|
|
Post by Parduz on Jan 21, 2012 15:16:12 GMT -7
Ok, Paladin. I have read all the blogs and thing you linked. Now i think i know better 4e, and i'm proud to say that i'm still on the 3.5 side  It's hard to say WHY (that's the reason of the never-ending 3e/4e war). Sure, it's a matter of taste: is like make a sculpture with clay or lego blocks. Each have his merit. I still think that to build the David clay is better than legos. Sure, there are true artists that build anything from legos. Me, as an average DM, i feel the clay more useful for roleplay, and legos more suited for tabletop skirmish. ;D Back to 5e, i'll buy it only if i can't see and feel the lego studs. Give me something a bit easier to remember, and that still allow me and the players to do WHATEVER we want, and i'll be your customer forever |
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 21, 2012 18:36:18 GMT -7
Though I am no D&D player, this stops me not from advertising 4th Ed. ;D ... my heart belongs to alot of game systems, or I should say: to different game mechanics, so I like to talk about mechanics, not brands or parts of the market = customer factions. If I want to pick up your image of 'clay and lego' as system components, Parduz, I think, it's not a bad analogy: 4th Ed. looks like a colorful toybox full of crowdy lego bricks in different colors (powers) - but only on its surface. 3.5 Ed. looks like a smooth mass of clay, without cracks and super-adaptable to any problem, you as a roleplayer might have, cause it's a tight simulation system - but only on its surface. If you actually handle this components, you see, that 4th Ed. is like water: you take some cups of liquid out of the pool (powers), but its surface is smooth and closed instantly. You never destroyed anything, you just reduced the content. You could easily put some cups of different liquids (power variations) into the tub, it will mix well. You could travel very fast on this watery surface in your little toyship - in every direction you want - you will not drown either. The tub, btw., is solid, nothing leaks out (core system). There might be the problem, that you can see some (colorful) bubbles on the surface, but they shape no solid form - and taste a bit soapy ... . 3.5 Ed. seems to be a deformable mass, but if you want to push and pull it, you realize, that it's dry and hard - and you break some part off. You want to glue it in another position or exchange it entirely for a new part, but it doesn't fit. You realize, that it's a multi-part construction with diverse parts, you cannot detect easily and that hold not well together. You try to rearrange them, but it doesn't work, as their positions are predetermined by their producer. There might be the problem, that you can see clear shapes, but always the same in a fixed sequence, getting boring ... . If you really want complete freedom and simplicity, also thematical freedom, I recommend West End Games d6 System and Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying anyway. You have to build your own David then, though, not copy the original. That's not easy. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 22, 2012 0:12:25 GMT -7
D&D 3E = PC
D&D 4E = MAC
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 23, 2012 9:41:52 GMT -7
Design Goals
"...to create a rule set that enables players of all types and styles to play a D&D game together by taking the best of each edition and getting at the soul of what D&D is." - Mike Mearls.
"The goal of this project is to develop a universal rules system that takes from the best of every edition and get at the soul of what D&D is." - WotC.
WotC stated clearly "[We are] extremely committed to tabletop gaming and the face to face experiences that D&D brings." There is clear recognition that although digital tools can enhance and supplement a game, the company has not lost sight of the fact that D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game, and not a digital experience.
"With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics. The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it. In some ways, it was like we told people, ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal,’ But there’s other ways to play guitar.” - Mike Mearls.
"The new edition is being conceived of as a modular, flexible system, easily customized to individual preferences. Just like a player makes his character, the Dungeon Master can make his ruleset. He might say ‘I’m going to run a military campaign, it’s going to be a lot of fighting’… so he’d use the combat chapter, drop in miniatures rules, and include the martial arts optional rules.” - Mike Mearls.
"We hope to create a system that allows players to use much of their existing content, regardless of the edition. " - Mike Mearls.
"I'm the lead designer of a project that will likely evolve into a new iteration of the Dungeons & Dragons ruleset. It's meant to be a set of rules that unites all the previous editions, and the players of those editions. It's a big project, and we plan on involving all comers to playtest and voice their opinions, because really, what's the point of designing a game no one wants to play? And who knows better what D&D players want than, well, D&D players. " - Monte Cook.
"Working on a game that's almost 40 years old now, we've seen the complex end. And what happened with each edition of D&D is it got more complex and we need to go back to the original D&D." - Mike Mearls.
This Legends & Lore article by Monte Cook says: "...this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. Like simple rules for your story-driven game? You're good to go. Like tactical combats and complex encounters? You can have that too. Like ultra-customized character creation? It's all there."
"One of our employees had come up with the initial idea which he used to work up an RPG system for his home group. After talking with him, the R&D team went back to each edition of D&D and started looking at the places where they overlapped with each other and how they were unique. That kicked off the process that led to where we are today." - Mike Mearls.
Intro Box Set? "The D&D Fantasy Roleplaying Game Starter Set in the red box has also been a real success for us. It highlights the importance of having a good intro product—something that is definitely on our radar as we plan for the future." - Mike Mearls.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Jan 23, 2012 9:49:43 GMT -7
Wow. If they can actually deliver on this philosophy it could well be worth buying. Actually, it sounds like the Holy Grail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 23, 2012 9:58:13 GMT -7
This Legends & Lore article by Monte Cook says: "...this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide." While I have no doubt that 5E will incorporate a lot of the mechanical improvements of 4E, I think it's pretty clear they are pandering to the 3E/Pathfinder crowd |
|
|
|
Post by pblade on Jan 23, 2012 18:16:05 GMT -7
I find that an insult to 4E, myself. Of course, I have never been entranced with Macs or all things Apple. - Pb |
|
|
|
Post by pblade on Jan 23, 2012 18:27:28 GMT -7
Hmm...having the core books for AD&D, 2E AD&D, 3E, 3.5E, and 4E, I don't see how it's remotely possible to effectively combine some of these, regardless of what Cook says. The mechanics of the various systems are radically different at their hearts, and only 4E was intended to be balanced. The best example that comes to mind is if both players have Bards. One character is a one-man wrecking crew, and the other will be lucky to be a sidekick.
It's a nice goal, and hopefully the end product will be a fun game for both DMs and players.
- Pb
|
|
|
|
Post by druida on Jan 23, 2012 19:10:01 GMT -7
It's impossible to please Greeks and Trojans!
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 23, 2012 22:06:13 GMT -7
The mechanics of the various systems are radically different at their hearts... - Pb It's always pretty much been roll a D20 and add modifiers to roll to beat a target number. 1st Edition - THACC (To Hit Armor Class Chart) 2nd Edition - THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class Zero) No Chart 3rd Edition - THAC (To Hit Armor Class) 4th Edition - THTN (To Hit Target Number) The game uses the same attributes in every edition. STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA, HP, LEVEL, HD, REFLEX, WILL, FORTITUDE, Etc.. Even now, you could play a 3E character in a 4E world. basically add 10 to FOR/REF/WILL and everything else would be mechanically sound. Heck, you could play1E and 2E characters, in 4E, if you figured out their THAC. |
|
|
|
Post by pblade on Jan 24, 2012 1:09:24 GMT -7
The mechanics of the various systems are radically different at their hearts... - Pb It's always pretty much been roll a D20 and add modifiers to roll to beat a target number. 1st Edition - THACC (To Hit Armor Class Chart) 2nd Edition - THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class Zero) No Chart 3rd Edition - THAC (To Hit Armor Class) 4th Edition - THTN (To Hit Target Number) The game uses the same attributes in every edition. STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA, HP, LEVEL, HD, REFLEX, WILL, FORTITUDE, Etc.. Even now, you could play a 3E character in a 4E world. basically add 10 to FOR/REF/WILL and everything else would be mechanically sound. Heck, you could play1E and 2E characters, in 4E, if you figured out their THAC. Almost correct, but 3E & 4E have simplified much with the Fort/Ref/Will stuff. How do you convert the saving throws of the first 2 editions in all their complexity? (Remember, they used d100 frequently.) The HP differences for PCs and monsters in 3E to 4E would be a stumbling block alone. Or deal with the ability of wizards in earlier editions to learn basically EVERY spell with a high enough Intelligence? Or heck, just making the Vancian magic system work with 4E would be an exercise in migraine creation. What I don't quite understand what they mean by a "toolbox" approach to the game. Aside from agreeing to use polyhedral dice, everything else is up to the DM running the game in question. Want to make a character's physical appearance mechanically important, you use the Comeliness score. Don't want Warforged, Half-orcs, or non-Oriental monks? Fine, they're not there. Don't like how a particular rule is implemented, use your own preferred method. And if the players create a situation that is really "outside the box" the DM has always been encouraged to make a decision at that time. How is choosing which magazine articles, supplemental books, & settings to use not a "toolbox" game? - Pb |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 24, 2012 10:16:00 GMT -7
Pblade, your over thinking it.
The idea is that enough of it is compatible that you can use old material with new. I used to to use 1st and 2nd Ed material with 3E all the time.
I agree with you about D&D always having been a toolbox game, but some people need/want that kind of detail spelled out for them. It's in Wizards best interest to hype that they are making it backwards compatible, which isn't all that hard to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by pblade on Jan 24, 2012 14:14:15 GMT -7
I might be over-thinking it, true. Call it a reaction to marketing over-hype & being a "numbers" guy. Trying to accommodate characters from AD&D and 4E would definitely be the most difficult case.
In the end, I just hope they come up with a system that is fun without being too complex to use.
- Pb
|
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 24, 2012 14:24:14 GMT -7
Thanks for those 5th Ed. vision compilation, @adam, it's very enlightening. I get the feeling, that they are trying to address EVERY edition faction of the D&D cosmos without their need to learn new rules. They are searching for the perfect interface to connect ALL core systems. They want to UNIFY all game generations and their market share. That's really ambitious - could lead to quite (for newcomers) confusing and boring metagame rules for conversion and game style etc. I cannot imagine a 1rst Ed. character in a 3rd Ed. style game, btw., maybe as a NPC sketch or something ;D. WotC want to learn from GURPS and BRP in that regard, though, with the 'lever/knob'-option of interlocking modules and system parts. I am a bit troubled, though, that 4th Ed. will be the max WotC want to go along the innovation road, they seem to focus on TRADITION and an older core customer base with nostalgic attitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 24, 2012 22:21:46 GMT -7
Think of it in terms of style
1st Ed - Attributes, Class abilities, combat stats
2nd Ed - Attributes, Class abilities, combat stats
3rd Ed - add skills and feats
4th Ed - add 4E class powers
You can play D&D with just Attributes and combat stats, everything else is just icing really. Since the combat mechanic is the same in all 4 editions you can play any edition character side by side.
The characters with more will do better. A fighter with feats is more dangerous that a fighter without. A wizard you can throw endless low level spells and expend healing surges is better off than a wizard that can't, but they can play side by side.
|
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 25, 2012 14:28:15 GMT -7
 Hmm ... as you are saying it, @adam, yes, why not? But this would be a balancing nightmare, if the GM just wants to avoid throwing everything balanced over board ... . Maybe WotC will try to find player options which are everything from simple to crunchy, but comparable powerful in game terms. Don't know. They will try to calculate it. They will not let D&D fall back to mathematical chaos ... .
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 26, 2012 10:27:12 GMT -7
I think the majority of the balance falls on the monster and challenge design.
Player characters were never terribly balanced in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Edition, and people were happy playing them.
I had a 1E player turn up his nose at 3E once feats got involved in creating his new character, He would have been happy playing without them, and the rules support that. If they want to play a sub-optimal build it's their prerogative. It's all about having fun, not being the most munchin build.
I don't think it's as radical a change as people think it may be .
There is a player in my group who plays a cleric with bunches of blank spots on his character sheet where Skills and Feats belong, mostly due to crippling indecision on his part. He gets along well enough casting spells and whacking things with his weapon with a character. That's basically the equivalent of a 1st or 2nd edition character running around in a 3E environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Jan 26, 2012 11:06:57 GMT -7
There is a player in my group who plays a cleric with bunches of blank spots on his character sheet where Skills and Feats belong, mostly due to crippling indecision on his part. He gets along well enough casting spells and whacking things with his weapon with a character.  LOL ... Ah, well, there are even people in real life with reduced or expanded abilities and powers ... or too shy/lazy/ill/... to perform sufficiently. I think, if the players are playing well the group-effort aspect of D&D, then there might be not much difference between collaborating party members. They will divide the loot and xps equally anyway. If there are differences in mentality and goals which lead to trouble and headhunting, then the differences in game-style and abilities/feats/skills will shine in new ways ... ;D. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Jan 31, 2012 13:28:20 GMT -7
Updated 5E rumors hereI think all they've learned after 4E was how to make radical changes that will piss people off. On the plus side, halflings go back to being fat. Also, Hasbro/Wizards is lamely trying to encourage the name D&D Next. I encourage you to publicly ridicule that name as much as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by docryder on Feb 7, 2012 19:25:34 GMT -7
Updated 5E rumors hereI think all they've learned after 4E was how to make radical changes that will piss people off. On the plus side, halflings go back to being fat. Also, Hasbro/Wizards is lamely trying to encourage the name D&D Next. I encourage you to publicly ridicule that name as much as possible. With the exception of the "halflings = fat" part, I wholeheartedly agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Feb 29, 2012 11:19:09 GMT -7
Paxt East will have an official and huge Playtest for "D&D NEXT."
Adding "NEXT" to a title hasn't been trendy since the 90's. The whole "NEXT" thing, and a constant mentioning by the developers about 1st Edition players being happy with D&D Next, seriously makes me doubt the judgment of the design staff.
The silver lining so far, is that they are preaching and insane level of modular compartment of the rules. Don't like Vancian Magic ? Don't worry, we've included the rules for spell points, as well, etc....
|
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Feb 29, 2012 18:13:36 GMT -7
Hi @adam, very cool ('dragon&dragon') avatar of yours! If WotC really want to pull this 5th Ed. Option Beast out of their hats, they should train their writing and tutorial muscles, they will need them! They will have to explain exactly, what a Magic/Spell Point System does to the overall feel and complexity of the game in comparison to Vancian Ways - or the players won't get the point to choose this or that or something completely different ... . As I have written: lots of mechanical metadiscourse necessary, cause they seem to offer a compendium of D&D History 1974-2008+, a Real Cyclopedia 2013 for all versions ever played.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Mar 1, 2012 10:12:45 GMT -7
Thank you for noticing. I doodled up the dragon to try out my new scanner. Once it was scanned I felt compelled to at least do something with it.
I fear the design crowd are pushing the 1E aspect a bit too much, for my liking at least, and I'm not certain how this ala carte approach is going to work out, but I've been gaming most of my life so I feel compelled to want to give 5E a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Mar 1, 2012 10:22:49 GMT -7
That's the thing, eh? You never know if the next game you see is going to be your perfect, ultimate game experience. On the other hand you've tried scores of games over your life and you've ended up house ruling all of them. My issue is needing to by several large hard-cover books before you even know if the game is right for you. It is hard to believe the next edition is going to be $100 better than 3.5 or Pathfinder or 4e (whichever your current favourite is) but hope springs eternal and you do want to give it a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevelortz on Mar 1, 2012 12:27:43 GMT -7
That's the thing, eh? You never know if the next game you see is going to be your perfect, ultimate game experience. On the other hand you've tried scores of games over your life and you've ended up house ruling all of them. My issue is needing to by several large hard-cover books before you even know if the game is right for you. It is hard to believe the next edition is going to be $100 better than 3.5 or Pathfinder or 4e (whichever your current favourite is) but hope springs eternal and you do want to give it a chance. I remember MY perfect ultimate game experience! It was in February, 1975, when a genius dungeon master ran me through my first experience of D&D. He was a genius because he let my first level character kill a dragon (the dragon was asleep), thus hooking me into the game forever. As much fun as I've had since then, nothing has ever quite matched that first time. Hasbro doesn't really care how people experience the game. The only purpose of D&D to them is to continue selling people ANOTHER $100 of hardback books. I'm certain that the guys who are doing the actual designing care, and are doing the best job they can, but it's not like Hasbro is going to let them do "art for art's sake". 5E might turn out to be a very interesting artifact of game design history, but in my own gaming, I have evolved toward "fluff" and away from "crunch". When a player generates a character in my game, the player has to state the character's over-all goal in life, and three objectives the character intends to pursue toward that goal. The goal and objectives MUST be stated in terms of fluff. They CANNOT be stated in terms of crunch. This requirement has resulted in story growing out of character generation, instead of mini-maxing a character in terms of crunch to pursue some stereotypical, boring career path. There's already too much of that in real life. I like for the characters I run to take chances, and do things I'd never have the nerve to do in real life. It's the difference between Leeroy Jenkins and the rest of the twits in his party: "Leeroy, you are stoopid as hell!" "Least I ain't chicken." Have fun! Steve |
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Mar 1, 2012 13:03:10 GMT -7
I agree with Steve, especially on this: ... Hasbro doesn't really care how people experience the game. The only purpose of D&D to them is to continue selling people ANOTHER $100 of hardback books. I'm certain that the guys who are doing the actual designing care, and are doing the best job they can, but it's not like Hasbro is going to let them do "art for art's sake". ... Have fun! Steve It's an empty pursuit, the only way to have large sales figures in RPG books after you have sold to your niche is saying all that stuff is old and sell a new edition. Not unlike what another big game company tends to do with both books and miniatures. And the reason is simple: these are niche hobbies, the market does not expand as fast as investors would like. Smaller companies with lower costs and expectations can live off the market but if they turn into big enterprises things will get complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Mar 1, 2012 14:23:45 GMT -7
 Right, gilius. Same holds true for other Big Companies like Warner Bros., Pearson PLC or Electronic Arts etc. But only Hasbro has the money to pay a first class staff of designers and artists. The output may be pressed into conventional forms of aesthetics and ideas - and also rushed and buggy - like in the Computer Game Industry. That's the price for tight schedules in big professional teams. In regard to 4th Ed. D&D I would dare to say, that WotC were brave (rulewise) and gutless (overall aesthetics) at the same time. I think, the whole D&D line has turned into an ever evolving and expanding Book Printing Machine since 1976 or so - with Hardware-Updates (System Updates) and Software-Units ('Adventure-Modules'). WotC is not better or worse than TSR was in that regard. So, I believe, that D&D is something for collectors, who reject to be just that, but cannot resist to buy the NEXT [!] release. D&D is a drug. It has alot to do with the longing for childhood and teenage days - but not only - alot of younger people are getting hooked and turn away from computer gaming, just enjoying reading and writing/drawing/talking once again (luckily) ... . @steve, what you have written about the 'crunch versus story'-thing, I wholeheartedly subscribe. In that sense, 4th Ed. might still have too much crunch, 3.5 and 2nd Ed. for sure. I still love Mentzer BECMI/Rule Cyclopedian Classic D&D - house ruled ... ;D.
|
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Mar 1, 2012 15:50:13 GMT -7
paladin: I'm not trying to use the "corporations are evil" discourse. I'm saying that expecting the same kind of revenue or market behavior from D&D and Magic seems crazy to me and that's what Hasbro seems to be doing, and the end result is this succession of random editions. In your examples, there are large and growing audiences where mass market strategies can be used to reduce costs and risk. In the case of technical books, new editions are naturally needed as professions and technology evolve. In entertainment books, movies and games, people purchase new products looking for new, packaged experiences. In RPGs people expect to gain a framework to create their experiences. Regarding the tight schedules, I can understand how that might have happened in the 3rd edition as WotC had bought the remains of TSR and had to do something about it. After that, the only reason for such tight schedules is pressure from a business model that doesn't really fit. Being such creativity frameworks, RPGs can evolve and demand new editions as players learn and change the way they use the game. That's very different from madly changing things every few years just to be able to say "here's a new book with new rules you'll have to buy." To me that's worse than programmed obsolescence because it's even more arbitrary. I agree with your comment on the "book printing machine," especially regarding WotC exploiting the "collectible" aspect of the books. Again, as if trying to fit D&D into the M:tG model. In the end, they might be right business-wise; it's worked for the other game company, whereas trying to release mostly optional supplements might have helped leading TSR to bankruptcy. In any case, I don't feel any urge to like this kind of practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by paladin on Mar 1, 2012 17:30:39 GMT -7
... the end result is this succession of random editions. ... That's very different from madly changing things every few years just to be able to say "here's a new book with new rules you'll have to buy." To me that's worse than programmed obsolescence because it's even more arbitrary. No, no and no, gilius. Nothing what WotC has done or does is random, mad or arbitrary. You will only find time and business tested and remarkable design people over there. I would not say, the best, but belonging to the best, for sure. A 'few years' is a long time intervall - regardless of which business model or market share we are talking right now. How do you wanna survive as a 2 persons-company with only 2 products in 2 years e.g.? Depends on the 2 products and their prices of course. But they have to sell really well in numbers, if those 2 persons want to survive ... . Now remember the staff of WotC (hiring and firing by the dozens anyway ...). To get the quality and substance of any D&D edition since - let me say - 1977 (AD&D Hardcover) you need plenty of human resources and brain/artpower - especially by the standard of today. ONE card of MtG is a piece of art. ONE supplement for D&D also. It's impossible for a small or semiprofessional/hobby market team to get something done like D&D 4th Ed. As far as I know, WotC got rich with MtG. Very rich. They thought, they could expand on this Collectability Concept and transfered it to D&D Miniatures and some D&D products, but at the core they stayed true to TSR's business model: cranking out Module after Module, Setting after Setting and Rule Supplement after Rule Supplement. How many books they wrote for D&D 3.5? How many books wrote the staff of TSR? What's the fault of D&D 4th Ed.? There is no other fault, than the same old fault: overkill and oversaturation. Absurd rule explosion and useless genre-bloat/mix (SM-Drows). Beside that I got the impression, that WotC tried to get back to the roots of D&D with 4th Ed. - and they will try again with 5th Ed., as Adam has pointed out, because the FU of 1rst Ed. Crowd is strong . Maybe this is just an illusion and the days of D&D are counted anyway. Maybe 5th Ed. is the last Big Event - and after that you will never see that happen again, gilius. There is one thing in the world of today, that was a problem even back in the good ol' days of TSR: piracy. And in the digital age piracy even makes the Big Ones bleed - like Warner Bros., Pearson and EA. And that's because of the behaviour of an oversaturated, frustrated and sometimes impoverished public, which just takes what it can get for FREE (which I cannot blame). No one can build a business model on that - at least not in a capitalistic environment. You and me, gilius, will sleep with our copyshop print of D6 Fantasy very well for the next 4 decades, if god wants us to ... . Lots of things to twist and brew, this D6 stuff. I am thinking about converting the D6 Magic rules into a Freeform Magic System for Classic D&D - where you could choose your spell components adhoc, maybe card-driven!? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Mar 1, 2012 22:27:49 GMT -7
My problem with them courting the 1st Edition fanatics, is that they tend to be the crowd who tells tales of the glory days of D&D and hasn't purchased a D&D book since the 80's. They tend to be happy dusting off a copy of the old rule books when nostalgia strikes, but they are not the market who is going to buy $100 of 5E Core rule books and hundreds of dollars of supplements over the next couple of years. I feel like they are targeting the wrong audience.
|
|
