Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 taschwitters Nov 01, 2008 13:34:33	I posted an open letter WOTC regarding 4e at my blog. Please visit and leave your comments: http://blogofopportunity.blogspot.com/2008/11/open-letter-to-wotc.html
#2 Cyber-Dave Nov 01, 2008 15:32:56	Well, I visited, and I left a response... but I doubt its the response you wanted to hear. I thought your blog was a load of trash. I like what WotC has done, and I think they made exactly the right decisions. Your suggestions would not lead WotC to being the "savior of old school gamers." They would just make WotC loose a ton of cash, and alienate the majority instead of the minority.
#3 taschwitters Nov 01, 2008 16:44:39	I wasn't fishing for supportive comments. I did offer a rebuttal, in case you'd care to check it out. Otherwise, thank you for reading.
#4 ranger_reg Nov 01, 2008 17:34:17	I'm an old-school gamer, having played since 1e as well as the BECMI boxed sets -- actually I only want up to BEC. While 1e is good, 2e is more of a refinement of 1e, so nothing actually change. But 3e is vastly different and improved from the previous editions. Granted with a vastly different rules for a new editions, it doesn't come without flaws. But it is very playable. Skill System is much better than the old NWP system which relies heavily on one's attribute score (IOW, no one in their right mind but low dexterity would spend those precious few slots -- 1 per X levels allotment -- into dex-based skill like Horse-Riding). But it did suffer at higher level progression. Nevertheless, 3e did leave me with a sour taste, but mostly because of unfavorable business decisions from my POV. From releasing a revision (3.5e) just THREE years after 3.0e debuted to flip-flopping on the polymorph rules. I even shook my head when they use Rokugan as the "default setting" for OA. (It wasn't actually a good default setting for AD&D/OA gameplay to begin with; also shows a lack of competitiveness from WotC even though they owned both L5R and Kara-Tur IP at one time). Still, I'm not ready to leave 3e just yet. Many posters hear may remember my repeated often annoying objections to see 4e before 2010, I gave up on that movement when WotC announced last year that 4e is coming. I can only now vote with my wallet and to this day, I haven't opened it for 4e. Just picking up the last remnant of 3e and d20-labeled products before they no can no longer sell them at the end of the year (at least not without altering those third-party d20-labeled products). There is another reason I haven't jumped on the 4e support bandwagon as I would have with 3e support bandwagon. I'm a pure and simple d20 gamer. I'm a fan of the OGL movement. Without that license and the d20STL, we wouldn't have products like Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds. As it currently stand, the GSL is currently D&D GSL. One could argue that Spycraft 1.0 came out as d20 product that requires the 3e PHB, but I wonder if AEG could make such a fine product under the 4e and the D&D GSL. My heart doubts it. So, one can only wait for a more generic d20 GSL, one that would require a more generic d20 System core game book, like the new d20 Modern 2.0 (or somesuch title should WotC choose to market instead). Don't get me wrong, some of the new mechanics for the next-gen WotC's d20 System are good, though I prefer the ones introduced in Star Wars Saga Edition (kudos to Rodney Thompson). I'm just not eager to jump into 4e yet. Perhaps all of the above statements I wrote are boring and by now you're seeing "snow" on your screen. What I will say in this short paragraph is this: I know that eventually there will be a new edition of D&D. I just didn't expect it to be too soon. Since I have no problem with 3e yet, I'm not eager for the new 4e rules. To me, it is just a refinement of 3e, which brings back my neutral feeling of 2e. So, my friends, until 2010 comes along, I'm just going to keep on truckin' as a d20 gamer.
#5 taschwitters Nov 01, 2008 20:13:56	What I don't get is why there even has to be a debate about any current edition of D&D, when it's within WOTC's power to keep all previous editions on the shelves along with 4e. D&D is a tradition more than it is a specific set of published rules. The tradition lives in all the players and their chosen preferences of editions, so why not open up the WOTC catalog to all players, not just those who are willing to move on to each new release? How cool would it be to see the 1e and Basic Set rulebooks rereleased, with all the rules intact, but with the presentation Wizzed up? And universal modules: Imagine B1 with alternate encounters for each edition. The more I think about the possibilities, the more I see this as a no-brainer. This initiative would reunite all D&D'ers, regardless of where they might have first hopped off the wagon.
#6 ranger_reg Nov 02, 2008 1:27:55	What I don't get is why there even has to be a debate about any current edition of D&D, when it's within WOTC's power to keep all previous editions on the shelves along with 4e. D&D is a tradition more than it is a specific set of published rules. The tradition lives in all the players and their chosen preferences of editions, so why not open up the WOTC catalog to all players, not just those who are willing to move on to each new release? How cool would it be to see the 1e and Basic Set rulebooks rereleased, with all the rules intact, but with the presentation Wizzed up? And universal modules: Imagine B1 with alternate encounters for each edition. The more I think about the possibilities, the more I see this as a no-brainer. This initiative would reunite all D&D'ers, regardless of where they might have first hopped off the wagon. Because they want everyone to play the same set of rules, so they can make future products for the same set of rules for their paying gamers. As much as we would like WotC to follow Sony's Playstation business model -- still having both PS2 and PS3 in the market with the foreknowledge that PS2 still have less than 10 years staying power -- it's not feasible for WotC.
#7 taschwitters Nov 02, 2008 9:41:19	By "not feasible," do you mean not profitable? Because I don't see how expanding your customer base doesn't positively affect your bottom line. In a world where publishers have to compete against free product, torrents, and used bookstores, a reboot of the system could be just what the doctor ordered. And the Sony business model isn't a good example. Sony's previous consoles are deprecated. With the concurrent support of all four D&D systems, nothing is obsolete. Players can align themselves with whichever system is best for them, and WOTC is selling something for everyone's needs.
#8 sooper Nov 02, 2008 11:05:37	I also feel that 4e is just a refined 3e. A few months ago i sold all of my 3e and 3.5 books. Now im going back to my roots and scouring ebay good old 2e products, the system that i feel very comfortable with. The system may not be supported but i have always been a fan on D&D when you only use 5-6 books and the rest relied on the creativity of you and your players. Otherwise, you are just spouting numbers from a book and in my opinion limits your creativity. The way i see the future of D&D going, is the we will have new editions every 5-7 years or so. It is the same business model as they use with Magic. WotC wants to make money off the product so they have to keep printing and printing books. So i will just sit back and play the edition i like and not worry about what is going on with new stuff. All the 4e haters should just do the same.
#9 ranger_reg Nov 02, 2008 17:38:54	By "not feasible," do you mean not profitable? Because I don't see how expanding your customer base doesn't positively affect your bottom line. In a world where publishers have to compete against free product, torrents, and used bookstores, a reboot of the system could be just what the doctor ordered. To expand your product line, you're going to need to hire more folks, preferably tasked to one specific edition of D&D. Otherwise, you'll end up with an author writing one thing for one edition and then let slip an entirely different game mechanics meant for his other work on another edition. It happened before, when WotC had an author whose previous credit for writing D&D wrote for d20 Modern. That hiring of new folks will cut into your profit. You'll also need to meet customer's demand. Some edition fans will be resentful if they only see a couple product for their edition come out in a year while another edition get more product release. More importantly, each product line must be able to support itself and make profit. If a product line fails to support itself (incurs more expense) and make little profit (after paying those expense), why continue it? If a product line incurs debt that you have to take profit from another line's profit to pay for it, why keep it? You're not in the business for charity reason.
#10 taschwitters Nov 03, 2008 22:15:32	To expand your product line, you're going to need to hire more folks, preferably tasked to one specific edition of D&D. Otherwise, you'll end up with an author writing one thing for one edition and then let slip an entirely different game mechanics meant for his other work on another edition. I don't know how WOTC pays for creative work, but my educated guess is that work is paid for on a per-job basis. You're not necessarily bringing on full-time writers. Also, the increased man-hours are balanced by increased profitability (see below). You'll also need to meet customer's demand. Some edition fans will be resentful if they only see a couple product for their edition come out in a year while another edition get more product release. Some products may be less desirable than many products, but are more desirable than no products. You don't have to release dozens of new sourcebooks for previous editions, because they're already out there. It's mostly online material, modules, and articles in periodicals that would support the old editions, not thirty dollar hardcovers. More importantly, each product line must be able to support itself and make profit. If a product line fails to support itself (incurs more expense) and make little profit (after paying those expense), why continue it? If a product line incurs debt that you have to take profit from another line's profit to pay for it, why keep it? You're not in the business for charity reason. You neglect the fact that each product line already has a base. It's just that WOTC is only tapping into one base. Hardly anybody would be expected to leave one edition for another, because they're already playing their preferred edition.
#11 ranger_reg Nov 05, 2008 16:04:19	I don't know how WOTC pays for creative work, but my educated guess is that work is paid for on a per-job basis. You're not necessarily bringing on full-time writers. Also, the increased man-hours are balanced by increased profitability (see below). Nowadays, WotC only pay work-for-hire for freelanced writers. That means, they pay (once) for the writer's work and own it outright. But most often, they do keep a small staff of writers who double up as editors. Some products may be less desirable than many products, but are more desirable than no products. You don't have to release dozens of new sourcebooks for previous editions, because they're already out there. It's mostly online material, modules, and articles in periodicals that would support the old editions, not thirty dollar hardcovers. While you don't have to release a dozen products per product line, some would like minimum 4 products a year (or one per season). As it is, the current product lines (plural) that WotC have is maintainable. Any more, would put a serious crimp into their business operation. You neglect the fact that each product line already has a base. It's just that WOTC is only tapping into one base. Hardly anybody would be expected to leave one edition for another, because they're already playing their preferred edition. And some bases are big meaning more profitable, and others much smaller. And with what manpower they have (unless they're desperate to get their card game designers to work over at RPG R&D division), they have to focus on the most current base. Granted, this time it's a little different. It hasn't been 10 years for 3e, and already 4e is out. Nevertheless, the company have moved on, and from what it looks like, so have the majority of fan community switched over to 4e. Even I do see some improvements in 4e over 3e, and I'm not ready to switch. But being a 3e/d20/OGL fan, I can look forward to third-party support due to the 3e SRD and the OGL. In fact, I have MORE third-party products for 3e/d20/OGL than I do with WotC's.
#12 qmslager Nov 06, 2008 23:37:41	Some products may be less desirable than many products, but are more desirable than no products. You don't have to release dozens of new sourcebooks for previous editions, because they're already out there. It's mostly online material, modules, and articles in periodicals that would support the old editions, not thirty dollar hardcovers. Well WOTC's current business model requires them to release multiple books. You can't make fat loot unless you overcharge under-perform and cut costs wherever you can. They don't want people to make money off their product line unless they can stick their hand into it, and having OGL for some of those older products might open them up to not making the money, as the recent court cases against them have shown, although somewhat could make the complaint that they abandoned those product lines anyways, therefore open to someone else taking them and running with them. You neglect the fact that each product line already has a base. It's just that WOTC is only tapping into one base. Hardly anybody would be expected to leave one edition for another, because they're already playing their preferred edition. You are correct here there are a lot of gamers that would probably buy rehashed or revisited products (good versions not like some of the crap that they release in the nineties). However, WOTC is also a forward thinking gaming company, by producing only the most modern of their game versions and their books they guarantee that new sales will exceed ebay sales of old used books, thus keeping open new fans as well as old fans in constantly buying new books. This is the normal business model you find in video companies...Originally they sold movies, and the possibility of seeing them again meant you had to go to the movie theatre each time they rereleased the movie. Once video came onto the market, they sold you the movies and cut off the rerelease of movies (well except Lucas). Then after video came DVD/VCD/laserdisc. People who bought each type of player were encouraged and eventually forced to buy the updated version of the movie because their old player died. Now we have Blu Ray. My friend who has a blu ray player has one movie in four player types. The only difference between video and WOTC is that wotc not only updated the game they also made sweeping changes. Monopoly does the same thing in their twenty or thirty different monopoly games. While this may seem like I am against reselling old product I would be the first in line. Even if it is a good business model it does not help me.
#13 lobotaru Dec 21, 2008 8:43:45	I think the major issue going from 3rd to 4th edition is that the game lost a lot of flexibility in favor of a stronger rule system. Combat is more streamlined and tactical than it was before (not saying that it wasn't tactical before, but it is moreso now). Also, the game lends itself less to other genres. You can't do horror or survival horror games nearly as well with this system as the last one because the player characters are unlikely to run out of resources or die as easily. The GM has to put a lot more effort into making the threat of death and the subtle horror of the situations involved in such a game work when the characters are so over the top. On a side note, one of the two ultimate survivalist classes, the rogue, can now only sneak attack people with very specific weapons, meaning if you follow the rules, they are less suitable for a survival horror game than their 3rd edition counterparts.