Quote from: Mistwell;704832most people like the new hotness, on some level.  (...)

Even 4e did this.  A lot of people switched to it, initially.  And then many decided they did not like it, and left again.  But, initially a lot of people did switch.  Enough to make it the #1 selling RPG on initial release and for a solid year after that.
(...)
But, the idea that people won't buy it initially because they are happy with their current games? Empirically all the evidence says that is not true.  People do buy the new game, even when they seem happy with their old game.  They might not stick with the new game, but initially they do seem to buy it.

They might not even try it. Some games are so "hot" that people buy it just for getting a look at it.
Half of all the persons who bought the D&D 3e PHB during the first 6 weeks in my store were players of other games (DSA/TDE, SR, Midgard, Cthulhu, WHFRP) that succumbed to the year-long hype and the unbelievably low price of the book.
(Only a few them tried it during the next two years, and not on their own account but because a 3e DM volunteered to run a session or two for them - and not one of them switched.)

We have the a similar phenomenon right now with Shadowrun 5 in Germany. With the core book priced at 19.95 Euro (~23 $) lots of people are buying it "just because".
Even I have plans to do so, and I have no inclination to ever running it. (There is way too much metaplot/canon baggage attached to the game.)

QuoteThe only question in my mind is whether Next can sustain buyers longer than 4e did - not whether it will get a lot of buys out the gate.  I think it's going to at least initially be quite successful.

This.

Oh yes. Next is going to sell, and sell well right out of the gate. It's whether it will retain players over time that is going to be the test. And if WotC hasn't learned anything and keeps on trucking with the planned obsolescence model well, that's it, isn't it?

Quote from: Benoist;704897Oh yes. Next is going to sell, and sell well right out of the gate. It's whether it will retain players over time that is going to be the test. And if WotC hasn't learned anything and keeps on trucking with the planned obsolescence model well, that's it, isn't it?

Absolutely.  Like 4E.  All 30 in my group purchased it sight unseen.  Only 2 continued playing for more than a month.  The rest went back to 3.x, or other older editions.

Quote from: Arduin;704902Absolutely.  Like 4E.  All 30 in my group purchased it sight unseen.  Only 2 continued playing for more than a month.  The rest went back to 3.x, or other older editions.

Honestly I wouldn't be supprised if Next does substantially worse then 4e. The people they've thrown under the bus most blatantly in their "unite the fanbase" drive have been the only group that still buys WotC D&D products. Essentially the "fired the fanbase" a second time, and to break even they need to win back substantial numbers of OSR and 3e/Pf fans.

The idea that any new edition can unite the fanbase at all is pretty shaky. Getting both 3e and 4e fans to play the same game might be achievable (not sure though what the 4rries actually want has always baffled me). The problem is getting the OSR movement to play at the same table as everyone else, that's probably impossible because they are reactionaries.

Setting aside weather or not "uniting the fanbase" is possible Next isn't going to do it, because it's being developed by Mike Mearls and he is a charlatan.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;704913Honestly I wouldn't be supprised if Next does substantially worse then 4e. The people they've thrown under the bus most blatantly in their "unite the fanbase" drive have been the only group that still buys WotC D&D products. Essentially the "fired the fanbase" a second time, and to break even they need to win back substantial numbers of OSR and 3e/Pf fans.

Yes, if I were a 4e fan I'd be VERY skeptical right now.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;704913Getting both 3e and 4e fans to play the same game might be achievable (not sure though what the 4rries actually want has always baffled me).

Red warrior needs food badly!  This was a big inspiration for the 4E design team.  I don't think (based on historic purchase patterns) that the 2 groups can be accommodated within a single product.

WotC "Fired" fans through their forums posts, ads, mocking of earlier games, etc... but the majority of players probably didn't see the Corporate Rebranding 101 campaign.  They simply got a D&D that was really different, and played it...or didn't.  

If Next can accomodate 4e-like play through modular rules, there's no reason for the average 4e player to not play Next, especially since overall, the average D&D player will probably play "D&D" simply because it's "D&D" and will be in shops, bookstores, conventions, FLGS's, etc.

For the m4rtyrs like tco who had their brief shining moment in the sun... they met the new boss, same as the old boss, now they get "fired", without a 4e version of Paizo waiting in the wings.

For all we know, WotC may keep releasing content for multiple versions of D&D, so 4e may end up still being supported after all.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;703403For Next, modularity was always a bad idea.  I mean, in principle, having a way to easily modify the rules is good.  But because the player base is so fractured and generally happy with what they're currently playing, why would you buy Next and module-ize/customize it to approximate the game you're already playing when you could instead keep playing the game you're playing?  

Next needs to build a solid core that is a good game.  If it is a good game that addresses problems identified with people's 'preferred version', then they'll have a success.

And if it's easy to drop or add this or that -- which is what modularity means -- then so much the better. It's not about duplicating somebody else's favorite Super Official Authoritative Rules, it's about making the game you want.

QuoteFor example, I'm on record as saying 3.x is my preferred version of an RPG.  The problems I have with it include NPC creation taking WAY TOO LONG.  In fact, monster design, in general, is a pain - especially skill points, because they're often not even going to come into play.

"Doc, it hurts when I do this!"

(You know the punchline, don't you?)

QuoteI'd also like more ease of play without a grid.

So, don't use stuff that calls for a grid.

QuoteFinally, the ability for some classes to stay relevant and/or avoid the breakdowns that happen with high-level play would be good.

That calls for revision of one sort or another, since the "breakdowns" are due to using the original rules (or their sometimes half-baked legacies) in something other than the original game-form context. I think that's very worth doing; besides pleasing a larger demographic, it would probably be easier -- if done right, which is to say not 4E style -- to whack back into "old school" shape than it is to go the other way.

As for reprints of old dungeon modules, maybe they could do omnibus editions as in the late 1E and early 2E AD&D days (like the Temple of Elemental Evil format).

Quote from: CRKrueger;704945the m4rtyrs (...) met the new boss, same as the old boss, now they get "fired", without a 4e version of Paizo waiting in the wings.

It will be interesting to see whether 13th Age can rally the"m4rtyrs" behind it.
More so as 13th Age made significant changes to 4e as well (a complete discard of the board game combat subsystem).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;703403For Next, modularity was always a bad idea.  I mean, in principle, having a way to easily modify the rules is good.  But because the player base is so fractured and generally happy with what they're currently playing, why would you buy Next and module-ize/customize it to approximate the game you're already playing when you could instead keep playing the game you're playing?

To be fair, I think they've finessed this quite nicely with the Basic/Advanced/Optional Modules split - the Basic core game seems to be somewhat like TSR-era D&D, with archetypal classes, simple resolution, and not very much charop. The Advanced core brings in all the charop to end up with something a bit like the 3.X experience - not in the sense of the precise mechanics involved, but in the sense of the sheer customisability (and charop madness) that was 3.X's signature style compared with other editions.

So actually, if they do this right then the core materials will cover a lot of bases. Basic isn't going to be exactly like TSR-era D&D, because if it was there'd be no point playing Basic over your preferred TSR incarnation or the relevant retroclone, but if Wizards pull it off right they'll make it feel enough like the same sort of game that fans of TSR-era stuff will at least give consideration to it and won't turn their nose up at a Basic Next campaign if that's what's on the table. Likewise, Advanced Next isn't going to be 3.X with a new lick of paint, but it'll include enough character customisation that if you dig 3.X you're not going to violently object to Advanced Next. And of course, a portion from both of those fanbases may well find that they prefer Basic/Advanced Next to their previous favourite editions - or even if they don't, that they like it enough to embrace Next because they find it easier to find a Next game than it is to find a Holmes Basic game.

It's the 4E folks who get a little shafted, with the very tactical combat game being shoved into an optional module. But I can see little way to incorporate that in core without shafting the other crowds.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;704804More?

Unless I missed something they haven't done it yet. The only module reprints have been in hardback form as far as I know.

DriveThruRPG has a POD service for your stuff - can D&D Classics PDFs be put through that? (If not, can't hurt to lobby Wizards for that.)

Quote from: Warthur;705034DriveThruRPG has a POD service for your stuff - can D&D Classics PDFs be put through that? (If not, can't hurt to lobby Wizards for that.)

DTRPG's POD stuff is determined by the publisher, so probably not.

But once you've got your file, as long as you can upload it to Lulu, you're good (But do set your projects to "private" if you're going to do this). I haven't tried this with any DTRPG-bought stuff, though.

(I suppose, technically, this would be counterfeiting a book! But you'll end up with an ugly barcode on the back, so it'll obviously not be an original. But you're also not doing this to sell it on, so who really cares.)

Quote from: Ladybird;705041(I suppose, technically, this would be counterfeiting a book! But you'll end up with an ugly barcode on the back, so it'll obviously not be an original. But you're also not doing this to sell it on, so who really cares.)

Not in the US.  One can print out a digital file one owns.

Quote from: Warthur;705034It's the 4E folks who get a little shafted, with the very tactical combat game being shoved into an optional module. But I can see little way to incorporate that in core without shafting the other crowds.

It should be noted that they've often said that "module" doesn't necessarily mean "distinct product", and that the Standard rules will come with a number of modules built in.  That may include a relatively basic tactical module that could be expanded on with a later product.  They have also talked about a "narrative combat module" that would provide more options for theater-of-the-mind.

Quote from: Arduin;705047Not in the US.  One can print out a digital file one owns.

At home, on your own printer, sure! Lulu will not print a locked pdf file, so you have to be a little more creative to get it printed by them.

Quote from: Mistwell;704832If this were a truism, we'd all still be playing AD&D 1e, or even OD&D.

I disagree.  2nd edition claimed to be different than 1st edition (while still being largley familiar and compatible).  3rd edition claimed to allow far more character customization and consistent rules throughout the various systems.  4th edition also claimed to be different than 3rd edition - and it tried to explain why it was better.  

If Next is saying 'I'm different than every other version of D&D and here's why you should care', they might unite the various editions - especially if they're right.  But if Next says 'I'm not as good as any edition of D&D out of the box, but you can customize me to play just like any other version of D&D you prefer', well, that explicitly fails to show why you should favor Next over the edition you can make it like.

Now, if there claim is that it's better than other versions, but they allow customization to support other styles of play most similar to other styles, and yet, somehow do it better than a game designed around said style, that could potentially work, but it's a tall order to accomplish, and nothing they've released has indicated that they're anywhere close to that.  

Quote from: Warthur;705034To be fair, I think they've finessed this quite nicely with the Basic/Advanced/Optional Modules split - the Basic core game seems to be somewhat like TSR-era D&D, with archetypal classes, simple resolution, and not very much charop. The Advanced core brings in all the charop to end up with something a bit like the 3.X experience - not in the sense of the precise mechanics involved, but in the sense of the sheer customisability (and charop madness) that was 3.X's signature style compared with other editions.

I'm not convinced that the versions play together in a meaningful way.  If you have some people that want to play basic and some people that want to play advanced in the same group the game either needs to support that or recognize that people who like basic can play 1st or 2nd edition with plenty of support or can play 3rd edition with plenty of support (or any number of variations on the existing games).  

Unless DMs love Next and drive its adoption, I don't think it'll take.  

And sure, people will buy it to give it a spin, but if it's not open like 3.x and is in direct competition with Pathfinder which then continues to receive Paizo support, it can't win in the market even to 4th edition levels, and we're pretty sure that 'as successful as 4th edition' is still a total failure.