Quote"Why play 3E rather than AD&D, B/X, BECMI, OD&D or 4E?"

I know it's hard for all the Internet wangrods on sites like this one or RPGnet, or even ENWorld to believe, but there are people who actually like 3e.

I know, "GASP!"  It sure surprised me too.  I just assumed all those bazillions of 3e books were just an elaborate ruse, some kind of mass scale embezzlement job or something.

Quote from: J ArcaneI know, "GASP!"  It sure surprised me too.  I just assumed all those bazillions of 3e books were just an elaborate ruse, some kind of mass scale embezzlement job or something.

No, no, you've got it all wrong. It's a conspiracy.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAnd you know what that would be?

It would be slightly lame.

Hackmaster already did it. That means it's done. Finis. It's fun the first time around, dull when repeated.

This 1E fan wouldn't buy it.

You yourself designed your own game instead of pulling an OSRIC.

Well, in the postmodern era you aren't allowed to create anything new and original, because that would be swinery...

Quote from: NicephorusActually, It looks more like it started a little ways away and is moving closer.  Jacobs, the editor of the pathfinder line, has stated that the alpha rules have some odd things thrown in there to see how people react.  Version 1.1 already has some things toned down.

Shrug. I only skimmed the first release and haven't seen the second, but it sounds like there are now point pools for some things, bloodlines, classes are different, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPunditI think Kenzer is shooting themselves in the foot in an even bigger way then before: you see, their new edition, they've already stated, is NOT going to be based on D&D.  So just at the moment where they could have made the game that everyone who feels 4e isn't D&D could have flocked to, they're saying "no, we're going to create our own house system that has fuck all to do with D&D".

Idiots.

They can't base it on D&D.  WotC pulled the license from them.

Sett's right on track.  I know I posted this over on the other thread, but it is very relevant here.  Check out their advertising strategy from this interview with Scott "Colin Powell" Rouse:

QuoteWe have a pretty significant campaign, with print, online as well as some TV advertising.  We're actually filming a TV spot in Seattle.  You may have seen the Beholder at Gen Con last year made an appearance in Seattle.  The shoot is a very fun, tongue-in-cheek, taking this obviously very fake monster (it's absolutely huge, it's 13 feet tall), and driving it around to generically iconic locations so the Beholder is at a city bus stop, it's going to go to a coffee shop, a games store, the beach, a farm and even makes an appearance at the roller derby and makes a big payoff for the spot: "On June 6th, 4th edition will be everywhere."  This will be running on some cable networks including G4 and Sci Fi.

So basically they will be poking fun at the very concept of D&D.  They hate and loathe D&D because they don't think its geek roots have any market validity (and they may be right).  Like Matt Snyder.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou yourself designed your own game instead of pulling an OSRIC.

Yes I did, and there'd certainly be room for that too. Personally, I'm hopeful that if only there would be some way to get the word out about FtA! in a bigger way than it has been so far, FtA!'s sales could go up after the advent of 4e.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SeanchaiAh. Bad WotC! Bad WotC!

Seanchai

Well, I think it ended up being of mutual benefit to both companies, in the end.

Frankly, I think its stupid that WoTC doesn't either publish "Classic" D&D or (more likely) give the license to do so to some lesser company that could do a good job of handling it.
The current mentality regarding "why would we want to encourage other companies to continue with 3e when we're totally behind 4e" might even make some slight sense when it comes to 3e, but at this point, really, both RC/Basic D&D and 1e AD&D are so utterly different than what they're planning with 4e that its not like it would really be any kind of a direct competition.  Many of the people who would buy products for a "Classic" version of the D&D game are the kind of people who'd never buy into 4e anyways, while there are also far more people who'd buy both.
They're missing out on an opportunity there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: walkerpSo basically they will be poking fun at the very concept of D&D.  They hate and loathe D&D because they don't think its geek roots have any market validity (and they may be right).  Like Matt Snyder.

I don't know, I'd have to see the finished ad before I passed this kind of judgment.  The outline the guy gave (of the Beholder being shot in all kinds of regular places) is actually something that sounds rather clever; and it doesn't sound like they'll be doing any particular mocking of earlier editions.

Never mind that I think that TV ads (on the right networks) are a really good move in general principle. If WoTC really wants to get new customers, they have to advertise somewhere outside of the internet and obscure gaming magazines.
The only pity seems to be that they didn't think of putting it on something like Nickelodeon or the Cartoon Network as well as the Sci-fi network.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditFrankly, I think its stupid that WoTC doesn't either publish "Classic" D&D or (more likely) give the license to do so to some lesser company that could do a good job of handling it.
The current mentality regarding "why would we want to encourage other companies to continue with 3e when we're totally behind 4e" might even make some slight sense when it comes to 3e, but at this point, really, both RC/Basic D&D and 1e AD&D are so utterly different than what they're planning with 4e that its not like it would really be any kind of a direct competition.  Many of the people who would buy products for a "Classic" version of the D&D game are the kind of people who'd never buy into 4e anyways, while there are also far more people who'd buy both.
They're missing out on an opportunity there.

RPGPundit

But that would show that WotC has a deeper understanding of the D&D brand name market then they have demonstrated.

Quote from: RPGPunditFrankly, I think its stupid that WoTC doesn't either publish "Classic" D&D or (more likely) give the license to do so to some lesser company that could do a good job of handling it.

If WotC recognized that people might legitimately prefer older editions of the game, they would have to admit that D&D is evolving in a different direction rather than simply making the same game better in every way. And they will not do that for fear of losing grognards.

As you have noted, the market for the different versions of D&D has become fragmented. However, WotC wants (needs?) the whole D&D market to buy its books.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but nothing at all would stop them from producing a game that while not visually imitative of the 1e AD&D handbooks was basically the exact same rules; you can't copyright rules. Any major company that wanted to could put out a D&D clone.

Maybe they're doing that but are being careful not to say that that is what they are doing, to avoid a legal confrontation with Wizards. I for one intend to wait until we actually see any details at all of the new HM system before I pass judgement on how similar it is (or isn't) to D&D.

Quote from: DwightYou can't copyright mechanics. You can copyright rules text. Once you get tables involved my understanding is that you'll have to mess with the mechanics a bit too.

Alternately, you find a different way of presenting the same table (or just provide the formula which the table is based on).

QuoteYou also end up with some iconic stuff like the name "Bag of Holding" (it's been a while since I read Hackmaster, they actually use the name right? ) biting the dust.

Is "Bag of Holding" a trademark?

Quote from: J ArcaneI know it's hard for all the Internet wangrods on sites like this one or RPGnet, or even ENWorld to believe, but there are people who actually like 3e.

I believe it. On the other hand "I just plain prefer 3E" isn't a particularly compelling argument when, say, 10 years down the line you're trying to convince some guy who's main experience is with 5th Edition to try your 3E campaign. Fans of OD&D, 1E AD&D, 2E AD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, and BECMI can all point to aspects of their favoured game and say "that's why I prefer this game over the current edition". Once 4E hits the shelves, 3E fans will need to be able to do the same if they're going to be able to establish a coherent online fan grouping.

Quote from: WarthurI believe it. On the other hand "I just plain prefer 3E" isn't a particularly compelling argument when, say, 10 years down the line you're trying to convince some guy who's main experience is with 5th Edition to try your 3E campaign. Fans of OD&D, 1E AD&D, 2E AD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, and BECMI can all point to aspects of their favoured game and say "that's why I prefer this game over the current edition". Once 4E hits the shelves, 3E fans will need to be able to do the same if they're going to be able to establish a coherent online fan grouping.

1. Mostly clean and consistent mechanics. A few exceptions, but those can be pretty easily modded.

2. Crunch heavy supplement line. If the classes, races, and feats aren't enough, there's plenty more where they came from. If the rules themselves need tweaking, the OGL has inspired countless imitators whose ideas you can lift.

3.Low setting low metaplot. My players and I make that shit up just fine. Not having some preexisting behemoth of a setting is a good thing for us.

Of course, you need no better excuse than "I cut my teeth on this. Running/playing it is second nature for me. I just can't say that for other games."