As Matt Forbeck pointed out on Twitter, WotC has owned D&D for 24 years since it purchased TSR in 1997. TSR created D&D in 1974, 23 years before WotC bought it.
"I'm not criticizing all the stupid people who are being fleeced into buying a series of stupid games every couple of years... I'm criticizing the jerk company that is taking advantage of all the stupid people for being stupid."I'm not criticising the taste of those who chose to play any particular disposable version of the game or even the wisdom of those who pay into successive iterations of 'crunch' that the owners plan to seasonally junk and rewrite in relative short order. Your system taste and how you chose to spend your cash is your own business.
My comments were reserved solely for the 'bean-counters' who chose to prey on customers in such transparent fashion rather than maintain support in game systems once the 'crunch' has been invested in by their customers. My point to them is a simple one - its nothing to be proud of that over 23 years you built up a publishing brand name that is now famous amongst hardcore gamers for making a succession of disposable RPG rulebooks, and fore-knowledge of that reputation is being passed on by hardcore gamers to their progeny when they teach them the game - you know the next generation of potential customers are being forewarned what to expect from you.
Aside from sensitivity issues, which settings and subIP do you think deserve an update? I believe something low/grim fantasy must be introduced. Forgotten Realms pervasive and weird magic everywhere attitude and 1 billion different races attitude maybe are old fashion, nowThe games franchises can't be frozen but they have to change with the new times. It is not only with the gameplay of Sonic or Mario Bros, with their success and failures, but also some IPs from speculative fiction need a reboot. For example the superheroes from the golden age (near 40's) today need an updated look, and not only for the suit and uniforms. We shouldn't reject all the changes, but only select the right ones.
The true owner(s) of that trademark and the associated copyrights are the human beneficial owners of the majority shareholdings of whichever parent company controls WotC from time to time - not some company where the asset is notionally parked in a corporate veil from time to time.
Of course. when it comes to chest-beating, how long you have possessed such assets is only relevant to count the years you have spent successfully selling individual copyright materials associated with the brand to successive generations of mankind.
The real measure of a successful book of any stripe, is your ability to keep selling the same publication and any associated library of publications to successive generations, without needing to completely re-write the entire book or its associated library every 6 years - because its been decided by the owner that that version of the game is now junk.
Clearly, success is not measured by how much time you have wasted on producing unreliable experimental books that become redundant and disposable every 6 years whilst you try to find such a reliable and successful publication, whose usefulness to consumers survives from one generation to the next - like any fine book or fine library of books should.
The more time you have wasted on this search and the more disposable versions you produced trying to find such a winning antiquarian formulae, the more embarrassing your failure to produce such a collection of publications must be ... surely?
I know I would be very embarrassed if I was coming up to to a 6th offering of experimental books in the lifetime of just 1 generation of consumers.
I certainly wouldn't be trumpeting how long I have been at it producing disposable experimental rule systems for a kind of game whose main selling point is that it is capable of being played for whole lifetimes and from one family generation to the next .... as it turns out.
WotC I think has the ignominious distinction of distributing the highest number of different versions of the main game, each for the shortest periods of time. Gygax and even Williams only ever distributed 1 version a piece, as I recall and they were at least largely compatible with each other - whatever the relative merits of their distinctions. I'm not sure that is something to be proud of but then all of the generations of my family in living memory bought and still buy Original Coke, so what do I know. Maybe its just an unusual family oddity.
Is that the anniversary clarion call to announce a 6th 'version' of 'the game' I hear rumblings of? You know calling it an 'edition' when its a complete re-write is not really correct English but ah well back to 'editing', eh.
Tonight on Different Strokes a very special episodes about the dangers of D&D,Different strokes, indeed...
And sadly, that game did for the most part.
The name is the same, but the game is not.
Unless, of course, you consider Life and Monopoly the same game...or Chess and Parchesi...or Hearts and Spades and Bridge as the same game...or Texas Hold em and 5 card draw the same game...in which case...more power to you I guess...
I recall that purging those various odds-and-ends rules nobody could remember, was a specific selling point of 3e.Given the large number of OSR indies I'd say there's some interest in older forms of D&D. Thing is the original 1st ed was kind of disorganized and had rules nobody used (remember the to-hit modifiers for each weapon (including all of Gary's polearms) for each armor class? the rules on catching diseases and parasites?), so it tends not to get knocked off as much. BECMI D&D had fewer rules, so it's easier to pick up and still familiar to people playing newer versions. Plus everyone knows what 'Dungeons & Dragons' is.
I've honestly never liked Rangers getting spellcasting by default.I have never been satisfied with rangers in post-1E version - but after 2E was even worse because I don't like them becoming a spellcasting class so early.
Forgotten Realms pervasive and weird magic everywhere attitude and 1 billion different races attitude maybe are old fashion, now
Maybe the subtlety of my references to a library of largely compatible books were lost on you, or it was the subtlety of library itself that was lost on you
Well maybe I'm was making a kind allowance for the previous poster's obtuse system analysis ...