[4e designer conspiracy]: mearls & co crying for help?

jgants · April 25, 2008, 06:09:33 PM

Quote from: RPGPunditThe 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.

At least they are playing somewhat to the demographic. My company's advertising is limited to ESPN (despite being a technology company) because "everybody loves sports". Granted, it's worked out very well for us. But I'm sure we're missing out on a lot of exposure to those potential customers who don't share our CEOs ex-Marine alpha male love of football and racing.

Dwight · April 25, 2008, 06:55:08 PM

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

Exactly. You have to change the mechanics somewhat. Even if it gives numerically the same answer. That change in how you arrive at the same number can put the zap on people. *shrug*

Warthur · April 25, 2008, 06:57:37 PM

Quote from: DwightExactly. You have to change the mechanics somewhat. Even if it gives numerically the same answer. That change in how you arrive at the same number can put the zap on people. *shrug*

Quibble: if it gives you the same results, the mechanics have not changed, only the presentation.

Dwight · April 25, 2008, 06:59:01 PM

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.

You don't think that a comparable number of people will? Hell, for no other reason than "I like my house rules of 3e and don't want to redo them for 4e". Or the other old standbys of "I don't want to learn new rules" or "I've got all these books". Sure most of those people will eventually move on to 4e...just like before. But like before you'll get holdouts using the same reasoning.

Settembrini · April 25, 2008, 07:01:27 PM

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.

I´d say:

"We can play ALL the great old modules & settings from the days of good module and setting writers (<1990) PLUS you´ll be able to deck-build your character."

Dwight · April 25, 2008, 07:05:36 PM

Quote from: WarthurQuibble: if it gives you the same results, the mechanics have not changed, only the presentation.

Yes, that is a [nigh meaningless] quibble over your choice of definition of 'mechanics'.

Warthur · April 25, 2008, 07:08:35 PM

Except I don't know any commonly-held definition of "mechanics" in the RPG field which would regard differently-presented versions of the same rule as different mechanics.

Dwight · April 25, 2008, 07:13:43 PM

Quote from: WarthurExcept I don't know any commonly-held definition of "mechanics" in the RPG field which would regard differently-presented versions of the same rule as different mechanics.

Table vs formula? *shrug* Ok then, have fun.

James J Skach · April 25, 2008, 07:17:44 PM

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, 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

For Christmas, I bought one of my coworkers the DVD collection of Hee Haw.

That's right.

For the record, he mentioned wanting it in a conversation in October.

I think the kids these days refer to it as the long tail...

Dwight · April 25, 2008, 07:34:45 PM

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.

Huh? They have licensed out the printing.....to a firm called Lexmark. At least that's what it says on the front of my printer. How about yours? HP perhaps?

Hell you can buy the entire set of OD&D books still. Just whip over to RPGNow.

Kyle Aaron · April 26, 2008, 12:17:00 AM

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

It's hard not to design your own game.

I was doing an OSRIC of classic Traveller. I was about two pages in before I started changing the rules to suit what I reckoned was good.

Try as you might, it's hard not to be at least a little bit original.

RPGPundit · April 26, 2008, 12:28:31 AM

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's hard not to design your own game.

I was doing an OSRIC of classic Traveller. I was about two pages in before I started changing the rules to suit what I reckoned was good.

Try as you might, it's hard not to be at least a little bit original.

This is true too, and there'd really be little point in just making a direct copy-paste of the old rules (for that, people might as well just buy PDFs of the originals).

The idea would be to make stuff that would be very close to the original, but perhaps better written, and with some of the less successful rules adjusted. Castles & Crusades is an example of a game that goes too far in distance; the ideal would be something closer to either RC D&D or AD&D, or an amalgam of the two systems.

RPGPundit

J Arcane · April 26, 2008, 12:31:10 AM

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's hard not to design your own game.

I was doing an OSRIC of classic Traveller. I was about two pages in before I started changing the rules to suit what I reckoned was good.

Try as you might, it's hard not to be at least a little bit original.

This is actually why I gave up on every attempt I ever made to adapt somthing for d20. In order to make a complete game of it, it essentially meant spending a fuck of a lot of time repeating already written crap and I couldn't stand it.

Pierce Inverarity · April 26, 2008, 12:38:39 AM

Pundy, guess what. By sheer coincidence I checked out a certain blog just now, and guess what it's about:

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-think-i-like-where-this-is-going.html

Overuse of the word "balance" aside, this sounds interesting. And in the thread linked Kenzer even says he'd be open to some restrictive licensing to Necro, Troll Lord and such.

Pierce Inverarity · April 26, 2008, 12:41:51 AM