Quote from: Sacrosanct;684227Seems odd that someone who viewed 2e as a failure would try to keep the 2e focus as part of 3e.

I'm not sure how you're reading that.  The article was about focusing on in-game, at-table decisions rather than char-op type decisions.  I don't think it's a statement of overall agenda in the design.

I'm not trying to say that Monte's claiming that 2e was great, or that 2e was terrible, but maintaining *one aspect* of the game doesn't really seem like it's an endorsement of the product as a whole.

Quote from: One Horse Town;684185Interesting turn of phrase for someone who gave me a hard time in the ConTessa thread for using the C word.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=664328&postcount=125

I didn't give you a hard time, did I? I just thought that it was an inadvertently loaded choice of words that might be worth considering whether to edit it to something that wouldn't be taken the wrong way in the context of the thread.

Quote from: soviet;684210I didn't say that it did. Also, you don't understand what cognitive dissonance means.

Perhaps you're just a little bit hard of comprehension, or perhaps you're just really stupid - I neither know nor care - either way, Haffrung was responding to Mistwell's contention, which is what I also responded to (that'd be why I quoted that post, if that helps).

As for cognitive dissonance, it's on display more or less every time a 4venger tries to claim that this edition change is just like all the others, becoming ever more strident and shrill as more and more evidence piles up, refuting that notion.

Quote from: Bobloblah;684264Perhaps you're just a little bit hard of comprehension, or perhaps you're just really stupid - I neither know nor care - either way, Haffrung was responding to Mistwell's contention, which is what I also responded to (that'd be why I quoted that post, if that helps).

As for cognitive dissonance, it's on display more or less every time a 4venger tries to claim that this edition change is just like all the others, becoming ever more strident and shrill as more and more evidence piles up, refuting that notion.

Yeah, fuck you too. You got caught in a lie and you still don't understand what cognitive dissonance means.

Quote from: Mistwell;684219Fortunately even fewer people care what you think, than care what I think.  And that's saying something, since the number of people who care what I think is pretty damn low!

What a thing to be fighting over...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;684227So did Cook and Williams say that 2e was a failure?  Where did they say that?

He did say this, a few days ago:



Seems odd that someone who viewed 2e as a failure would try to keep the 2e focus as part of 3e.

See, you are trying to act like a brand new company, taking over the IP of another company that failed (not becasue of 2e, but because of bad business management), saying that their "new product is a lot better than the old one" is equivilant to admitting 2e failed.

It isn't.  It's pretty standard business practice to do that, in fact.

Look, I responded to you.  You didn't really respond back.  You just ignore the bulk of my response, repeated your claim, and moved on to a new issue and a single point.  Can you see why it'd be frustrating to continue at this point, given the disparity here? You want me now to go back to issues 142 through 172 of Dragon, figure out when TSR bashed 1e, quote it to you some more.  But, we both know you will view it only with an eye to pick it apart and find something to dismiss.  We're not having a debate here, all you're doing is explaining why you don't need to reconsider your perspective.

Quote from: soviet;684508Yeah, fuck you too.

That's the best you've got? Really?

Quote from: soviet;684508You got caught in a lie and you still don't understand what cognitive dissonance means.

And what lie, pray tell, was that?

You know, any claim of lack of understanding coming from you is pretty rich, considering some of the idiocy you post whenever 4E (or narrative versus trad RPGs) comes up. Didn't you spout off about, "4E was 3E done right!" or something similar? Sure. All while a massive chunk of the customer base peeled off to chase a clone of the previous edition. Watching you flailing about, trying to convince yourself that 4E was fantastic edition (in spite of the publisher dumping it record time) is pretty entertaining...

Quote from: Mistwell;684667We're not having a debate here, all you're doing is explaining why you don't need to reconsider your perspective.

I'd say you're doing the same. It's painfully clear that the current edition change is without precedent, and that's backed up by the publisher's own words, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.

That doesn't mean 4e didn't sell, that doesn't mean you shouldn't like 4e, that doesn't even mean it's a bad game. What it does mean is that it was not a terribly successful iteration of the D&D franchise in the eyes of its publisher (in the terms that matter to them; spare me the argument that it's just big, bad Hasborg's fault, as TSR would've been apoplectic at the current state of affairs). And that's something that an awful lot of people have been both predicting since its release, and observing for the past couple years. The denials of these things have gone from amused, to strident, to shrill over the past two years or so. And at this point they just look like the denier has lost touch with reality.

Quote from: Opaopajr;684217The discarded crusts of sandwiches have an advocate to clamor for their virtue as croutons.

:rotfl:

Quote from: Opaopajr;684217And for that we should be thankful, for it is entertaining.

There's that.

Its not very comparable, the move to 3e vs. the move to 4e.  At the time of the move to 3e there was a lot of talk of the system being better, yes, but keep in mind 2e was, by that time, a failure.  People had abandoned it in droves, it had its own "hail mary" pass of rules that only muddled things further (just like essentials), and it was generally a very disliked system.

On the other hand, at the time of the shift to 4e, 3.x was (however flawed) still a very beloved system (as was D20).  So the PR work for it was all wrong. Saying "the old game sucked and needed to be fixed" was something that met with wide agreement with the 2e-3e transition, while with 4e saying the same thing felt like a slap in the face.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;685505Its not very comparable, the move to 3e vs. the move to 4e.  At the time of the move to 3e there was a lot of talk of the system being better, yes, but keep in mind 2e was, by that time, a failure.  People had abandoned it in droves, it had its own "hail mary" pass of rules that only muddled things further (just like essentials), and it was generally a very disliked system.


RPGPundit

TSR failed not because of 2e, but because of horrible business decisions around other products.

Also, that doesn't make a lot of sense about a "hail mary" driving people away further.  2.5 is a clear precursor to 3e, and you see a lot of 3e's mechanics in 2.5.  Also the same people who did 2.5 wrote 3e.  So how can 3e be a beloved system while 2.5 was a last gasp failure?

Quote from: RPGPundit;685505but keep in mind 2e was, by that time, a failure.  People had abandoned it in droves, it had its own "hail mary" pass of rules that only muddled things further (just like essentials), and it was generally a very disliked system.

Holy shit, Pundit and I agree twice in a span of roughly a week.

We're doomed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;685505Its not very comparable, the move to 3e vs. the move to 4e.  At the time of the move to 3e there was a lot of talk of the system being better, yes, but keep in mind 2e was, by that time, a failure.  People had abandoned it in droves, it had its own "hail mary" pass of rules that only muddled things further (just like essentials), and it was generally a very disliked system.

RPGPundit

So what were they playing instead? Remember, a lot of people who play D&D never play another game, and have no interest in playing another game. When they stop playing D&D they stop playing RPGs.

By the middle of the 2E era the D&D and RPG wave had crested. That huge cohort of players who had started playing as adolescents in the early 80s had grown up and most had left RPGs behind. That had nothing to do with 2E and everything to do with demographics. Just as the timing and initial success of 3E had a lot to do with demographics.

2e's rep was pretty damaged by the time WotC took over.  On the one hand they were losing market share to Magic the Gathering and White Wolf (whose fans made it a hobby to mock TSR), on the other TSR's management was in financial free fall. It might have weathered the first if it weren't for the second, and vice versa. Together, it was doomed, and no new rules or updates would have helped one way or the other.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;685512TSR failed not because of 2e, but because of horrible business decisions around other products.

Also, that doesn't make a lot of sense about a "hail mary" driving people away further.  2.5 is a clear precursor to 3e, and you see a lot of 3e's mechanics in 2.5.  Also the same people who did 2.5 wrote 3e.  So how can 3e be a beloved system while 2.5 was a last gasp failure?

That's actually right. 2e itself wasn't really a "failure". TSR failed because of stupid shit, unrelated to the core of the game. For example, they suffered a financial loss on those boxed sets. And they got infinitely screwed in the book trade (novels), with tons of returns. Oh, and how about Dragon Dice? This game did well at first, but due to horrible business decisions (as you mentioned) TSR suffered a very significant financial loss on that.

And then there was Lorraine Williams who ran a gaming company (TSR), but whom loathed gamers, considering them her intellectual and social inferiors. It's a miracle that 2e lasted as long as it did, considering that it's pretty damn hard to create games without being an actual gamer. From what I've read, her arrogance and idiocy drastically increased the company's debt. That's never a good thing.

Let's also not forget that this was the time of Magic the Gathering, which made a CCG into a real competitor for RPGs. And of course, Vampire the Masquerade......which lured a rather different crowd into RPGs..

But yes, horrible business decisions caused the near-destruction of that company....