (some of ) the responses is unjustified.
Ongorth 09-08-07, 01:30 AM	When did golf last have a new edition where you no longer put the ball into a little hole, but have to put it into a little basket hanging from a pole ? When did bass fishing change so you have to catch catfish instead ? But changing the official rules would compel all the golfers and fishermen to buy so much extra stuff ... doesn't the dead hand of the market demand that the manufacturers of sporting kit do that ? Evidently not. They wouldn't do it because it wouldn't work. Golfers and fishermen (like Bridge and Chess players) love the game. D&D players, on the other hand, love the brand. Moreover, there isn't anyone out there who "makes" golf or fishing. The bodies that regulate tournement play don't make the equipment. No one has the power to do what it is you are saying. If the PGA attempted to institute those kinds of changes, no one would follow them. The PGA is successful because it preserves the game. They don't make there money on the equipment, they make it from sponsorship generated by their tournements that let spectators enjoy the game they love. Golf courses make there money on greens fees. Golf gear manufacturers make money by creating various price points to upgrade through. If D&D players loved the particular game enough that they would support one particular edition in a profitable manner, I'm sure that this would happen. But, how would this work? Would people pay substanial entrance fees for D&D organized play? Could it be popular enough to gain enough sponsorship to become self-sustaining? In the end, there is no need to even answer these questions, because people are so attached to the brand, they'll buy a new game even though they have a perfectly functional old one they like. If the PGA tried this (and they never would because they understand their audience) a new organization that supported the actual game would rise up in a heartbeat that would bury the PGA. Note that this certainly COULD happen to D&D if the player base was actually disgusted over the changes to the game thanks to the OGL, but it won't.
Alex_P 09-08-07, 01:56 AM	I'm pretty sure someone at some point did actually have to go and modify golf to include "irons" and "wedges" and things. Or 18 holes. Or playing on carefully-cultivated terrain. Or a scoring system based on the pre-determined difficulty of each hole. Or prize money and trophies and jackets, for that matter. That's a lot of gameplay alterations. Also, golf club manufacturers do make all kinds of incremental changes to their products. "Woods" these days are made of titanium or crazy composites, for example. They also fine-tune all kinds of finicky little details, like the curvature of the head or the center of gravity. Sometimes this goes so far as to become a new club type, like "hybrid woods." That's a lot of engineering and marketing. That's not an argument about D&D, just an observation about golf. -- Alex
Ranger REG 09-08-07, 02:32 AM	The only reason I'm upset about 4E is because I bought the 3.5 edition cores, basic game, and minis basic game. The DAY the SITE when DOWN for the timer and I couldn't print charter sheets! :weep: Meh. Just play with 3.5e for now. In 2011, there will be a 4.5e (assuming they follow the same timeline pattern as 3.5e).
zzo38 09-08-07, 02:41 AM	Err, free games such as? I get the feeling you're not talking about 1kM1kT here. You are right, I'm not talking about 1kM1kT here. I meant things such as: Chess, checkers, etc Computer games you can write by yourself, using freely available compiler and stuff (such as GNU) Just make up stuff using whatever you have, for example throwing a ball, or make up a new card game, or whatever Printed or manually written cards for TCGs (if WotC sold card-sleeves it would work, of course you cannot enter tournaments or anything with these cards but you can at least practise with them) Freely available role-playing systems, such as some of the things in LiMaWiki (if WotC sold dice it would help this, also) But, you should figure out how this message is related to my other message and to this thread, if you don't think so, you may just ignore this list, but first try to figure it out. Don't mess up the thread with unimportant lists!
bonethug0108 09-08-07, 02:47 AM	Meh. Just play with 3.5e for now. In 2011, there will be a 4.5e (assuming they follow the same timeline pattern as 3.5e). :nonono: If anything it would be called 5e.
ArcTan 09-08-07, 03:05 AM	I'm pretty sure someone at some point did actually have to go and modify golf to include "irons" and "wedges" and things. Or 18 holes. Or playing on carefully-cultivated terrain. Or a scoring system based on the pre-determined difficulty of each hole. Or prize money and trophies and jackets, for that matter. That's a lot of gameplay alterations. Also, golf club manufacturers do make all kinds of incremental changes to their products. "Woods" these days are made of titanium or crazy composites, for example. They also fine-tune all kinds of finicky little details, like the curvature of the head or the center of gravity. Sometimes this goes so far as to become a new club type, like "hybrid woods." That's a lot of engineering and marketing. That's not an argument about D&D, just an observation about golf. -- Alex A lot of golfers who know the history will tell you how golf played today would be considered a totally unrecognizable game by golfers of a hundred years ago, apart from the very basic mechanics (knock golf ball in hole). The fact that clubs are now much stronger than they used to be and that balls are now much denser than they used to be has completely changed the game. Tiger Woods nailing aces is as different from the old kind of golf you'd play with wood-shafted clubs and pitchies (little golf balls made of junk rubber with no hard metal shell) as, well... as the home run derbys of modern baseball are from the field-dominated baseball of the early 20th century. Every sport has evolved enormously over time. In pro sports, it's not so much the rules that change as the approach of players and the technology of the game, which changes the nature of the game, and eventually forces rules to catch up. But it's the same kind of thing -- it's just that in RPGs we're doing this vague storytelling/merchandising thing instead of making rigid rules for a relatively simple game whose primary goal is competition. But yes, a game where your driver can now knock the ball hundreds of yards in one stroke, and where precision-made clubs with a club for every situation, and with everyone trying to shave down their game to a precise stroke-by-stroke analysis of how to get below par every time... By comparison, even the best golfers of a hundred years ago were just flailing around. The game they played was a lot more difficult, par went up to a much higher number of strokes, etc. because they were using flimsy little clubs and a ball that's light and blows around in the wind. It was a steady, grueling progression toward the hole rather than an artillerist's set of precise strikes. I mean, that's really it -- a golfer from a hundred years ago with some homemade clubs and a little ball of pitch he rolled up to play with would be laughed off the course. He'd be so far below par on every damn hole it would be ridiculous. Indeed, the more upscale courses would *probably not even let him play*. (I recently read an article about a golf enthusiast who went looking for one of the few golf courses in the country that still lets you play with pitch balls and wood-shafted clubs. Most clubs steadily started forcing their members to switch to metallic balls and clubs because the pitch balls tend to get everywhere and be much more of a nuisance to retrieve if they fall in a sand or water trap -- and the people slowly hacking their way through a course with pitchies annoy everyone else with their snail's pace.) So yes, the idea that, at least within a century's time, you'd need to upgrade your equipment to play golf at all is not ridiculous. Nor is the fact that there's actually an *industry* that's centered around getting you to buy the newest, most advanced technology in golf clubs (and, to a lesser extent, golf balls and golf cleats) to remain competitive. That's not even counting the fact that golf *courses* have become more and more elitist and expensive over time, as standards have skyrocketed about just how pristinely beautiful people expect the greens to be as a matter of social status. Golf is a terrible example of a game that's succumbed less to capitalism than D&D. The price of a beginner's set of clubs is way more than investing in an RPG book (even a hardcover one), and your ability to participate in the game with higher and higher calibers of player is *directly* determined by how much cash you drop on more and more expensive clubs and memberships at better courses, in a way you can't really say is true of the RPG/gaming scene. (Let me tell you, the guy at the country club who doesn't own his own clubs and shoes and is always having to borrow or rent? He gets a lot more looks than the guy who doesn't own a PHB and is always borrowing books off his friends. "Normal people" games tend to have a lot more status and class issues than our corner of geekdom -- well, okay, maybe with the exception of people who play with pewter minis.) I mean, golf is a particularly egregious examples -- look at the kind of marketing they use to talk about their ferrocomposites and their precise computer-modelled aerodynamic calibrations -- but no sport that's even kind of popular with ordinary people is immune to merchandising and marketing. Bowlers all know about the war over branding and manufacturing and technological progress in bowling balls. There's a grossly overpriced athletic shoe for every pursuit under the sun. Etc. The fact that most high-physical-activity sports have fairly static rules and all the capitalism is in technology doesn't make the race of progress any different, really. Even if the rules of golf or tennis don't change, better clubs and better balls -- or better turf and better racket grips -- change the face of the game just as effectively as a rules change would, and people who compete have to keep up. It's just that in tabletop gaming, there *is* no "technology" -- rules *are* the technology, so when people try to improve the game experience they do it by writing new books, not making new golf clubs or new running shoes. But no, I honestly don't see it as fundamentally different, or fundamentally more exploitative.
Zyrusticae 09-08-07, 03:09 AM	Man, if you're going to be so stingy with your money anyways, why even bother buying splatbooks? Look, if you went strictly by how many hours played, I think you'd find that more often than not, RPG gaming is a very, very cost-effective source of entertainment. If you are not getting your money's worth out of it, however, and are actually paying more than you would for, say, several nights out at the movies, then maybe something's wrong? I mean, if I could only play three times a year, I most certainly would never buy anything beyond the core set. And, let's face it: Four to five years is a long time. That's the time that kids go from elementary school to high school. I am, quite frankly, dumbstruck by the kind of longevity that RPGs can afford, as compared to, y'know, every other form of entertainment in existence. I don't know of any other kind of entertainment that lasts 5 years. Do you? Edit: Just because I know someone's gonna bring it up, no, sports don't count. Sports are inherently competitive forms of entertainment, where a uniform set of rules is required for everyone to follow. Roleplaying, on the other hand, is little more than a form of cooperative storytelling, and so the rules are not as important (although they are important, not nearly as much as in sports).
_Radagast_ 09-08-07, 03:21 AM	OMG, I'm Playing A Game! No! You Can't Make Me! Oh, No! Please, get over yourself. No one is punishing you. You are buying something because you enjoyed it. You bought games you enjoyed, you played them, and you've had good times. Don't give me this "I'm loyal! I should get special privileges!" bull. The second you crossed the line from "I enjoy this game" to "I am privileged to own this game", is the time you need walk away and take a break. No one is entitled to a discount for being 'loyal' to a game. If you enjoy the new game, that is reward enough. If you won't enjoy it, find a better way to spend your money. Don't go feeling all empowered cause you've played this game for a decade or two. That's stupid. Amen.
Alex_P 09-08-07, 03:39 AM	Chess, checkers, etc Computer games you can write by yourself, using freely available compiler and stuff (such as GNU) Just make up stuff using whatever you have, for example throwing a ball, or make up a new card game, or whatever Printed or manually written cards for TCGs (if WotC sold card-sleeves it would work, of course you cannot enter tournaments or anything with these cards but you can at least practise with them) Freely available role-playing systems, such as some of the things in LiMaWiki (if WotC sold dice it would help this, also)How do most of these relate to RPGs? "D&D costs too much." "Yeah, take up needlepoint instead." (Funny thing is, it seems like TSR did actually invest in that contingency -- I think it was an attempt to "diversify" under the Blumes.) -- Alex
Alex_P 09-08-07, 03:48 AM	And, let's face it: Four to five years is a long time.We're really talking more like a decade here, since 3.5 really was just an incremental tweak (it broke compatibility and came with a splatbook reboot, sure, but the game hardly changed at all). That makes 3e quite dated. -- Alex
bonethug0108 09-08-07, 04:01 AM	We're really talking more like a decade here, since 3.5 really was just an incremental tweak (it broke compatibility and came with a splatbook reboot, sure, but the game hardly changed at all). That makes 3e quite dated. -- Alex See, this is why I see 3.5 as an update and not an edition. It still uses the same system, but just changed how some things worked in that system. 4e will be a completely new system.
Ranger REG 09-10-07, 02:29 AM	:nonono: If anything it would be called 5e. Nah. Usually after 3 to 5 years, many holes in the new rules will be exposed and they have to patch them, so there will be a 4.5e before they decide that the rules need a major overhaul (which is what they're doing now).
bonethug0108 09-10-07, 02:42 AM	Nah. Usually after 3 to 5 years, many holes in the new rules will be exposed and they have to patch them, so there will be a 4.5e before they decide that the rules need a major overhaul (which is what they're doing now). They explicitly said no 4.5. It is 4e. I think they realize their mistake with 3.5(they said as much). Plus they have other means of fixing the holes where they won't need to crank out a half of an edition. The next thing we will see from wotc, barring some weird business happenings about who controls decisions, will be 5e.
Xguild 09-10-07, 06:51 AM	They explicitly said no 4.5. It is 4e. I think they realize their mistake with 3.5(they said as much). Plus they have other means of fixing the holes where they won't need to crank out a half of an edition. The next thing we will see from wotc, barring some weird business happenings about who controls decisions, will be 5e. I suspect that the new online subscription service is going to be the key to 'fixing the game' after it is released, they practically said so in the youtube video when they were talking about 'updates for the digital version of the books'. In fact I suspect the online subscription service will allow wizards to heavily errata the game without having to release a new edition. With that said however I also suspect that the 4.0 rules will be just different enough to make conversion impossible to ensure that 3.5 and 4.0 are NOT the same game. In fact I think they have practically said that at this point, they are already seperating the two communities as we speak with seperate websites for each version of the game to make it clear that 3.5 and 4.0 are different games with similiar sounding titles.
celtredleg 09-10-07, 10:16 AM	But the price of the online sub will make the 4e errata way more expensive than any new addition would be. And if you dont have it, you will fall farther and farther behind. Which sounds like a good reason to to try it at all, unless you have enough spare cash to replace your current library, and do the online thing. I know I cant. I could do close to a book a month, plus a few minis. Now, it looks like online, plus minis, no books. That is not worthwhile to me. Perhaps this will be the best edition ever, but only if you are rich enough to aford it.
bonethug0108 09-10-07, 10:22 AM	But the price of the online sub will make the 4e errata way more expensive than any new addition would be. And if you dont have it, you will fall farther and farther behind. Which sounds like a good reason to to try it at all, unless you have enough spare cash to replace your current library, and do the online thing. I know I cant. I could do close to a book a month, plus a few minis. Now, it looks like online, plus minis, no books. That is not worthwhile to me. Perhaps this will be the best edition ever, but only if you are rich enough to aford it. They said errata will be free and available in much the same way as now. You DO NOT need insider to get errata. You also don't need insider to get the ebooks. I suspect that you won't need insider to get the updates for ebooks, but this has not been confirmed. Here is one helpful link: http://www.gleemax.com/articles/announcement013.html
celtredleg 09-10-07, 11:10 AM	Sounds good so far, but I can see the preasure to put all of the digital stuff into insider. Corperate pressure, not gamer pressure. There is nothing listed as part of insider that is worth the money for me. But then I have not regularly bought Dragon for years either. And I had no problem that others did. Same with indier. As long as it is not needed, well and good. But makeing it needed for ttg, that would be bad. As for paying for PDF of a book I already own, fine by me, I wish the old books where like that and dont mind paying for the effort it takes to make the PDF. I also would like to be able to buy PDF only books, and skip haveing to pay for the printing of books that only have a few things in them that I want. But that doesnt change that it will all go down the tubes again in 3 years when 4.5 comes out. And after all the noise that 4e waas not going to come out anytime soon was proven wrong, I see no reason to believe they wont do it again. After past history is a much better gauge of future behavior than non-binding statements.
Seeker95 09-10-07, 11:22 AM	celtredeg, your posts have gradually turned from expressing your concerns with what might be, to speaking as if you are prescient to "what is" before it is, and then decrying the unsubstantiated assumptions you are making. Has reading the gloom and doom posts led you from reasoned assess-and-evaluate to reactive shoot-first?
celtredleg 09-10-07, 11:33 AM	celtredeg, your posts have gradually turned from expressing your concerns with what might be, to speaking as if you are prescient to "what is" before it is, and then decrying the unsubstantiated assumptions you are making. Has reading the gloom and doom posts led you from reasoned assess-and-evaluate to reactive shoot-first? Perhaps. Am I starting to sound that bad? I guess so, or you would not have commented. And thank you for that.I will try not to get worked up about this. The problem is that I have seen so many good games shaft themselves over bad buisseness moves. Chaosium a couple times. ICE a couple times. Others that didnt last long enough to make a lasting impresion. I love 3.5. Best DnD edition ever. And I got good value for cost from many of my books. But I have gotten no value from anything I bought after MIC. So I am unhappy about that. And, as we have commented on, the possible loss of the last FLGS. But I will try to get back to reasoned waiting. I just keep seeing more bad than good. And I keep hearing hints that they will rescale the minis. That really would kill it for me.