Full Version: D&D 4th edition. How does this relate to SR?
| QUOTE (Eric Noah) |
| On a more serious note ... it is ironic that even yesterday I got some major scoops about the future of D&D. It is sounding like some of our most paranoid fears are in fact in the works. -4E already in the works? Check. -Even more miniatures-centric? Check. -Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately? Check. -A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC). Unfortunately I can't go into how I got the info or who gave it to me. And I don't think even WotC knows when they're going to announce anything. I got the impression that timing such an announcement with GenCon was no longer seen as optimal or necessary. But please take all as unsubstantiated speculation ... as usual! |
This was posted on the ENWorld news. For those that don't know ENWorld is pretty much the unoffical D&D site. Eric Noah is the guy that started it right after 3.0 was announced, about a year before 3.0 was released. It's popularity also got him some sort of relationship and deal with WotC back around the release of 3.0. He doesn't run the site, hasn't for years now. But he still hangs around it, and needless to say still has some pretty good connections to WotC.
So how does this relate to SR? Well note the last item on that list. D&D, with 6 years under 3.X's belt, is near the end of it's product life. It's hard to come up with interesting and universally appealing products by then. I bet that's why the profits are gone. But it is interesting to hear this.
WotC has been...careless (for lack of a better word) with their RPG lines. Think about this: WotC's D&D and Star Wars lines went through four total editions in three years. To top it all off, Star Wars will be hitting another edition coming in March. This is confirmed and official. For those that are counting that makes three d20 Star Wars editions in 7 years. It takes [/I]most games an average of 7 years to have even one new edition.
The most insidious thing about it is that they absolutely refuse to refer to any of these as "new editions." Instead they call them "revisions" or "3.5" or, in the case of the upcoming Star Wars upgrade, "the Saga Edition." They claim that the games were perfectly reverse compatable, but the fact of the matter is any time you alter the classes and level dependant abilities in a heavily class and level dependant system, you are automatically rendering your previous products obsolete. Their arguments that they are only revisions grow even thinner when they try to repackage and re-sell the very same suppliments you bought for the previous edition, updated and enhanced for the new "revision." I might also add that they are more expensive than the previous editions'.
I'm not a business major in any way shape or form. But I do know that with a small company, that has only one major product, lives and dies by that product. If it sells they survive. If it doesn't they close their doors. But when a large company with many, many lines of products has trouble with one particular product, when it isn't pulling its weight, they have the option of dropping that product line to give more support to those that sell. This is exactly what happened with WotC and its Star Wars RPG line. It just wasn't selling as much as the Star Wars and D&D miniature line so they decided to stop supporting it. Now, I guess the sales of the miniature line have been pretty impressive so they are trying it again. Only this time they are tying it mroe closely to the miniature line.
I have stopped listening to any protests from WotC emplyees that they are in it for the games. The immediate developers may be true gamers and enjoy the hobby, but they are not given the time and resources to make a game for gamers. Nor are they given "permission" to make a game that will grow strong by its fan base. This is obvious by WotC's actions. How can a fanbase grow and become healthy when the rug is being swept out from under them every other year? Perhaps you can get away with that sort of thing with the existing D&D fanbase. They've been around for so long they've become a staple. Running that into the ground is a pretty tough thing to do, but they certainly seem to be doing it. I just hope other companies don't learn from their example. I stopped buying d20 material after the announcement of 3.5. I'm sure others will follow if they announce another[I] new edition.
The most insidious thing about it is that they absolutely refuse to refer to any of these as "new editions." Instead they call them "revisions" or "3.5" or, in the case of the upcoming Star Wars upgrade, "the Saga Edition." They claim that the games were perfectly reverse compatable, but the fact of the matter is any time you alter the classes and level dependant abilities in a heavily class and level dependant system, you are automatically rendering your previous products obsolete. Their arguments that they are only revisions grow even thinner when they try to repackage and re-sell the very same suppliments you bought for the previous edition, updated and enhanced for the new "revision." I might also add that they are more expensive than the previous editions'.
I'm not a business major in any way shape or form. But I do know that with a small company, that has only one major product, lives and dies by that product. If it sells they survive. If it doesn't they close their doors. But when a large company with many, many lines of products has trouble with one particular product, when it isn't pulling its weight, they have the option of dropping that product line to give more support to those that sell. This is exactly what happened with WotC and its Star Wars RPG line. It just wasn't selling as much as the Star Wars and D&D miniature line so they decided to stop supporting it. Now, I guess the sales of the miniature line have been pretty impressive so they are trying it again. Only this time they are tying it mroe closely to the miniature line.
I have stopped listening to any protests from WotC emplyees that they are in it for the games. The immediate developers may be true gamers and enjoy the hobby, but they are not given the time and resources to make a game for gamers. Nor are they given "permission" to make a game that will grow strong by its fan base. This is obvious by WotC's actions. How can a fanbase grow and become healthy when the rug is being swept out from under them every other year? Perhaps you can get away with that sort of thing with the existing D&D fanbase. They've been around for so long they've become a staple. Running that into the ground is a pretty tough thing to do, but they certainly seem to be doing it. I just hope other companies don't learn from their example. I stopped buying d20 material after the announcement of 3.5. I'm sure others will follow if they announce another[I] new edition.
It's what I said about SR l4, it's a money grab. Redo the system and hope the sheep will buy the magic/cyber/car/gun suppliments all over again.
Deffinatly there was a need to go from 1st to 2nd ed of Sr. I was urked by 3rd ed since the matrix-in most need of revision was not reverse compatable since it was completely changed, but I didn't even bother with 4th ed.
You can see the same thing going on with Vampire the Masquerade. flush the game system that works fine and hope poele will buy the new books and boost your bottom line. My views on SR 4 shouldn't surprise nayone but I'm just amazed at the Star Wars screw up. If the facts are as given they'll be lucky to have George Lucas buy a copy
Deffinatly there was a need to go from 1st to 2nd ed of Sr. I was urked by 3rd ed since the matrix-in most need of revision was not reverse compatable since it was completely changed, but I didn't even bother with 4th ed.
You can see the same thing going on with Vampire the Masquerade. flush the game system that works fine and hope poele will buy the new books and boost your bottom line. My views on SR 4 shouldn't surprise nayone but I'm just amazed at the Star Wars screw up. If the facts are as given they'll be lucky to have George Lucas buy a copy
| QUOTE (Snow_Fox) |
| If the facts are as given they'll be lucky to have George Lucas buy a copy |
While this is the first I've heard of a D&D 4e, the point about the new Star Wars edition is true. This has been announced on their forums by the writers, and I assume it will be "officially" announced at GenCon this week.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is naive and flawed to think that new editions are wrong and pointless. They serve many purposes and the simple fact is that some material is going to be left in the dust. It's just the nature of the beast. It always has been. But to update games as often as WotC has in the past 6 years, rendering each previous verion obsolete within months of its release, is outragous. Adding insult to injury they are known to release two or three new and vital books months after the announcement of a forthcoming new edition that will render the material useless. I find this practice unethical and completely disrespecting of their clientel.
But they're obviously doing something right. The clientel must have changed in the past 10 years. You can't argue the new life WotC brought to the industry. In the late 90's nearly every company that was thriving in the "early" days of gaming was closing its doors. WotC came along and brought new life to a dying industry (note I didn't say dying "hobby" as the gamers will be around forever). But the sad thing is that the very practices they used to pump up awareness and sales in all corners of the indusrty are ruining it for those that remember a time before the "depression." But the "new" clientel is gobbling the stuff up like candy. And so it goes.
The above is just theory, of course. Wide open for interpretation and disagreement.
If this is true, I can't WAIT for them to sell off the RPG rights and let someone else fix what they've fucked up.
I'm not all about updating systems that already work, but imo D&D 3.x doesn't work very well anyway.
As far as "new life to the industry" goes, yeah, they've brought a lot of people into the "gamer" fold, but as they seem to prefer pokemon and clicky games to actual role playing, I'm not sure we're talking about the same market anymore.
I'm not all about updating systems that already work, but imo D&D 3.x doesn't work very well anyway.
As far as "new life to the industry" goes, yeah, they've brought a lot of people into the "gamer" fold, but as they seem to prefer pokemon and clicky games to actual role playing, I'm not sure we're talking about the same market anymore.
| QUOTE (eidolon @ Aug 5 2006, 02:37 PM) |
| As far as "new life to the industry" goes, yeah, they've brought a lot of people into the "gamer" fold, but as they seem to prefer pokemon and clicky games to actual role playing, I'm not sure we're talking about the same market anymore. |
Oh I absolutely agree. That's sort of what I meant. The only way they've been able to get away with such horrible respect towards their standing fan base is by catering to the hordes of people with little more attention span than a humming bird (I should ammend this by saying I don't think that all people who play D&D 3.x have short attention spans, I just think that is who WotC markets to).
It is strictly a matter of opinion, but my observations tell me that most of the gamers from the "old world" (what I would consider prior to 2000 and the OGL) tended to fall back to a lot of the old staples. D&D seemed to escape that as I think it is hard to argue that 3.0 is in many ways mechanically better than the old AD&D. But most "old world" gamers that I've met who got caught up in the new Star Wars d20 eventually went right back to the old D6 version. I've also noted a large number of my peers going back to other pre-d20 games not associated with D&D and WotC. There is a LOT of d20 and OGL material out there, but how much of it is actually being bought from WotC? I wonder.
I suppose you could take from this that the old game companies were dying because the old gamer was "growing up" and, perhaps, finding other things to do with their money. Perhaps WotC didn't change the industry as such, they just found a new market demographic. One needs only look at how closely they tie their RPG products into digital gaming products, like DDO and Neverwinter Nights, to see what demographic they're targeting.
Since WotC let a bunch of the d20 Star Wars books slip out of print and hasn't done any new stuff for well over a year, I'm glad to see that they're doing a new edition. I hope it's will supported, and I hope that it's more streamlined than the previous editions -- I played in a very enjoyable Star Wars campaign a couple years ago, which was only dragged down when it got into the more wonky d20 rules [tripping ... argh.]
| QUOTE |
| Adding insult to injury they are known to release two or three new and vital books months after the announcement of a forthcoming new edition that will render the material useless. I find this practice unethical and completely disrespecting of their clientel. |
What? If the books are useless if you buy the new edition, they're not vital for the new edition player, are they? And if they're vital for the old edition player, well, they'll still be vital if they don't upgrade to the new edition right away.
| QUOTE (Adam) |
| What? If the books are useless if you buy the new edition, they're not vital for the new edition player, are they? And if they're vital for the old edition player, well, they'll still be vital if they don't upgrade to the new edition right away. |
Not at all. There may be information that is vital to the type of game they want to play and is never reprinted after the new edition is released. This was the case with the New Jedi Order sourcebook. They made the announcement of the new edition and a couple months later they released the NJO sourcebook under the first edition rules.
Now the world information would all be generally the same, but the "crunch" of the book (races, prestige classes, gear, etc.) would all be useless in the new editions. Sure, the players and GMs could upgrade the stuff themselves, but that's not really the point. It quite glaringly illustrates the attitude of the company towards their fan base. They sell you something they know is going to be superseded in a matter of months when they could have very well held off the release to be upgraded to the new edition.
There's a difference between "vital" and "vital to a particular group's campaign."
Regardless, there are certain factors when working on a licensed product such as Star Wars compared to your own IP. To the best of my knowledge, WotC is only allowed to release a certain number of Star Wars products every year, and they can't "bank" those products and release extras next year. They may not have been able to hold off the releases until after the new edition ... and there's also the counter-argument that they're doing first edition players a disservice by not releasing those books for first edition. So, frankly, whatever they do, they're going to piss off someone -- first edition players, potential second edition players, stores with stock of first edition products, distributors, the license holder [if they change plans suddenly and make the license holder do more work for approvals], etc.
Regardless, there are certain factors when working on a licensed product such as Star Wars compared to your own IP. To the best of my knowledge, WotC is only allowed to release a certain number of Star Wars products every year, and they can't "bank" those products and release extras next year. They may not have been able to hold off the releases until after the new edition ... and there's also the counter-argument that they're doing first edition players a disservice by not releasing those books for first edition. So, frankly, whatever they do, they're going to piss off someone -- first edition players, potential second edition players, stores with stock of first edition products, distributors, the license holder [if they change plans suddenly and make the license holder do more work for approvals], etc.
| QUOTE (Adam) |
| There's a difference between "vital" and "vital to a particular group's campaign." Regardless, there are certain factors when working on a licensed product such as Star Wars compared to your own IP. To the best of my knowledge, WotC is only allowed to release a certain number of Star Wars products every year, and they can't "bank" those products and release extras next year. They may not have been able to hold off the releases until after the new edition ... and there's also the counter-argument that they're doing first edition players a disservice by not releasing those books for first edition. So, frankly, whatever they do, they're going to piss off someone -- first edition players, potential second edition players, stores with stock of first edition products, distributors, the license holder [if they change plans suddenly and make the license holder do more work for approvals], etc. |
True, no matter what they do they're going to either piss off their existing fan base, or their potential fan base. They can't win for losing. But the frequency at which they create these upgrades, and subsiquent repeated destruction of ties with their existing fan base, is pushing the limits. I think new editions are vital to the long term life of a game. If new infusions are not made on a regular basis the game line will wither and die. And people will complain just as loudly about a lack of support as they will a "shifting" of support.
And I agree with the aspect WotC's permissions in their release schedule. Everything I've heard about the license agreement follows that line of thinking. But to me that just screams even more the ills of such corporate fiddeling. I'm not under any delusion that such a thing just shouldn't exist. It's a sad part of life whether we like it or not. My laments are simply a yearning for that "older, simpler time" that us old farts love to go on about but can never quite explain.
I disagree a bit, though, with the idea that such information is not "vital." To write off an entire section of the settings background and story factors simply becuase "most people don't use it" is a pretty crappy thing (and only supports my theories on their attitudes). Obviously the book didn't sell well. Otherwise they would have released it right away in the new edition. But, again, this speaks to the problems with eyes only on the bottom line. Now, this part I know is a fact of life with everything and everyone. It's the catch 22 of any product. You need sales to continue growth, and sometimes you can't continue growth by supporting everyone you want to support. It's tricky, I know. But I also know that WotC could have handled it in a much more graceful way. Don't ask me how. I'm just an old fart.
| QUOTE (GoblynByte) |
| I've also noted a large number of my peers going back to other pre-d20 games not associated with D&D and WotC. |
I've noticed the same thing. My last group dumped 3.x and went back to playing 2nd edition, and the guys from the group before that have either gone back to 2nd or stopped playing entirely (for the moment). As far as SR goes, I know that nobody in either group is the slightest bit interested in SR4. Other people I talk to in my general age group feel the same way.
Of course, for every one of us, I talk to a rabid fanboy of varying age, so it appeals to somebody I suppose.
I don't claim to have a wide enough survey pool to say what's up definitively, but I know what's around me, and what I see is a group of gamers that's slowly moving back to games they enjoy rather than playing what's new just because WotC tells them it's the only way.
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| I don't claim to have a wide enough survey pool to say what's up definitively, but I know what's around me, and what I see is a group of gamers that's slowly moving back to games they enjoy rather than playing what's new just because WotC tells them it's the only way. |
That's my observation as well.
And I would like to amend my last post. I was awfully tired last night and when I re-read that post it didn't even make sense to me, the one who posted it. Here's what I meant:
The average consumer isn't going to be aware of or even care about the "extenuating circumstances" behind the business practices of the corporation behind the company. It's bad business practice from the consumer's point of view because they get screwed.
It's like paying for a $20 steak and it comes to your table completely undercooked. You're not going to figure, "Oh corporate probably put in some rule saying they now only had 5 minutes to cook each meal, so it can't be the chef's fault. I'll eat it anyway." Probably not. Or at least if you do than you wouldn't have much room to complain when you get sick. And when the bring you the steak a second time and now its so completely over done it has no taste you're certainly not going to happier about the situation. You might give up and figure its not worth the effort to complain, but you're certainly not going to think "boy that chef is doing a bang-up job!"
Not a perfect analogy, but the best I could come up with.
And I'm certainly not trying to say "that's the way it is and anyone who says differently is naive and stupid for falling for The Man's tricks!" Not at all. I'm just expressing the impressions and observations that I have of WotC's business practices. Sure, there may have been external pressures on them to behave a certain way, but I feel it is my responsibility as a consumer to send the message that I find it unacceptable. Unfortunately, the larger demographic doesn't seem to feel they have any power in that respect. They buy the steak, see the undercooked nature of the steak, eat the steak anyway, then complain when the steak makes them sick. That's my observation anyway.
Excelent anaology GB.
Id see 4E as a money grab too. Hasbro stands to make another killing, so why would they wait untill the product line reaches a self determined end? And while 3.0 may be getting grey a 6, 3.5 isnt barely 4 yet. But dont get me started on that.
How many people bought System Failure, released well after the release of Sr4? I did, partially because I was not (and still am not) a fan of the new system, but mostly because I wanted that information for me.
Id see 4E as a money grab too. Hasbro stands to make another killing, so why would they wait untill the product line reaches a self determined end? And while 3.0 may be getting grey a 6, 3.5 isnt barely 4 yet. But dont get me started on that.
How many people bought System Failure, released well after the release of Sr4? I did, partially because I was not (and still am not) a fan of the new system, but mostly because I wanted that information for me.
| QUOTE (Lindt) |
| I'd see 4E as a money grab too. |
See, I'm at a loss as to why so many people think SR4 is a money grab.
FASA went under, leaving WizKids with SR's IP and the SR3 ruleset/materials that FASA has put together. There were so many parts of SR3's metaplot and rules that I ignored or didn't integrate systemically that it really wasn't worth it for me to continue following the line. I could run an SR game of my desired level of complexity with the books that I had and a little creativity. The last time we had a game of Shadowrun among my gaming crew in Seattle was, oh... the summer of 2001, I think. Nobody was interested anymore, and a big chunk of that was system fatigue. Old players didn't like the amount of fiddling involved and the phenomenally nasty slide in effectiveness a one or two point modifier could bring about in the sub-6 TN range, new players didn't like looking at the rules and saying "So, I need to learn the basic rules, but there's also this completely different set of rules and mechanics that any of the interesting classes have to know about, too?"
SR4 felt like someone over at WK had similar feelings to mine about the amount of deadweight that existed in the SR3 rules. They simplified the system, unified it, streamlined a number of gameplay elements and (in theory) will be keeping the expansion material in line with the core mechanics.
"Money grab" really doesn't do this any justice. "Different approach that requires a new edition" is a lot more accurate. Besides, FASA went under carrying the weight of SR3 (among other things)... that's not exactly a star-studded recommendation for sticking with the old plan.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) | ||
See, I'm at a loss as to why so many people think SR4 is a money grab. FASA went under, leaving WizKids with SR's IP and the SR3 ruleset/materials that FASA has put together. There were so many parts of SR3's metaplot and rules that I ignored or didn't integrate systemically that it really wasn't worth it for me to continue following the line. I could run an SR game of my desired level of complexity with the books that I had and a little creativity. The last time we had a game of Shadowrun among my gaming crew in Seattle was, oh... the summer of 2001, I think. Nobody was interested anymore, and a big chunk of that was system fatigue. Old players didn't like the amount of fiddling involved and the phenomenally nasty slide in effectiveness a one or two point modifier could bring about in the sub-6 TN range, new players didn't like looking at the rules and saying "So, I need to learn the basic rules, but there's also this completely different set of rules and mechanics that any of the interesting classes have to know about, too?" SR4 felt like someone over at WK had similar feelings to mine about the amount of deadweight that existed in the SR3 rules. They simplified the system, unified it, streamlined a number of gameplay elements and (in theory) will be keeping the expansion material in line with the core mechanics. "Money grab" really doesn't do this any justice. "Different approach that requires a new edition" is a lot more accurate. Besides, FASA went under carrying the weight of SR3 (among other things)... that's not exactly a star-studded recommendation for sticking with the old plan. |
Hmmm...I thinkl he was talking about D&D 4e.
I could be wrong, though.
And I agree with you. I don't think SR4 was a "money grab." I mean, how long was SR3 out before it got a revision? Like I said, I think it's silly to expect a game to never upgrade to a new edition. It many ways its vital to the survival of a game (yeah, Rifts is an aberation for which I have not explenation both for its survival and for its appeal ). Also in many ways it is the developers' responsibility to invest in a new edition. But not before they give adiquate time to the old edition. How much time is enough time? Well, its hard to say. While I think WotC pulled a fast one with the revised edition of Star Wars, and their motivations were far more than providing an update to the rules, I do think that the revised edition was an improvement to the first release. The act left a bad taste in my mouth, but the product was good. Basically it was "SMACK! Thank you sir, may I have another!!" It took a lot of time before I made the upgrade to the revised edition of Star Wars. It took me a long time to get past the act and look at the game for what it was. D&D 3.5, however, was a different matter. I never saw much wrong with 3.0. It served me well and so I never bothered with the upgrade. And I probably never will. I purchased all of the 3.0 line I felt I needed and I didn't feel that there was more to come out that I would need anyway. The only thing 3.5 would do for me would be to start the whole process over again. I found no need.
With SR4 I saw a reason to upgrade. Well, I've bought the book, but I haven't yet played it. I like SR3 and I'm not exactly ready to give it up yet. Not until SR4 completes more material, but I find many things beneficial. And I never felt "betrayed" by its release. What's the difference? I'm not really sure.
I also upgraded to GURPS 4e. There were a lot of changes from 3e and most of them were good. The game was simply a tighter game in general. But since it had been nearly 10 years since their last edition I didn't harbor any bad feelings. Not to mention the fact that all their previous books usually had enough "fluff" in comparison to the "crunch" that my old books weren't really left obsolete. Plus, since GURPS is a "univeral" system it's easy to adapt old material to new. So a different perspective there too.
I know my reasons for liking and disliking one new edition over another are very personal. Anyone who thinks that their reasons are NOT personal is deluding themselves. But I wish more people would listen to their personal preferences and not buy things "just because." This is something I think WotC relies on and gets away with. People walk into the store and think "Oh! Shiney!" and buy up the product whether its good or not.
Okay, I'm getting way to winded on this subject. I'll stop and take a breather now.
). Also in many ways it is the developers' responsibility to invest in a new edition. But not before they give adiquate time to the old edition. How much time is enough time? Well, its hard to say. While I think WotC pulled a fast one with the revised edition of Star Wars, and their motivations were far more than providing an update to the rules, I do think that the revised edition was an improvement to the first release. The act left a bad taste in my mouth, but the product was good. Basically it was "SMACK! Thank you sir, may I have another!!" It took a lot of time before I made the upgrade to the revised edition of Star Wars. It took me a long time to get past the act and look at the game for what it was. D&D 3.5, however, was a different matter. I never saw much wrong with 3.0. It served me well and so I never bothered with the upgrade. And I probably never will. I purchased all of the 3.0 line I felt I needed and I didn't feel that there was more to come out that I would need anyway. The only thing 3.5 would do for me would be to start the whole process over again. I found no need.With SR4 I saw a reason to upgrade. Well, I've bought the book, but I haven't yet played it. I like SR3 and I'm not exactly ready to give it up yet. Not until SR4 completes more material, but I find many things beneficial. And I never felt "betrayed" by its release. What's the difference? I'm not really sure.
I also upgraded to GURPS 4e. There were a lot of changes from 3e and most of them were good. The game was simply a tighter game in general. But since it had been nearly 10 years since their last edition I didn't harbor any bad feelings. Not to mention the fact that all their previous books usually had enough "fluff" in comparison to the "crunch" that my old books weren't really left obsolete. Plus, since GURPS is a "univeral" system it's easy to adapt old material to new. So a different perspective there too.
I know my reasons for liking and disliking one new edition over another are very personal. Anyone who thinks that their reasons are NOT personal is deluding themselves. But I wish more people would listen to their personal preferences and not buy things "just because." This is something I think WotC relies on and gets away with. People walk into the store and think "Oh! Shiney!" and buy up the product whether its good or not.
Okay, I'm getting way to winded on this subject. I'll stop and take a breather now.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) | ||
See, I'm at a loss as to why so many people think SR4 is a money grab. FASA went under, leaving WizKids with SR's IP and the SR3 ruleset/materials that FASA has put together. There were so many parts of SR3's metaplot and rules that I ignored or didn't integrate systemically that it really wasn't worth it for me to continue following the line. I could run an SR game of my desired level of complexity with the books that I had and a little creativity. The last time we had a game of Shadowrun among my gaming crew in Seattle was, oh... the summer of 2001, I think. Nobody was interested anymore, and a big chunk of that was system fatigue. Old players didn't like the amount of fiddling involved and the phenomenally nasty slide in effectiveness a one or two point modifier could bring about in the sub-6 TN range, new players didn't like looking at the rules and saying "So, I need to learn the basic rules, but there's also this completely different set of rules and mechanics that any of the interesting classes have to know about, too?" SR4 felt like someone over at WK had similar feelings to mine about the amount of deadweight that existed in the SR3 rules. They simplified the system, unified it, streamlined a number of gameplay elements and (in theory) will be keeping the expansion material in line with the core mechanics. "Money grab" really doesn't do this any justice. "Different approach that requires a new edition" is a lot more accurate. Besides, FASA went under carrying the weight of SR3 (among other things)... that's not exactly a star-studded recommendation for sticking with the old plan. |
| QUOTE |
| "Money grab" really doesn't do this any justice. "Different approach that requires a new edition" is a lot more accurate. Besides, FASA went under carrying the weight of SR3 (among other things)... that's not exactly a star-studded recommendation for sticking with the old plan. |
FASA also had a major lawsuit that didnt pan out and cost them plenty. They also decided to move on with other things. So the "weight" of SR3 was not something you could lay at their feet as a failed or failing product that forced them out of business. So saying a different approach to teh game doesnt do SR 3 justice.
Crimson Skies was an awsome game, but because of certain factors was dropped and brought back as clickies. You could say that game failied but it wasnt because of the rules. The revised rules as a clicky game bombed hard as well. And for the most part every person that I know that plays that game only bought the clickies because it was easier to find them then the Iron Wind minis (mostly because nobody knew Ral Partha renamed, they just thought they went under and never re-emerged) they prefer the original FASA version of Crimson Skies. Bad timing for the Crimson Skies team was what killed them. It seemed like as soon as it was relased FASA closed its doors.
| QUOTE (Lindt @ Aug 7 2006, 11:12 AM) |
| Id see 4E as a money grab too. Hasbro stands to make another killing, so why would they wait untill the product line reaches a self determined end? And while 3.0 may be getting grey a 6, 3.5 isnt barely 4 yet. But dont get me started on that. |
Oops, too late!
Remember that 3e had a full year from being announced to release. 1999 GenCon it was announced, 2000 GenCon was release. It has been said before by WotC, although the person that said it has since moved on, that they'd give a similar advance notice again for 4th edition. As such 3e would be a minimum 7 years old when 4e was released even if they announced 4e today. Best guesses right now is that 4e will come out when 3e is about 8 years old when it finally get out there.
AD&D 2e was arguably late in coming. But first TSR was in disarray, and then there was the purchase by WotC. On top of that WotC invested some serious money, and they put a lot of time into bringing out 3e, meaning in reality more money. The part I find the most intreging is the speculation about aiming.
Anyway, there was a follow up on that site that says that the rumour was way off the mark. But no specifics came out on how off the mark and in which way. But I think this is a little smoke from some smoldering that is happening. There has been some signs that they are maybe starting to ramp up a bit, looking hard at the rules and how to improve them in a meaninful way.
I will say it is my opinion that 3.5 was probably the closest to a 'money grab', because it had relatively little changes to it (small development investment). Although to their credit they had the SRD, which means I've been playing a 3e/3.5 mix and now 3.5, without the need to repurchase the books for 3.5. I don't see how 3.5 could be considered to restart a new version countdown. What is really going to drive the countdown are the other products. Green Ronin has already potentially boxed out a littl pontential from 4e with it's True20. The last thing WotC would want is to be seen as rolling out something that had the appearance of True20 with WotC stickers.
Plus of course sales are going to be driving it too.
Update:
| QUOTE (Enworld.org) |
As a followup to the recent 4th Edition rumours - WotC has emailed Eric Noah, directly contradicting his info. |
| QUOTE (Eric Noah) |
Well here's some more... I just heard from a high-up at WotC. He says the info is so wrong that he suspects that my source is out to torpedo "my reputation" by giving me something this far off the mark. I trust my source's intentions, though as I've said earlier my source could be misunderstanding something, or I could have misconstrued something. Hopefully if the WotC person doesn't mind outing himself he could post here to verify and share what info he is allowed to share. In any case, I responded to him as I respond to all of you: I'm out of the "D&D scoop business" and so this is the last you'll hear from me on anything 4E related. |
Yup, that's the one I was refering too. But there's a bit more from Ryan Dancy, former manager of the D&D line, in the news section too. Plus more in the thread.
It is interesting Eric's reasoning behind the decision to totally getting out of the D&D scoop business. Basically he has no excitement for a 4e, he personally is content with 3/3.5. So he doesn't have the desire or time to really keep up-to-date and where he found that the info from a single WotC employee just came out of left field for him, which is quite different from 1999 when he was disallusioned with 2e and really looking forward to 3e and was putting a lot of effort in to stay on top of the ball.
It is interesting Eric's reasoning behind the decision to totally getting out of the D&D scoop business. Basically he has no excitement for a 4e, he personally is content with 3/3.5. So he doesn't have the desire or time to really keep up-to-date and where he found that the info from a single WotC employee just came out of left field for him, which is quite different from 1999 when he was disallusioned with 2e and really looking forward to 3e and was putting a lot of effort in to stay on top of the ball.
I'm of the opinion that the only thing WotC could do worse than release a 3.5 is release a 4.0.
I'm just kidding of course. I know its going to happen eventually. But they seem to treat their updates more like software in their timing than they do hardware. Someone needs to tell them that books cost money. Though I suspect they know that.
I'm just kidding of course. I know its going to happen eventually. But they seem to treat their updates more like software in their timing than they do hardware. Someone needs to tell them that books cost money. Though I suspect they know that.
Last time I checked, D&D 4th wasnt going to come out till either 2011 or after, which is why 3.5 came out.
And for SR4 being a "money grab", I honestly prefer it, even though its more streamlined and simpled down, I find I don't have to memorize as many rules and figure out as much, and can just go and play the game more.
They needed more money as well, but hey, they're a company, whats a company supposed to do. Oh right... Make money...
And for SR4 being a "money grab", I honestly prefer it, even though its more streamlined and simpled down, I find I don't have to memorize as many rules and figure out as much, and can just go and play the game more.
They needed more money as well, but hey, they're a company, whats a company supposed to do. Oh right... Make money...
i'd like to point out that the people in charge at WotC, namely Hasbro, are a toy line. They get toys, gods do they. Each line has several new products that come out every few months, that get snapped up by rabid collectors and children of all ages. What they don't get is advanced gaming, board games sure, but not gaming as we understand the word.
Take the retail space "The Game Keeper" this was acquired by Hasbro around the time they bought WotC, given a chance then closed. Why, because the big-wigs don't get retail space devoted almost entirely to your product. They'd rather sell their product to someone else and let them hassle with shoplifters, mall-rats and annoying children of all ages. They saw it as a potential risk.
Now, take D&D and other advanced games. In the TSR days, it would be months between products, and years between editions. It was run with people who founded the company for the sake of the game, not the sake of the dollar. They died a tragic death because of it. I loved TSR, they had a good run, but Hasbro they ain't. Hasbro execs want to see that sort of revenue out of the WotC lines, because they are managing to the america mindset, if you don't produce x% over this month last year and last quarter, you're fired. so they do anything necessary for that. They manage the line for the dollar, not the game. If it makes them a buck, regardless of how you and I feel about it, they will do it again, and again, and again.
SR4 is strange, we haven't seen but scant updates supporting the new product. I'm of mixed feelings, my group doesn't like the limits in the system as they are, they want more. I'm not the kind of guy to give them something only to see it rendered useless as soon as the next item comes out for sale. Hell, I can't find a Wizkids product in a georgia store because of the issues surrounding the printing and distribution of SR4. The few owners I've spoken to all buy through Diamond and they've sworn off SR4 products except as special order and refuse to stock anything. Which sucks, big-time.
Rifts: Ultimate edition is what, 25 years coming and it still leaves a lot to be desired. They still have power creep, and it's sad really. Personally, I think they should have made a formula for creating each weapon and built each weapon off that formula, so they were all balanced against the same standard, instead we have folks writing for them that cut their teeth playing the first game saying their "big gun" is more advanced and more powerful than X so it'll do more damage" and then the next guy has to out do that, etc. Also, much as I respect KS for his ideas on the origin of the game, he should step down as line editor and let someone that can spell-check and compare against previous products take a whack at it.
Take the retail space "The Game Keeper" this was acquired by Hasbro around the time they bought WotC, given a chance then closed. Why, because the big-wigs don't get retail space devoted almost entirely to your product. They'd rather sell their product to someone else and let them hassle with shoplifters, mall-rats and annoying children of all ages. They saw it as a potential risk.
Now, take D&D and other advanced games. In the TSR days, it would be months between products, and years between editions. It was run with people who founded the company for the sake of the game, not the sake of the dollar. They died a tragic death because of it. I loved TSR, they had a good run, but Hasbro they ain't. Hasbro execs want to see that sort of revenue out of the WotC lines, because they are managing to the america mindset, if you don't produce x% over this month last year and last quarter, you're fired. so they do anything necessary for that. They manage the line for the dollar, not the game. If it makes them a buck, regardless of how you and I feel about it, they will do it again, and again, and again.
SR4 is strange, we haven't seen but scant updates supporting the new product. I'm of mixed feelings, my group doesn't like the limits in the system as they are, they want more. I'm not the kind of guy to give them something only to see it rendered useless as soon as the next item comes out for sale. Hell, I can't find a Wizkids product in a georgia store because of the issues surrounding the printing and distribution of SR4. The few owners I've spoken to all buy through Diamond and they've sworn off SR4 products except as special order and refuse to stock anything. Which sucks, big-time.
Rifts: Ultimate edition is what, 25 years coming and it still leaves a lot to be desired. They still have power creep, and it's sad really. Personally, I think they should have made a formula for creating each weapon and built each weapon off that formula, so they were all balanced against the same standard, instead we have folks writing for them that cut their teeth playing the first game saying their "big gun" is more advanced and more powerful than X so it'll do more damage" and then the next guy has to out do that, etc. Also, much as I respect KS for his ideas on the origin of the game, he should step down as line editor and let someone that can spell-check and compare against previous products take a whack at it.
| QUOTE (Nikoli) |
| Rifts: Ultimate edition is what, 25 years coming and it still leaves a lot to be desired. They still have power creep, and it's sad really. Personally, I think they should have made a formula for creating each weapon and built each weapon off that formula, so they were all balanced against the same standard, instead we have folks writing for them that cut their teeth playing the first game saying their "big gun" is more advanced and more powerful than X so it'll do more damage" and then the next guy has to out do that, etc. Also, much as I respect KS for his ideas on the origin of the game, he should step down as line editor and let someone that can spell-check and compare against previous products take a whack at it. |
But that's what I find amazing about Rifts. It's like an economic study on oddities in the industry. By many technical standards the game is absolutely horrid. It was born in a gaming age when balance was a second thought. But it works! People gobble that crap up like crazy. Look at the suppliment list! And the company, other than a recent money scandle, as weathered all kinds of hard times in the industry. And their fans are helping them weather their current hardship.
I think there are two reasons for this.
First, it's built for power gamers and munchkins. Power gamers and munchkings don't give a flying flip about balance. There's a certain amount of freedom in that.
Second is the systems reliability. Even the Ultimate Edition contained only minor cosmetic changes. There has essentially been one edition of Rifts in its entire history. Granted each book that appears adds another patch to the system until you have something that resembles Frankenstein's monster with a 9 year old girl who just go a "Be-Dazzled" for her birthday, but the core system never changes. There's a very strong insular quality to that, I think.
Just an theory though.
Actually, "balance" is pretty much an invention of a more recent era, and IMO was put into real force by M:tG, where the struggle to balance the cards and decks against one another was/is a major issue. The real crossover into RPGs came when WotC put the M:tG guys in charge of a new D&D (which I refer to as "the worst decision ever made ever in the history of gaming ever").
"Balance" in a system is great for new GMs that have munchies and powergamers to deal with, but when a seasoned GM is running Rifts with mature gamers, balance is rarely much of an issue, IME.
I know plenty of non-munchies now extol the virtues of system balance, but that's because they're all being brainwashed by WotC.
"Balance" in a system is great for new GMs that have munchies and powergamers to deal with, but when a seasoned GM is running Rifts with mature gamers, balance is rarely much of an issue, IME.
I know plenty of non-munchies now extol the virtues of system balance, but that's because they're all being brainwashed by WotC.
So uhhh... when are we getting a new edition of the West End Games D6 Star Wars RPG? Damn that game was fun...
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| Actually, "balance" is pretty much an invention of a more recent era, and IMO was put into real force by M:tG, where the struggle to balance the cards and decks against one another was/is a major issue. The real crossover into RPGs came when WotC put the M:tG guys in charge of a new D&D (which I refer to as "the worst decision ever made ever in the history of gaming ever"). |
Hmmm...I disagree. Games like GURPS and Hero (Champions to us old farts) introduced concepts of balance well before M:tG. In fact, that was their bread and butter. Champions took the concept of balance to such an extreme as to make even hand held equipment a part of the character value. So, while I agree that there was a time before balance was important, I think such concepts started much earlier than you suggested.
I agree, though, that with a group of mature players balance is a non-issue. But it only takes one nut to bring the whole thing down.
But Rifts took this lack of balance to an almost obcene degree. Take some of the character classes for example:
The Juicer: a man so hopped in on performance drugs that he can take on an entire army befor his heart explodes.
The Glitter Boy: a mech pilot that carries the most powerful gun in the entire game. A gun capable of putting a hole through a city block.
The Borg: half man, half machine, their physical fortitude is unmatched by any other class.
The Vagabond: Just...some dude.
See what I mean?
| QUOTE (X-Kalibur) |
| So uhhh... when are we getting a new edition of the West End Games D6 Star Wars RPG? Damn that game was fun... |
Preach on, My Brother! Star Wars, Second Edition, pre-revised, blue cover! The absolute, undisputed pinnacle of roleplaying IMHO. A perfect marriage of style and mechanics. And it will never, ever die at my table.
GB, what you say is technically true, but I speak of balance as introduced to the gaming population at large. You can't really deny that GURPS and Hero have MUCH smaller playing audiences than M:tG, WotC D&D, etc.
Look at lines with large followings (large vocal followings, that is) and you see stuff like AD&D, Vampire, Rifts/Palladium. YMMV, of course.
Balance became daily and pedestrian (and the so-called "holy grail of system design") when whiny WotC board posters started parrotting the virtues as told by the system designers.
And it only takes me to toss the nut out on his ass.
Look at lines with large followings (large vocal followings, that is) and you see stuff like AD&D, Vampire, Rifts/Palladium. YMMV, of course.
Balance became daily and pedestrian (and the so-called "holy grail of system design") when whiny WotC board posters started parrotting the virtues as told by the system designers.
And it only takes me to toss the nut out on his ass.
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| GB, what you say is technically true, but I speak of balance as introduced to the gaming population at large. You can't really deny that GURPS and Hero have MUCH smaller playing audiences than M:tG, WotC D&D, etc. Look at lines with large followings (large vocal followings, that is) and you see stuff like AD&D, Vampire, Rifts/Palladium. YMMV, of course. Balance became daily and pedestrian (and the so-called "holy grail of system design") when whiny WotC board posters started parrotting the virtues as told by the system designers. And it only takes me to toss the nut out on his ass. |
I suppose that would be true. And that would be about the same time that folks like Steve Jackson and Steven Long started saying "I told you!"
It certainly wasn't an "invention" of recent years, but as you said, it might have been made more widely accepted. I'm sure before that shift most people thought of games like GURPS and Champions as cumbersome monsters not worth the time. The same is still true, I suppose. But one also can't deny the inspiration the newer games have taken from these earlier inovators of RPG balance. Seems every game on the shelves today has some form of advantage/disadvantage system.
Yup, they do indeed. Are you speaking of "perk and flaw" type systems, or of systems entirely built on the idea of positives and negatives = total?
If it's the former, I don't think I'd be able to say that those really contribute to balance in and of themselves. (I think you mean the latter, however.)
If it's the former, I don't think I'd be able to say that those really contribute to balance in and of themselves. (I think you mean the latter, however.)
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| Yup, they do indeed. Are you speaking of "perk and flaw" type systems, or of systems entirely built on the idea of positives and negatives = total? If it's the former, I don't think I'd be able to say that those really contribute to balance in and of themselves. (I think you mean the latter, however.) |
Really I think they all boil down to the same thing. The only difference is that the former modifies a set point value to give you added detail while the latter is the point value. But I do think that even the perks and flaws systems from games like Shadowrun, Vampire (and other World of Darkness Games), Heavy Gear, D6 System, and many others, owe a lot to the methods of Champions and GURPS (more Champions than GURPS, I think). Even the creators of the modern d20 rules (as in current d20 rules...not D20 Modern) openly proffessed a use of the Hero system as a way of balancing certain powers and abilities.
Personally here is what I have done recently. I've bought all the SR3 corebooks including 3 3rd Main book, along with a couple second edition, (Street Sam Catalog, Fields of Fire, Rigger Black Book) and I have no intention of upgrading EVER. The system is fine, I have few complaints and I have enough 2nd & 3rd sourcebooks and runs so that I can keep any group busy for a few years of play time. I have no need to waste my money on anything else (Except any gun book in 4th, like Fields of Fire\ Cannon Companion. That I will be willing to buy.).
| QUOTE (X-Kalibur) |
| So uhhh... when are we getting a new edition of the West End Games D6 Star Wars RPG? Damn that game was fun... |
It's called D6 Space.
It mostly identicle, though the vehicles stats and ship combat rules has changed a bit, there are no pre-generated ships in the book you build everything custom using a modular component system, The Force is there just renamed, they've added psionics, the 'SW name-brand' aliens are gone of course but there are a few samples and a table for making your own alien races, there is also an extensive 'edges and flaws' type options available for character creation.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.