Knights & Knaves Alehouse

tacojohn4547 wrote:As an OSR publisher, my big problem with D&D Next as it's being represented and reported at this point is that I don't really need WotC's permission or blessings (or D&DN license) to support the version(s) of D&D that I want to support. I can do that right now courtesy of the OGL and the retroclones that are already out or which will come out later this year: OSRIC/S&W/LL/AS&SH/etc. In other words, I don't need D&D Next Core Rules as a rule set at all. And in fact, I'm not sure that as a publisher, I want another set of rules to consider supporting.

WotC could, as has been pointed out several pages ago, support multiple versions of the game at one time. And they would be loudly applauded by the OOP/OSR community for doing so. WotC could, if they choose to, decide to include OD&D, AD&D, and B/X in the OGL and make the older edition rule systems open for 3PP to use as they see fit. That wouldn't require much in the way a commitment of resources or much in the way of an investment in inventory, and yet it would be very well received by the communities to whom it matters.

I think the biggest thing WotC could do for guys like you is issue some sort of license that would allow you to get the coverage of the OGL while also allowing you to indicate compatibility with whatever version of Dungeons & Dragons. Thus far, any license that allowed for a statement of compatibility (whether d20, GSL, or individually negotiated license) has required compatibility with the current edition and had some sort of "poison pill" which made it too easy for WotC to yank the license at inconvenient times, and thus too scary for any small publisher to stake their business on.

If they were to do that and re-release the old edition .pdfs for sale, that would pretty much put retro-clone rule makers out of business.

I don't see them ever doing any of that. But if they wanted their actions to match their rhetoric without having to actually support multiple editions, that would be a way to go.

In one of the developer's blog, I forgot which, they say that it is a bland name and will use it until they decide on what the official name will be. Similar to how Microsoft and Apple name versions of Operating System and wait until much later to release the name they will market it under. For example Windows XP was known as Whistler. Windows 7 was Blackcomb, etc.

rogatny wrote:I don't see them ever doing any of that.

Neither do I. Nice as the reprints of AD&D are, they most likely represent a one-time goodwill offering on the part of WotC to the old school community, a way of getting us to start paying attention to them after so many years of giving them the cold shoulder. In that respect, I think it's worked; the fact that I'm paying any attention to news of the next edition of D&D is proof of that. But, ultimately, the odds of my becoming more than a one-time buyer of anything from WotC depends heavily on what they do with the next edition and, so far, what little I've heard doesn't encourage me.

robertsconley wrote:until they decide on what the official name will be.

Why not, I don't know, Dungeons & Dragons?

I have refrained from commenting too much on this topic, so forgive me if this all seems too negative as I pull the stopper out, but man, I will be sooo glad when 5e is released and the dust settles over the weeks and months after. The period right now is the frustrating period, where the rhetoric is thick and there is a serious effort to influence how the game will be perceived. I think a standard marketing tactic is to repeat something so many times it becomes an unexamined "fact," bending reality to your will. If you remember, when 4e was at this stage people were talking about how it feels like OD&D. It took a while for that to go away. I have no doubt that 5e will be a simpler game, or at least have faster combat, relative to 3e and 4e, but resemble 1e it will not. What is the "feel" of a 1e character anyway? Different people would answer that differently, but at the end of the day if the "feel" is what people wanted Castles & Crusades would have been more successful. By that I only mean it would have captured more of the "old-school" audience than it has. So if "1e feel" means a simpler character sheet I'm not convinced. The other thing I scratch my head at is this idea of varying character complexity at the table. With so much emphasis on "balance" I'm just not sure how the core audience for 5e will react to that. There is an underlying assumption in that design that players are solely focused on their own characters at the table, that if you can reach the sweet spot for character complexity on an individual player basis you will have created a game everyone will be happy with. I don't know how you guys feel about that, but I know that as a player say in a 1e game if the player next to me had feats and was a tiefling-dwarf-dragonborn hybrid/paladin/warlord/assassin/whatever it would be a turn off. Rules are important, but there is an esthetic to old-school as well, IMHO. I suspect we are in for a 3.5/4e simplified hybrid. Which is fine, to each their own, but I hate to see so many people get their hopes up about what this means for old-schoolers. It won't mean anything once the dust settles. I'm absolutely delighted that they are doing a limited print run of AD&D. I'll be buying those, but at the end of the day that's all it is--limited. Don't pack your OSRIC books too far out or reach just yet! My reprint copies will be going into plastic protectors with the rest of my 1e books. Unless they print a second batch, which they have not indicated they would do, when they're gone they're gone.

Daniel Proctor wrote:so forgive me if this all seems too negative

Nothing you wrote struck me as negative at all. Rather, it struck me as realistic. I think, right now, a lot of people are enthusiastic because we know so little about the reality of what 5e will and -- I think this is a big part of it -- a lot of old school gamers desperately want to be able to love a game called Dungeons & Dragons again. The clones may give us the gameplay they prefer and the ability to support that gameplay through new products, but they all lack that magical name we associate with this game we've been playing for decades. I don't think the power of the name should be overlooked and it's a big part of why a lot of old schoolers are trying to convince themselves that WotC really, truly gets it this time.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I do not expect to be buying, let alone playing, "D&D Next" when it's released.

James Maliszewski wrote:a lot of old school gamers desperately want to be able to love a game called Dungeons & Dragons again.

This is the part I really don't get. What is it about the name? Or is it just wanting a sense of acceptance?

*shakes head*

I just don't get it.

Flambeaux wrote:This is the part I really don't get. What is it about the name? Or is it just wanting a sense of acceptance?

It's irrational, sure, but I understand it. Think about how attached people are to the names of sports teams or civic buildings that get renamed. Then imagine the same thing applied to a game that's been a part of your life for decades.

Daniel Proctor wrote:What is the "feel" of a 1e character anyway? Different people would answer that differently, but at the end of the day if the "feel" is what people wanted Castles & Crusades would have been more successful. By that I only mean it would have captured more of the "old-school" audience than it has.

I (and, I suspect, several other folks here) would point to that same evidence and draw the opposite conclusion - namely, that the reason C&C didn't capture more of the "old school" audience is because it didn't sufficiently capture the "feel" of 1E.

Dan, I’m with you. I remember 3.0 being billed as a return to 1e, and 4.0 being billed as a return to OD&D, and Essentials being billed as a return to Mentzer. The way things are looking, 5e will suck, and in a few years, so will 6e.

T. Foster wrote:

Daniel Proctor wrote:What is the "feel" of a 1e character anyway? Different people would answer that differently, but at the end of the day if the "feel" is what people wanted Castles & Crusades would have been more successful. By that I only mean it would have captured more of the "old-school" audience than it has.

I (and, I suspect, several other folks here) would point to that same evidence and draw the opposite conclusion - namely, that the reason C&C didn't capture more of the "old school" audience is because it didn't sufficiently capture the "feel" of 1E.

I think you and Dan are saying basically the same thing, that "less complex than 3e/4e" is not the same thing as "the 1e feel". C&C is 3e-lite, which is what a lot of dissatisfied 3e players wanted, but it doesn't replicate AD&D.

T. Foster wrote:

Daniel Proctor wrote:What is the "feel" of a 1e character anyway? Different people would answer that differently, but at the end of the day if the "feel" is what people wanted Castles & Crusades would have been more successful. By that I only mean it would have captured more of the "old-school" audience than it has.

I (and, I suspect, several other folks here) would point to that same evidence and draw the opposite conclusion - namely, that the reason C&C didn't capture more of the "old school" audience is because it didn't sufficiently capture the "feel" of 1E.

I agree, that's part of what I meant to say but I didn't properly articulate it. For me, C&C doesn't feel like 1e at all, and in truth I think nothing will feel like 1e except 1e to most of us (and of course OSRIC). Like Robert said earlier, most people don't want the "feel" they want the actual game. I can't imagine 5e with be any more like 1e than C&C is.

James Maliszewski wrote:

Flambeaux wrote:This is the part I really don't get. What is it about the name? Or is it just wanting a sense of acceptance?

It's irrational, sure, but I understand it. Think about how attached people are to the names of sports teams or civic buildings that get renamed. Then imagine the same thing applied to a game that's been a part of your life for decades.

I think once the reality of 5e becomes apparent brand loyalty won't be much of a problem to old-schoolers--If it were too powerful of a pull there wouldn't be any old-schoolers left because they all would have dutifully followed the editions. Paizo are the ones who should be most worried--has the Pathfinder brand gained enough loyalty to keep people from going back to the D&D brand? But in either case I do understand the appeal of the D&D brand. Truth be told, I felt the nerdrage of a thousand volcanoes when 3.0 was released. I remember in Dragon magazine they said 3rd edition would be as much like 2e as 2e was to 1e. I was so alienated by what I saw in the 3.0 books from both the rules and art that it was a true shock. It probably took me a few years, but at this point I've made my peace with the D&D brand and said goodbye to it. I no longer need it.

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:

T. Foster wrote:

Daniel Proctor wrote:What is the "feel" of a 1e character anyway? Different people would answer that differently, but at the end of the day if the "feel" is what people wanted Castles & Crusades would have been more successful. By that I only mean it would have captured more of the "old-school" audience than it has.

I (and, I suspect, several other folks here) would point to that same evidence and draw the opposite conclusion - namely, that the reason C&C didn't capture more of the "old school" audience is because it didn't sufficiently capture the "feel" of 1E.

I think you and Dan are saying basically the same thing, that "less complex than 3e/4e" is not the same thing as "the 1e feel". C&C is 3e-lite, which is what a lot of dissatisfied 3e players wanted, but it doesn't replicate AD&D.

Yep, I think that's fair.

James Maliszewski wrote:

Daniel Proctor wrote:I don't think the power of the name should be overlooked and it's a big part of why a lot of old schoolers are trying to convince themselves that WotC really, truly gets it this time.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I do not expect to be buying, let alone playing, "D&D Next" when it's released.

I spoke up is because from what I seen for myself is that reports that initial play test is old school is accurate. I can't detail why it is old school. Only that much of it is what you seen before both from the original and the OSR. That if this is how D&D Core turns out the it will be real easy to convince people to try the original rules.

James Maliszewski wrote:

Flambeaux wrote:This is the part I really don't get. What is it about the name? Or is it just wanting a sense of acceptance?

It's irrational, sure, but I understand it. Think about how attached people are to the names of sports teams or civic buildings that get renamed. Then imagine the same thing applied to a game that's been a part of your life for decades.

There might be irrationalism on the part of some people, I won't discount that, but for me and I suspect many others there is quite a rational reason of why we want the game we play to be called "D&D"

Me: Hey, I'm thinking about starting up a D&D game. Would you be interested in playing?

Them: Man, I haven't played that game in ages, but we did play a lot for a couple of summers. I don't have my books anymore, though. My mom garage-saled them when I moved out to go to college.

Me: No sweat - they're selling the books again. You can go down to Barnes and Noble and pick up a new players handbook.

Now, while to existing gamers the brand name can be ignored for a replicated play experience, to converts it presents additional hoops.

Me: Hey, I'm thinking about starting up an OSRIC game. Would you be interested in playing?

Them: What the hell is an OSRIC game - are we playing Danish kings or something?

Me: Naw, it's the AD&D rules but with the trademarks filed off so they can publish the rules. We're basically playing AD&D.

Them: Oh, I don't have my books anymore. Where do I get an OSRIC book?

Me: Well, you can download the book for free and print it out, or you can order the OSRIC book online. Or, just get an AD&D book from Ebay, that will work too.

Them: I don't know, it just seems like a lot of hassle; I don't like Ebay and I hate printing big docs because ink is $30 a cartridge and then you've got a bunch of loose leaf paper to put into a notebook. It sounds like fun but I think I'll pass.

Note: - this is a paraphrasing of an actual conversation I had with a work buddy who was raving about how fun the new Skyrim game was.

I don't think that wanting the brand name and mass market of D&D is anything close to irrational, although I concede is unnecessary when gaming with existing OSR gamers. And yes, it is still possible to get people going on OSR games. But let's not pretend they present no additional barriers to entry in unfamiliarity or purchasing process.

robertsconley wrote: That if this is how D&D Core turns out the it will be real easy to convince people to try the original rules.

Bingo. But, if they don't feel like 1E then I would rather have problems finding people than have a lot of people but playing a game that doesn't hit the spot. So we'll see.

I just wish they would reprint 1E! (edit - in a non-limited fashion)