bert
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 138
|
Post by bert on Feb 20, 2011 13:40:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 20, 2011 14:02:25 GMT -6
I can't get the original article to load at the moment, but James makes some interesting points in his blog. I can only assume that the first article is all about "can't we all play together" and it does sound like WotC might be feeling adverse effects of the 3E/4E switch.
Certainly, Pathfinder jumped into a market at just the right time when a slice of the market wasn't interested in making an edition change and by providing that slice exactly what they wanted. I can only wish that some major company (even WotC) could back AD&D or OD&D to the extent that Paizo backed Pathfinder. That would certanly help spread the word!
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 20, 2011 14:07:57 GMT -6
Well, finally got it to load and took a moment to read. A decent enough editorial, but I'm not sure where Mike was headed with it. Perhaps simply the notion that whatever edition you play, whatever house rules you use, it's all the same basic game. If so, I'm still a little puzzled because R&D would be acknowledging that there are lots of fans who play older editions but not offering to publish rules that fit those editions. I know that Mike posts on some of the boards I frequent, but I'm drawing a blank offhand as to which one(s). Maybe he'll say more about what he means in the editorial. EDIT: Here's his blog kotgl.blogspot.com/ and he does talk about OSRIC and other games of that style on the blog, so clearly he's "in the know" about the whole old-school thing. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 20, 2011 22:25:24 GMT -6
I think Mike Mearls is sincere and well-meaning.
I'd like to see ALL of the items that have ever been published by TSR or by WotC released on PDF and POD.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Feb 20, 2011 22:38:40 GMT -6
My reaction was: what does that even mean? I think it was more of a place-holder than an actual article; he wants everyone regardless of edition preference to read his column, so his first article calls for gamer unity.
|
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Feb 20, 2011 23:32:22 GMT -6
Well, finally got it to load and took a moment to read. A decent enough editorial, but I'm not sure where Mike was headed with it. Carefully, wherever, so as not to be lynched by both his employer and the 4e fans? Perhaps simply the notion that whatever edition you play, whatever house rules you use, it's all the same basic game. Translated into US-speak, "we're all Greeks now"? It's a nice sentiment but it doesn't wash, even if that might be a true representation of D&D's current economic outlook. I think Mike Mearls is sincere and well-meaning. I'd like to see ALL of the items that have ever been published by TSR or by WotC released on PDF and POD. There can be no whitewash (of older editions) at the online warehouse, eh?  |
|
bert
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 138
|
Post by bert on Feb 21, 2011 11:24:28 GMT -6
Mike Mearls may be a decent guy, but he still works for WoTC. Whatever they do with the old material they will still be trying to maximise their profits. Do they think they can make more money supressing the older editions and thus forcing fans to buy into the expensive new edition? I can't figure out any other reason for them to sit on a pile of much in-demand material that it would cost very little to put out as downloads and that will still turn them a small but significant profit despite its age. Or maybe it is, as people commenting on Grognardia pointed out, an ego thing - they can't admit 4e was a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Feb 21, 2011 12:17:42 GMT -6
I've never seen a company turn its former customers away like WOTC has done. I think it is unprecedented. It is as if McDonalds decided to stop selling Big Macs in favor of Big Rocks, and a new restaurant started selling Big Macs instead. I work at a software company in support, and we'll take a question on any version we've ever released. So let's see ... WOTC kills the old edition downloads, the old edition forum support, the old edition pdfs, doesn't make their products backwards compatible, and now they call for unity? It's ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 21, 2011 16:30:51 GMT -6
Whatever they do with the old material they will still be trying to maximise their profits. Do they think they can make more money supressing the older editions and thus forcing fans to buy into the expensive new edition? It seems to me like they could make another pile of money by re-releasing the old rulebooks. They could do a whole new layout, put in new artwork, the works. Or, they could just re-use the old artwork and put out brand new copies of the same books as if it was in the 1980's again. It's not like they'd have to pay for new design teams to playtest or anything like that. I'm not sure old editions "compete" with new editions when you own both. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2011 16:52:23 GMT -6
Add me to the group that wishes they'd put the PDF files back online for sale. I'd also love to see them go POD. I've thought about recreating the OCE as a single file that could be used for POD and sending it to WoTC so that they had no reason at all that they couldn't make it available as a POD softbound or hardbound book for people to buy. The big thing stopping me from spending the time is that I have a feeling that it would be a wasted effort as they'd never do anything with the file or even bother to reply to me sending it to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 21, 2011 16:56:51 GMT -6
It makes no sense whatsoever to not release all of TSR's and WotC's out-of-print titles as PDFs and PODs:
1. If these PDFs and PODs would make a lot of money, then obviously it's the thing to do.
2. On the other hand, if these old products are next to worthless, then it would make sense to release them all as free PDFs (as Talislanta has) and as for-cost PODs.
WotC can't have it both ways: Either these products are valuable or they are not. In either case, it makes no sense to sit on them. It amounts to a form of book-banning.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Feb 22, 2011 9:45:22 GMT -6
WotC can't have it both ways: Either these products are valuable or they are not. In either case, it makes no sense to sit on them. It amounts to a form of book-banning. An interesting way to put it. I'm feeling all riled up now! |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Feb 22, 2011 10:41:13 GMT -6
I'm not sure old editions "compete" with new editions when you own both. Nor do they compete when the customers of each edition are different. I mean, I would pay good money for a new printing of, say, the White Box to save wear and tear on my existing one. That's money WotC would otherwise never get from me. And let's be honest: there's no way anyone is going to confuse OD&D or AD&D products with 4e ones, so it's hard to see the logic of this, particularly when many companies make their "legacy" products easily available. My 8 year-old son can play the original Super Mario Brothers from Nintendo on the Wii and his doing so didn't adversely affect his interest in the new version released specifically for that game system -- quite the opposite. It's silly and shortsighted. |
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Feb 22, 2011 20:52:38 GMT -6
Well, now that I'm sinking lots of time, effort and money into an OD&D clone, it is only Murphy's Law that WORC will re-release OD&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Feb 22, 2011 22:30:55 GMT -6
I'm afraid that I don't understand Mearls' call for all editions to join hands and sing in harmony when WotC will not acknowledge the existence of any other edition than 4th. WotC and Hasbro need to rebuild bridges that have been burned to their pilings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Feb 23, 2011 14:20:45 GMT -6
I, for one, would much prefer that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS be out of print completely, than for them to continue to pump out the dreck that currently graces the shelves of every B&N. You see, I’m open with people about the fact that I play D&D. I’m a pretty confident guy with a really hot wife, so as long as I just act like D&D is actually pretty cool and not a nerdy secret, people believe me. If they’re curious, I’ll show them some sweet Gamescience dice and my White Box. Anyone that I have even a bit of rapport with will dig the Tolkien and Greek Mythology references and the appeals to the imagination. My worst fear, though, is that they will pick up a book at B&N out of curiosity, and find hundreds of pages of rules, plus this sort of crap:  That’s why 4e is the enemy. Because it shames the D&D name and turns it into something über-geeky that I want nothing to do with. In that sense, I could care less for the health of the hobby. What separates us is greater than that which unites us. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Feb 23, 2011 15:01:21 GMT -6
(Gonna send that character into a maze of 5 foot wide passages? *g*) > turns it into something über-geeky Some might argue it always was. Just with less spikiness and a lower BFS quotient.  |
|
|
|
Post by iamtim on Feb 23, 2011 15:11:11 GMT -6
Personally, I think this is all one grand maneuver on the part of WotC. First, they pull all the old PDFs. Then they release 4e, which caters more to the MMOers than ever before. While 4e is pulling in MMOers, the "old schoolers" (in their eyes) are clamoring for something to buy. So then they release the Essentials line and the "red box" basic set to capture the "old schoolers". Finally, post a couple of blogs which attempt to smooth the waters between all D&D players. Why keep the old stuff available when you've got this "awesome" business plan to pull all the old schoolers in to 4e? Think like WotC, folks... as painful as that might be. They don't want to have the old stuff available because they want people to buy the new stuff. They just haven't yet discovered that us old schoolers aren't fooled quite that easily. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 22:21:20 GMT -6
(Gonna send that character into a maze of 5 foot wide passages? *g*) > turns it into something über-geeky Some might argue it always was. Just with less spikiness and a lower BFS quotient. I have never bought into the D&D is a geeky thing, I don't believe it and don't see it. I think that D&D or at least OD&D is something that non-geeks also play, having known a lot of non-geeks who play. As for the founders of D&D, Dave Arneson was clearly a geek but IMO Gary Gygax was clearly not a geek regardless of what the media thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Feb 26, 2011 0:01:49 GMT -6
I, for one, would much prefer that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS be out of print completely, than for them to continue to pump out the dreck that currently graces the shelves of every B&N. You see, I’m open with people about the fact that I play D&D. I’m a pretty confident guy with a really hot wife, so as long as I just act like D&D is actually pretty cool and not a nerdy secret, people believe me. If they’re curious, I’ll show them some sweet Gamescience dice and my White Box. Anyone that I have even a bit of rapport with will dig the Tolkien and Greek Mythology references and the appeals to the imagination. My worst fear, though, is that they will pick up a book at B&N out of curiosity, and find hundreds of pages of rules, plus this sort of crap: That’s why 4e is the enemy. Because it shames the D&D name and turns it into something über-geeky that I want nothing to do with. In that sense, I could care less for the health of the hobby. What separates us is greater than that which unites us. I agree with you, for the most part; I just wanted to point out that that particular illustration is from Pathfinder (Paizo's 3.5 clone), not 4e. However, it is still indicative of the vision of D&D as it exists in print today (Paizo just picked up the market that wanted more of 3.x rather than 4e). I'd be much happier to pick up a book and see something like this:  On the other hand, I think that part of the geek association comes from it being a fantasy game. Fantasy/sci-fi things are seen as geeky, and as long as there are elves, wizards and dragons running around the game, it's going be viewed that way. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Feb 26, 2011 6:07:44 GMT -6
I have never bought into the D&D is a geeky thing, I don't believe it and don't see it. I think that D&D or at least OD&D is something that non-geeks also play, having known a lot of non-geeks who play. As for the founders of D&D, Dave Arneson was clearly a geek but IMO Gary Gygax was clearly not a geek regardless of what the media thought. Definitions & ymmv, of course, but "A person with a devotion to something in a way that places him or her outside the mainstream. This could be due to the intensity, depth, or subject of their interest" catches both nicely, IMHO, if you've read EGG's various gaming contributions and participations from the late 60s/early 70s. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 26, 2011 13:24:42 GMT -6
Personally I find the whole judgementalism wrapped around "geek" to be odious. What good is there in assigning labels to what/who is "geeky", what/who is not, and whether its good or bad. It's just another form of prejudice and stereotyping.
Gygax was a insurance salesman, cobbler, and avid wargamer. Does that make him a geek? or not?
Arneson was a History major, an avid Civil War reenactor, a fencer, a teacher and also an avid wargamer. does that make him more or less geeky?
How about Dave Hargrave, a vietnam veteran?
What about the Larpers? Are they all a bunch of worthless geeks?
My point simply is that I really wish people in and out of the hobby would get over juvenile name calling.
|
|
|
|
Post by iamtim on Feb 26, 2011 13:41:12 GMT -6
What about the Larpers? Are they all a bunch of worthless geeks? Yes. ;D (The above should be taken as a purely tongue-in-cheek reply, if the smiley wasn't indicative enough.) |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Feb 26, 2011 15:01:42 GMT -6
(OT) Personally I find the whole judgementalism wrapped around "geek" to be odious. What good is there in assigning labels to what/who is "geeky", what/who is not, and whether its good or bad. It's just another form of prejudice and stereotyping. Gygax was a insurance salesman, cobbler, and avid wargamer. Does that make him a geek? or not? Arneson was a History major, an avid Civil War reenactor, a fencer, a teacher and also an avid wargamer. does that make him more or less geeky? How about Dave Hargrave, a vietnam veteran? What about the Larpers? Are they all a bunch of worthless geeks? My point simply is that I really wish people in and out of the hobby would get over juvenile name calling. Heaven(s)* forbid anyone be labeled a fan(atic). ( ;D also) * mythos neutral, ethically sourced[/i] |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Mar 12, 2011 20:29:06 GMT -6
I, for one, would much prefer that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS be out of print completely, than for them to continue to pump out the dreck that currently graces the shelves of every B&N. You see, I’m open with people about the fact that I play D&D. I’m a pretty confident guy with a really hot wife, so as long as I just act like D&D is actually pretty cool and not a nerdy secret, people believe me. If they’re curious, I’ll show them some sweet Gamescience dice and my White Box. Anyone that I have even a bit of rapport with will dig the Tolkien and Greek Mythology references and the appeals to the imagination. My worst fear, though, is that they will pick up a book at B&N out of curiosity, and find hundreds of pages of rules, plus this sort of crap: That’s why 4e is the enemy. Because it shames the D&D name and turns it into something über-geeky that I want nothing to do with. In that sense, I could care less for the health of the hobby. What separates us is greater than that which unites us. I agree with you, for the most part; I just wanted to point out that that particular illustration is from Pathfinder (Paizo's 3.5 clone), not 4e. However, it is still indicative of the vision of D&D as it exists in print today (Paizo just picked up the market that wanted more of 3.x rather than 4e). I'd be much happier to pick up a book and see something like this: On the other hand, I think that part of the geek association comes from it being a fantasy game. Fantasy/sci-fi things are seen as geeky, and as long as there are elves, wizards and dragons running around the game, it's going be viewed that way. Where does that leave those of us who like both styles? |
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Mar 12, 2011 21:44:32 GMT -6
That's a really good question, honestly (and hello to a fellow Missourian!). I certainly don't want to imply that there's a "wrong" way to play/visualize the game, especially with the OSR's emphasis on the DIY aspect of the game; apologies if it seemed that way. And I doubt that the second image I posted would make a D&D rulebook look any more attractive to a non-gamer than the first; in both cases I'm sure it would be based on personal preference and all that. It just seems that what provides a lot of the fun of old-school D&D - dungeon exploration - has gotten pushed to the side in favor of showing the characters being Big d**n Heroes, doing Badass things. I'm really not a big fan of the "standing there looking like a 'badass' with a Sword of Unusual Size" poses that you see in a lot of newer artwork; it doesn't really say anything about the game itself, whereas the picture I posted does. It sums up one part of the game really well: fighting strange monsters in underground spaces - and perhaps getting eaten in the process! To be fair, you can see that in newer art too; here's an example:  (OK it's actually outdoors, but you get the idea) And here's a group of adventurers who look like they mean business! (without the Swords of Unusual Size...)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2011 22:13:20 GMT -6
Personally I find the whole judgementalism wrapped around "geek" to be odious. What good is there in assigning labels to what/who is "geeky", what/who is not, and whether its good or bad. It's just another form of prejudice and stereotyping. Gygax was a insurance salesman, cobbler, and avid wargamer. Does that make him a geek? or not? Arneson was a History major, an avid Civil War reenactor, a fencer, a teacher and also an avid wargamer. does that make him more or less geeky? How about Dave Hargrave, a vietnam veteran? What about the Larpers? Are they all a bunch of worthless geeks? My point simply is that I really wish people in and out of the hobby would get over juvenile name calling. ;D Look at their pictures from back in the day, Gygax was not a geek, Arneson was, Hargrave - not even remotely a geek. Larpers, some are geeks and some are not, only some geeks are worthless, not all. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Mar 12, 2011 22:45:56 GMT -6
4E ain't 3.5., 3.0, 2nd, 1st ed AD&D, Holmes, B/EX, or OD&D! And I'm fine with that! Each system has a lot that is good and bad. I grew up on Holmes, B/EX, 1st and 2nd AD&D, so they will have a place in my heart forever. The rest were fun but just didn't do it for me either. Of course to be fair, I'm a parent, work full time, and barely have time to read an RPG let alone play one with my 4 year old. So my perspective has changed somewhat.
As war as being a geek, well.... I've been called much worse by others, and all that says is how unimaginative and crass they really are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 13, 2011 6:07:37 GMT -6
I, for one, would much prefer that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS be out of print completely, than for them to continue to pump out the dreck that currently graces the shelves of every B&N. I'm not sure I agree with this. I'd like to see the older stuff back in print certainly, but I don't ahve a hatred of the new material either. I own quite a few 4E books and most of the Essentials line and have played a few games of this stuff and have actually enjoyed it. While it's certainly a different game and I wish it wasn't called "Dungeons & Dragons" it's a decent enough product and caters to a certain slice of the gaming industry who likes playing the bigger and better character. The best comparrison is probably old Battlestar Galactica versus new Battlestar Galactica, or TOS Star Trek versus new movie Star Trek. There are many who enjoy one or the other or both, but in either case I'd be a lot happier if they had just changed the name the second time. And I try not to be turned off by artwork styles. I like the look of OD&D and AD&D but I'll bet that TSR would have used color interior art if they felt they could have afforded it and been able to still sell rulebooks at a higher price. I really disliked one of the 2E artwork styles, which was B&W only with blue highlights instead of just shades of grey -- either do color or B&W but not both together. I wasn't a fan of 3E artwork and so-so about most of the 4E art, but my college-aged som loves both. Different products have used art in different ways to sell the setting, such as Dark Sun / Brom or Dragonlance / Elmore. (To me, Dark Sun is a more cool setting with Brom artwork. Why they went to new artists for the 4E DS books is totally mystifying.) Actually, sometimes it's hard to seperate the rules from the artwork and disliking one can help you dislike the other. One thing I love about Castles & Crusades is that they blend the old with the new. Of course, this tends to generate haters on both sides. Same thing with the OSR, which I believe was mostly an attempt to bring older editions back and support those who do it but somehow has become this political thing where it's cool to play OS games but not cool to support the OSR. Or something like that. Anyway, I'm sure I'm way off topic but my main point is that thorse darned kids should just stay off of my lawn!  |
|
oldgamergeek
Level 3 Conjurer
I R the dungeon kitty ,save vs catnap
Posts: 71
|
Post by oldgamergeek on Mar 14, 2011 11:43:33 GMT -6
Looks to me like WOTC is getting desperate as the market speaks, There is a con I am going to and I am not seeing a RPGA section and only a couple 4th edition games listed.
|
|
