Quote from: Shazbot79;384236What I quoted was copy-pasted directly from the text of the column but now all mention of the D&D Essentials line never being added to has been removed.

You know, that always seemed like a really unrealistic promise -- if the line sold well, of course they were going to want to add to it. And now is about the time they'd be starting to see initial bookstore/box store orders, I think. Plus the reorg may have included changes in publishing plans.

I can't say I'm particularly fond of the decision to retroactively edit posts like that. Which is a polite way of saying I think it's a really lame move.

Quote from: Thanlis;384302You know, that always seemed like a really unrealistic promise -- if the line sold well, of course they were going to want to add to it. And now is about the time they'd be starting to see initial bookstore/box store orders, I think. Plus the reorg may have included changes in publishing plans.

I can't say I'm particularly fond of the decision to retroactively edit posts like that. Which is a polite way of saying I think it's a really lame move.

Me too.

Especially seeing how it completely invalidates my previous argument : (

Quote from: Shazbot79;384298Isn't Mutants & Masterminds on it's 3rd edition in less than 10 years?

Even back in the day, some rpg games went through editions really quickly.  One example I can think of offhand is Runequest.

1st ed RQ - 1978  (Chaosium)
2nd ed RQ - 1980  (Chaosium)
3rd ed RQ - 1984  (Avalon Hill)

http://www.maranci.net/rqpast.htm

More recently, the Mongoose version of Runequest.

1st ed MRQ - 2006
2nd ed MRQ - 2010

Then again, it still says "The Essentials line consists of 10 key products that will always be in stock and will form the core of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game experience moving forward."

You know what? I'm falling prey to the temptation to intricately parse text that wasn't written to be bulletproof. That's goofy of me. I'm gonna stop doing that.

It's still there for me, and I cleared my cache and it's still there. Are you logged in to D&D Insider?



The Deluxe Dm's screen and the nentir Vale Gazeteer aren't Essentials.

Am I just misunderstanding the question, here?

Oh, FFS. Yeah, it's still there for me as well. Well, I still think it's a goofy thing to say, I still won't hold it against WotC if they change their mind, and you'd think I'd have learned my lesson about double-checking by now. (No offense meant to Shaz, I don't think this was an intentional mistake.)

Apologies for the giant picture. If people are seeing something different, please post a comparison.

But yet again, this is why I understand the (hugely controversial, emotion-provoking lol) Essentials line as an introductory type thing meant for starting new players out. New players don't need a deluxe DM's screen.

Quote from: areola;384289WOTC should just release a new edition. We know it's all about profits anyway so why keep pretending? An edition now have a 2 year lifespan.

Good question.  Wonder if this "dancing around" on the new edition issue, was due to the anger and fallout produced by 3.5 D&D.  (Despite this anger, some people still continued buying 3.5 splatbooks like clockwork).  Most likely this "dancing around" is an attempt to minimize anger this time around.  They'll use the "plausible deniability" defense that Essentials is not 4.5E.

Anybody remember if there was a similar fallout when TSR re-released the 2E AD&D core books in 1995 (with the black covers)?

Going back further in history, one kinda wonders why separate 1E AD&D and D&D product lines were produced simultaneously in the first place.  A few semi-plausible reasons (whether speculative and/or based partly on fact) could be related to the basic D&D box sets selling like hotcakes back then.  Less certain are speculations that the D&D product line was kept around due to undisclosed lawsuit settlements between Gygax/TSR and Arneson.

Quote from: areola;384289Unless WOTC switch to a different model like settings and adventures to support the rules instead of producing more rules, the 2 year lifespan holds.

Most likely they'll be reluctant to repeat something like this, judging from the past TSR experiences during the 1990's.

Quote from: ggroy;384324Good question.  Wonder if this "dancing around" on the new edition issue, was due to the anger and fallout produced by 3.5 D&D.  (Despite this anger, some people still continued buying 3.5 splatbooks like clockwork).  Most likely this "dancing around" is an attempt to minimize anger this time around.  They'll use the "plausible deniability" defense that Essentials is not 4.5E.

Anybody remember if there was a similar fallout when TSR re-released the 2E AD&D core books in 1995 (with the black covers)?

Going back further in history, one kinda wonders why separate 1E AD&D and D&D product lines were produced simultaneously in the first place.  A few semi-plausible reasons (whether speculative and/or based partly on fact) could be related to the basic D&D box sets selling like hotcakes back then.  Less certain are speculations that the D&D product line was kept around due to undisclosed lawsuit settlements between Gygax/TSR and Arneson.



Most likely they'll be reluctant to repeat something like this, judging from the past TSR experiences during the 1990's.

It gets a lot clearer once you realize that Essentials is not D&D4.5...never was, and anyone who thinks so is an idiot.  At that point, everything will suddenly become clear to you.

Basic D&D (often thought of "kiddy" D&D at the time) was sold into the 1990s alongside AD&D2e as well. Princess Ark even shared article space in Dragon Magazine.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384326It gets a lot clearer once you realize that Essentials is not D&D4.5...never was, and anyone who thinks so is an idiot.  At that point, everything will suddenly become clear to you.

At least this time around, WotC's marketing people were smart enough to never use the words "4.5E".  Back in 2003, the words "3.5E" were explicitly used and printed on the front covers of the "3.5E D&D" core books.

Without ever using the words "4.5E", WotC can always say that Essentials is not "4.5E D&D".

Going back into history, I had never heard the term "1.5E AD&D" used to describe Unearthed Arcana back in the mid-1980's.  I've only ever heard the term "1.5E" used retroactively by posters on various grognard forums and blogs, in recent years.

Quote from: ggroy;384327At least this time around, WotC's marketing people were smart enough to never use the words "4.5E".  Back in 2003, the words "3.5E" were explicitly used and printed on the front covers of the "3.5E D&D" core books.

Without ever using the words "4.5E", WotC can always say that Essentials is not "4.5E D&D".

And because they will still be selling 4th Edition books and they'll still all be the same game, it won't even be 4.5. Observers, spectators, and other assorted outsiders (the assembled legions of the blind, crippled, and crazy) will certainly get to claim it is, because that's what they do, but they don't know. They never know. They just shake their fists from the sidelines as the parade passes, and then hug it out over the conspiracy theories.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384330And because they will still be selling 4th Edition books and they'll still all be the same game, it won't even be 4.5. Observers, spectators, and other assorted outsiders (the assembled legions of the blind, crippled, and crazy) will certainly get to claim it is, because that's what they do, but they don't know. They never know. They just shake their fists from the sidelines as the parade passes, and then hug it out over the conspiracy theories.

Also none of us know whether the ten Essentials titles will be the only ten Essentials titles released.  (Unless one is an insider in WotC's D&D division).

At this point, it is largely speculation until the actual books are produced and show up on the shelves of game stores and bookstores.

Quote from: ggroy;384331Also none of us know whether the ten Essentials titles will be the only ten Essentials titles released.  (Unless one is an insider in WotC's D&D division).

At this point, it is largely speculation until the actual books are produced and show up on the shelves of game stores and bookstores.

We only know what they said. If they change their minds later, that's something I guess we'll all have to deal with... somehow. (Struggling forward, our hearts heavy, our eyes cast downward, and the sounds of tragic saxophones playing in the distance...)

Then again, I simply don't understand the concept of assuming anytime anyone says anything, that the opposite will come true. That seems like a tough way to live.

Quote from: ggroy;384324Going back further in history, one kinda wonders why separate 1E AD&D and D&D product lines were produced simultaneously in the first place.  A few semi-plausible reasons (whether speculative and/or based partly on fact) could be related to the basic D&D box sets selling like hotcakes back then.  Less certain are speculations that the D&D product line was kept around due to undisclosed lawsuit settlements between Gygax/TSR and Arneson.

I asked Gary about this at some point during an interview I did with him once upon a time (2002ish?) anyway, the answer was that they both sold incredibly well, they served two audiences and they brought bucketloads of cash in to TSR.  They didn't "compete" against one another in any visible way, so why kill off Basic?

I've also heard the Basic sets were part of the Arneson/TSR lawsuit - I think that's pretty plausible, too, with the sellin'-like-hotcakes a nice side effect.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;384333Then again, I simply don't understand the concept of assuming anytime anyone says anything, that the opposite will come true. That seems like a tough way to live.

This is what was done in practice in eastern bloc countries during the cold war.

The easiest way to determine the truth was to assume the opposite of what the government was saying.  If that doesn't work, the truth can be determined in a roundabout way by examining what the government is not saying.