Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Stormcrow wrote:"It's not as complex as Third Edition" isn't the same as "It's like Original." I could run B2 using the rules to Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space and use no more paper. (Hmm, that sounds like fun!)

Here how I view the situation.

The point of the various old school communities is to play the older edition they like. Not something like it but the actual game. This is a point missed by some who publish old school games that feel like an older edition. They wonder why tapping into the magical OSR market isn't easy.

While there are differences between the different editions (and their retro-clones) supplements and adventure can be easily used between them. Far easier than trying to use a 3E , GURPS, or 4e product.

The initial reporting of D&D Next have made the comment that it feels like an older edition D&D. All I can say at this point is that they are accurate. You can look at the Cave of Chaos and see that it uses a much leaner format than 3E or 4e.

Draw your own conclusion.

But unless they do a relaunch of an older edition with support products, they are going to run into the same problem with every other publisher of an Old School feel RPG (castles & crusades, Hackmaster, DCC RPG, etc). They are not using the rules that the group wants to play.

So the question becomes whether the adventures and supplements are useful for fans of a older edition. Right now that is looking good and is publicly supported by the what reporters say about playing D&D Next and what we seen of Cave of Chaos. And I can confirm that it both are accurate.

In closing Wizards would like our dollars but what they are really shooting for is the lapsed gamers and making it easy to learn for the novice. D&D 4e left a lot of people, and I have seen this, going this is D&D? They may wind up liking it but their initial reaction is invariably that D&D 4e is not the D&D they played with. In contrast my experience with the reaction to 3e was more like, It D&D with a lot more options.

My hope is that when it all said and done that the Core version of D&D will be such that it will be pretty easy to get somebody to switch to play AD&D, B/X, OD&D, etc. Much in the way somebody picking up Labyrinth Lord wouldn't find it much of a leap to try AD&D/OSRIC.

robertsconley wrote:So the question becomes whether the adventures and supplements are useful for fans of a older edition. Right now that is looking good and is publicly supported by the what reporters say about playing D&D Next and what we seen of Cave of Chaos. And I can confirm that it both are accurate.

This, right here, has to be key for WotC. They have to understand that no matter how rad, bitchin', or awesome their new rules are, a good chunk of D&D gamers are simply going to continue to play with the rules that they're already using whether 0e, 4e, or anything in between. WotC's priority needs to be to 1) let those gamers know that WotC still wants them as customers and 2) provide them with game materials that are reasonably useful for their games.

The failure to do the above has been the big problem with the 3e and 4e edition switches. In both cases, WotC took a relatively unwelcoming attitude towards "lapsed" players and issued editions in which the supplementary materials were difficult to use with prior editions. (Or at least no more easy to use than any other rpg out there -- for example, converting from 3.5e to B/X D&D was really no easier than converting from C.o.C. to B/X D&D.)

If they adopt this strategy, it's going to require them to radically shift their business plan, which has really been focusing almost entirely on issuing robust versions of the core rules every three years or so. They'll have to change it to less frequent editions of less robust rules, and a bigger reliance on supplementary materials for their profits.

rogatny wrote:

robertsconley wrote: If they adopt this strategy, it's going to require them to radically shift their business plan, which has really been focusing almost entirely on issuing robust versions of the core rules every three years or so. They'll have to change it to less frequent editions of less robust rules, and a bigger reliance on supplementary materials for their profits.

Note I don't have any inside information about this speculation. If I have to guess they will do both. They will have a D&D Core line and another line with all the bells and whistles. The Core Line will be aimed at lapsed gamers (and their kids), and providing a straightforward path for novices to learn the game. While the other line (Advanced?) will be aimed at existing gamers and their desire to customize their game and their characters.

If they use the OGL ( or something like it) my feeling that a lot of OSR publishers will support the Core version of D&D Next. Right now OSR Publishing is dominated by the big three retro-clones and D&D Next could easily be the fourth with a OGL license in place.

Again I don't have any inside information for any of this speculation.

robertsconley wrote:But unless they do a relaunch of an older edition with support products

Now there's a hell of an idea. Heck, I don't even need (or particularly want) the support products!

robertsconley wrote:

rogatny wrote:

robertsconley wrote: If they adopt this strategy, it's going to require them to radically shift their business plan, which has really been focusing almost entirely on issuing robust versions of the core rules every three years or so. They'll have to change it to less frequent editions of less robust rules, and a bigger reliance on supplementary materials for their profits.

Note I don't have any inside information about this speculation. If I have to guess they will do both. They will have a D&D Core line and another line with all the bells and whistles. The Core Line will be aimed at lapsed gamers (and their kids), and providing a straightforward path for novices to learn the game. While the other line (Advanced?) will be aimed at existing gamers and their desire to customize their game and their characters.

If they use the OGL ( or something like it) my feeling that a lot of OSR publishers will support the Core version of D&D Next. Right now OSR Publishing is dominated by the big three retro-clones and D&D Next could easily be the fourth with a OGL license in place.

Again I don't have any inside information for any of this speculation.

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.

tacojohn4547 wrote: 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.

I believe the network effect will catapult an OGL D&D Next as ONE of the big four. But that will take it only so far for the reasons you outlined and the fact that various old school communities what to play the actual edition not something like it.

tacojohn4547 wrote: 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.

The older editions under the OGL would be a tremendous gift. I too hope that it will happen at some point.

robertsconley wrote:The older editions under the OGL would be a tremendous gift. I too hope that it will happen at some point.

I dunno. Isn't it a gift that's already been given? That is, we already have the OGL and the retro-clones. It wouldn't be *bad*, but I don't think it would be a tremendous change from the current situation. We basically already have the the older edition rules created under the OGL. Of greater significance would be WotC allowing third parties some use of the trademarks associated with those rules.

So, I'm reading play reports. This one is from "Geek's Dream Girl", which is an online dating advice website for geeks (you can't make this fucking shit up, guys). The "dream girl" started with 3.5.....

On that topic, your next move isn’t on your character sheet. You don’t go paging through all your stuff thinking, “Well, I could Bluff this guy.” Nope. We were doing what we thought our characters should do, even if that involved our very NOT charismatic half-orc fighter trying to be a charismatic leader of a band of skeptical savage orcs. Multiple times. In other games, it’s “Okay, who has the highest Charisma? You? Okay, you go talk to those orcs and get them to help us.”

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

robertsconley wrote:The older editions under the OGL would be a tremendous gift. I too hope that it will happen at some point.

I dunno. Isn't it a gift that's already been given? That is, we already have the OGL and the retro-clones. It wouldn't be *bad*, but I don't think it would be a tremendous change from the current situation. We basically already have the the older edition rules created under the OGL. Of greater significance would be WotC allowing third parties some use of the trademarks associated with those rules.

All I know is, I can't publish my new adventure, "Lair of the Beholder's Mind Flayers Beneath the Temple of the Drow Kuo-Toa".

robertsconley wrote:D&D Next

Are they really calling it that? Because that's an absolutely terrible name.

"D&D Esque" would be better.

Should be "Another Dungeons & Dragons", so they can use "AD&D"... and we could call it YADD (Yet Another D&D).

James Maliszewski wrote:

robertsconley wrote:D&D Next

Are they really calling it that? Because that's an absolutely terrible name.

It is the name they doing the playtest under.

RFlowers wrote:All I know is, I can't publish my new adventure, "Lair of the Beholder's Mind Flayers Beneath the Temple of the Drow Kuo-Toa".

That's an excellent point. The OGL forbids the use of specific monster names and such that are considered protected "Product Identity." Maybe the ideal would be something more like this:

• WotC releases AD&D under a new version of the OGL that removes the restriction on Beholders, et cetera.
• WotC offers a separate license that allows the use of the AD&D trademark to third parties

Under that scheme, even though we already have the rules as OGL, we'd also gain the use of the forbidden monster names. The license to use the trademark would probably be available under some sort of fee. (Of course, publishers right now can already negotiate a deal to use the trademark, but I'm talking about more of a standard, publicly offered and promoted license arrangement.)

A similar possibility would be WotC releasing AD&D under the existing OGL (which means we don't gain much -- maybe stuff like weapon vs. AC), and then offering a separate trademark/protected-content license that would allow use of the AD&D trademark AND grant explicit permission for use of certain terms that would otherwise be considered Product Identity under the OGL.

Probably blue-skying, here...

robertsconley wrote:

James Maliszewski wrote:

robertsconley wrote:D&D Next

Are they really calling it that? Because that's an absolutely terrible name.

It is the name they doing the playtest under.

Ughhhhhhhh..