Jon Burfoot 09/01/2012 20:58:25

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120109

Looks like D&D 4e is on the way out...given it's abiliy to polarise opinions about itself, I am not surprised. I think this could have a huge outcome on the future of WoTC.... 

Richard Fisher (09/01/2012 21:06:05)

Meh, I think I'll pass.

Alexander Hay (10/01/2012 10:00:29)

More coverage here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/arts/video-games/dungeons-dragons-remake-uses-players-input.html

Ian Pearson (10/01/2012 12:19:59)

remains “absolutely committed” to the core tabletop game-play

...to maximise revenue.

Anyone who belives otherwise does not understand the retail business sector.

Look at the history of Games Workshop. I have White Dwarf issue 1 and in those days if White Dwarf reviewed something as a 10/10 you went and bought it immediately - before the shops ran out.

Alexander Hay (10/01/2012 13:33:23)

4e's main problem was that it alienated whole swathes of its established players. If WotC is sensible, it will actually listen to players and even go so far as to have an open source system (to a degree). Hopefully 5e won't be launched by a hubristic press conference that looked like a Chris Morris parody either.

Jon Burfoot (10/01/2012 14:15:10)

WoTC have problems. As Alexander said, they alienated alot of their potential buyers, with 4e. 5e is a must, as Ian says, to generate revenue. (A)D&D has always generated numbers of books and supplements, so if they get it right, it should do THAT job.

IF WoTC are sensible, they'll:

a). Have a game that is written a lot better than 4e was. It will need to be a bit more detailed on RP'ing for the noobs, I think. It needs to be more than having half the Players Handbook detailing a handful of character classes, for example. It should, IMHO, move away from the WoW style character classes. It needs to bring back old players, as well as appeal to new/current players, to give it the broadest fan-base.

b). Listen to the players and play-testers. The combat in 4e is too clunky, for example. More than 5 players, and the system creaks under it's own weight. It needs to be flexible, and yet have a decent level of complexity. Not overly so, but reasonably so. 

The game's writers need to be flexible, and willing to change/alter ideas, and not keep their ideas locked in stone on certain ideas. I suspect that is what happened with 4e, to a degree, having talked to some of that games play testers.

Alexander Hay (10/01/2012 16:50:03)

D&D 5e needs:

- To be simple enough to pick up in an afternoon.

- Reward a variety of playing styles.

- Combine the best of 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0.

- Oh, and be open source enough to let players can fix it as they go along.

Gary Yam (10/01/2012 16:55:56)

I have to be honest, Jon, what you have written is a bunch of meaningless generalities and wishful thinking.

However - that translates directly into marketing speak. So it's not a million miles away from what the business department of a games company probably says to it's creative department.

Some people love 4e, others hate it, and some people use it as a figleaf to pretend they're really cool by bashing WotC for being an evil empire whilst going over to Paizo. (Which is basically like fleeing Iraq to go and live in North Korea).

So 5e is coming out? Well it's a few years or so earlier than I thought it would be, but it is of course, inevitable.  There's no revenue from figures and apart from the online subscriptions the game has reached it's natural level which all RPGs reach (the players have bought all they are ever going to buy, and GMs are the only ones buying the modules) They tried with the player cards and the fate cards - and it didn't work. The only way to keep the company from going bankrupt is to bring out a new edition. There is basically no other way to pay the bills.

Bjorn Christianson (10/01/2012 17:36:18)

5e will be in 2014.  Given D&D Insider is pulling in somewhere around a minimum of $4.5 million USD a year, I don't really think they're running the risk of bankruptcy in the meantime.

 

It'll be interesting to see where they decide to take the system.  I've signed up for playtesting, and if I get picked we can see if we can get FGC into the credits!

Jon Burfoot (10/01/2012 18:05:43)

 

I have to be honest, Jon, what you have written is a bunch of meaningless generalities and wishful thinking.

Not at all. Citing the player's handbook for 4e as an example, it's an excellent example of how not to write a role-playing game. It relies on people being experienced players, with little regard for new players, or those that have never played an RPG. When I started gaming, it was with a bunch who'd never actually played an RPG, but it seemed interesting. Admittedly, joining the hobby in that way is not too usual, but if I'd played the game,and then thought 'Hmmm...I'll buy the rulebooks and read them over the weekend." it would be give me little idea what the hobby was about, aside from combat on a battlegrid.

I've gone on about this, before, so no real need to re-tread that.

As for wishful thinking, surely is what the playtesters are there for? To tell the company what they think, and ergo what they wish the game to be like.

Some people love 4e, others hate it

Like I said, it polarises opinion about itself.

So 5e is coming out? Well it's a few years or so earlier than I thought it would be, but it is of course, inevitable.

It's earlier because 4e is not performing as well as expected, due to the polarised opinion, I would guess. And of course it is inevitable. What was not inevitable is the point that players are going to have a bigger say in how the game will be structured, I think. It would seem that WoTC have woken up to the idea that Paizo used (and no, that is not me bashing one company as opposed to the other. It's praising the fact that they've woken up to the fact).

Alex Dickinson (10/01/2012 19:20:29)

Yet another rules system. Yet another bunch of books to buy. Yet another load of books to try to find the time to read. A yet more fractured player base. Yet another round of hugely time-consuming discussion/argument about the strengths & weaknesss of the new system (as they will have fixed some problems whilst introducing new ones - again) - before they address these by bringing out version 5.5... then more books to buy, more books to read...

They've lost me already. If they actually cared about the players they would stop dicking about with the rules and focus on providing settings & adventures; that's what it's all about, after all. Their online subscription model already shows how they can earn enough money to stay afloat without needing to bring out fresh books for everyone to buy every five years.

The main reason I'm interested in switching to Pathfinder is the hope of getting away from all this sh*t: a stable rules system so we can stop wasting time arguing about rules and get on with playing games.

Sean Adams (10/01/2012 22:43:25)

Gary, i've always liked the stuff Paizo puts out, why are they considered an "evil empire"? Sure I dislike 4E but WotC are pretty reasonable people overall. Also I didn't realise anyone actually playtested 4th Ed trolololololololol.

Bjorn Christianson (11/01/2012 08:47:53)

Paizo is an "evil empire" in exactly the same way Wizards of the Coast are: they are profit-oriented (which isn't really "evil empire" at all, of course).  Which is why Alex is being a bit over-optimistic in hoping that switching to Pathfinder means finding a stable rule system.  History is pretty clear in that there are exactly three types of RPG systems: new ones, defunct ones, and ones putting out new editions.  Paizo has been developing Pathfinder in almost exactly the same way that WotC developed D&D: core books, then supplements, now miniature lines and an MMO.  As Alex said, with Encounters and DDI WotC has come closest to finding a stable revenue model, and if even they find they need to be releasing new editions to keep their line profitable, then Paizo (who doesn't have equivalents to either DDI or Encounters) will end up doing the same.  All we can do is hope that the newer editions are better and more fun than the current ones, and remember in the worst case scenario that we still own the books.

 

I know this is a distant hope, but is there any chance at all this discussion can go on without edition bashing?  Given how discouraging I find it when players in my game are talking down the system I run them in, I can't think edition warring makes the forum into friendly advertising for potential new members.

Graham Charlton (11/01/2012 10:16:13)

I've always thought the 4E was quite a good fit for our club. Its highly unusual structure as a hybrid of board game, roleplay game and miniature wargame matches the interests of the club as a whole.

I think its main weakness is marketing it as D&D. They should have called it something different and packaged it as a box set. Imagine Descent plus Road to Legend in the same box, along with some slimline roleplaying rules. They could have continued evolving 3.5 (i.e. exactly what Paizo did) and had this new product in parallel.

I worry that curiosity will get the better of me and I'll end up buying 5E "just to see", but ho hum.

For now I'm happy with both D&D 4E (low level only for when I want a combat-oriented game) and Pathfinder (for when I want a story-oriented or action-oriented game).

Gary Yam (11/01/2012 18:33:52)

Alex D:

As always on this subject, you basically transformed into Fredrich Engels.

A games company cannot survive making supplements and adventures, especially not one that has to carry a production base the size of D&D. It works for these tiny indie companies, but not for anyone else. That's why all these other systems are in and out of print like nobody's business.

 

The joke is that by "moving" to PF, all you're doing is playing a game you already own. So if you buy the product, you're re-purchasing something you already own. If you don't buy them - you may as well have carried on playing 3.5e.

 

This is all symptomatic of a complete lack of appreciation of the realities of the industry, and a general narrow-mindedness. In every other similar sector, things churn much faster than this. In computer gaming, new editions  come out much more frequently than this, and are normally greeted with anticipation and joy, rather than derision. 

Alex Dickinson (11/01/2012 18:58:17)

Gary: I wondered whether you'd jump on this. Didn't you notice my comment about how their online subscription model had got around the need for making players buy a set of new books every 5 years? And Bjorn's figure of $4.5m for that? Though admittedly I don't know whether $4.5m is enough to sustain a gaming company.

And Bjorn: I hope you don't take my coments on the system to reflect on the games you run - I still enjoy those immensely! The quality of the DM is far more important than whatever set of rules they are using.

Gary Yam (11/01/2012 19:32:51)

Alex:

You've made a whole bunch of whinges that are completely irrelevant. To be sustainable, a company needs to be producing and selling volume of product consistently. The DDI susbscription doesn't do a great deal more than replace the hole left by the sales of Dragon and Dungeon, and isn't widely available to one of the core target demographics (ie boys 11-15); and as we see it's very easy to share DDI accounts.

Minis became unsustainable, and the cards didn't work. The only thing left was to sell was modules and splat books - neither of which are big sellers.

The games company's mission is not to make communists happy. Their only motivation is to survive and make money. Until someone comes up with a genius idea, the only way of doing that is to bring out new editions every few years. 

It might be annoying, but as I said - it's inevitable - and without this churn, there would be no new RPGs or RPG companies, and the hobby would be the preserve of a few people who remember the 1980s.

For a practical example of where this kind of thinking ends - take a look at the Dragonsfoot forums, where all the self-confessed grognards congregate, curse 4e, and pat one another on the back for playing 1e, and (seriously) review Village of Hommlet, and ask one another how their groups did on their latest expedition to Keep on the Borderlands.

 

Sean:

It's WotC that are generally considered to be the "evil empire" for committing that ultimate crime - to actually want to not go out of business. Looking around, you'll find a lot of consensus that Paizo are some kind of plucky indie company picking up the fallen mantle of 3.5e for the altruistic betterment of all.....which is why they are selling a re-packaged game for more than the original, and have brought out more supplements at a greater rate, and charge more for everything. Some of their product can barely be called acceptable, the modules (Adventure paths) are hideously overpriced in comparison to D&D. 

As for playtesting - look what Paizo did. They got a whole bunch of suckers around the world to playtest the game for free and basically develop half the rules tweaks for them using hatred of 4e as a figleaf, then collated the results into a book and slapped a £33 price tag on it.

Jon Burfoot (11/01/2012 20:04:57)

I'm not defending either company, but Gary, I had a quick look on the shop's website, regarding 

the modules (Adventure paths) are hideously overpriced in comparison to D&D. 

And I am seeing Paizo modules at £14.99 or so, and WoTC modules at £16.99. Just thought I'd say.

 

Both companies are doing their thing with their chosen games. Paizo have done an excellent job with Pathfinder, and I do agree if you own 3.5, there's not much difference. But, as I don't own it, it is a worthwhile investment for a game, considering 3.5 is out of print and not supported by it's original creators.

You mention those 'bashing' 4e and deride them, and yet your are doing quite the same with your scathing comments about Paizo and Pathfinder. Or, were you making a subtle point?

:-)

Graham Charlton (11/01/2012 20:25:25)

Buying Pathfinder when you own 3.5 is no different to all those people who bought 3.5 having already bought 3.0 - it's an evolution of the product and doesn't pretend to be anything other. Roleplaying as a hobby is incredibly cheap, occasionally updating your core rulebooks with the latest version is no different to keeping your computer software up to date with the latest patches (which often involves a subscription fee to fund said updates).

Graham Charlton (11/01/2012 20:27:45)

Also, kinda a tangent but whilst we're on the subject of Paizo:

I've had a chance now to look inside the Pathfinder Beginner Box and it is outstanding value for money. Pregen characters plus character creation rules, an adventure, enough rules to create new adventures, and scope to level up your character. Compare that with the sorry excuse WotC put out and you can very much see the difference in the company outlooks.

Emma Hawkins (11/01/2012 20:38:32)

....................... hey guys, theres gonna be a new rpg out to try the system for in a while... i dont know the company or name of it, but it sounds cool..... loosly based on some of the other more popular ones i have heard, but with quite a bit of player input in the design this time.........  chances are as its a brand new version itll be very supported and have lots of exciting new bits to it for ages tooo.

Sounds like great fun to me :)

Graham Charlton (12/01/2012 16:25:52)

Well worth a read...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/315975-wizards-coast-dungeons-dragons-insider-d-d-4th-edition-hasbro-some-history.html

Graham Charlton (12/01/2012 17:09:59)

And this one...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/315800-4-hours-w-rsd-escapist-bonus-column.html

Nick Hughes (12/01/2012 21:16:17)

I remember 2nd edition lasting a long time before 3rd came out.  It did a good job at sustaining itself with its customer base before the whole new system came along.

The announcement of the 5th edition so soon after 4th coming out (and it's not 4.5...it's a 5th ed. which suggests a complete system re-write) sounds less like smart business and more like having a product that has won more critics than fans and the company has to do something to keep the title going. 

Even though no-where near as popular as D&D, I'm surprised but somewhat gratified that both Call of Cthulhu and Champions have continued in only lightly modified versions from what originally came out 30 years ago.  Both games have become streamlined in some cases or expanded apon in others but I can pick up my 1st edition Call of Cthulhu rulebook and my 5th edition and still see the same system present in both. 

At the end of the day, it's the gaming group that can make or break a game, less so the system.  I've seen some good GMs backed up by up for it players make a poor system look good.

Bjorn Christianson (13/01/2012 13:55:01)

Given playtesting doesn't open until spring, it is extremely unlikely that the next edition will be released before 2013, and realistically it might not be released until early 2014 (which would be the 40th anniversary of D&D).  So 4th Ed will have had at least a five year run.  2nd Edition, on the other hand, was released in 1989, and TSR was utterly bankrupt when it was bought out by WotC in 1997.  (3E was released in 2000, but WotC started developing it immediately upon buying the rights to D&D).  So in terms of being a commerically viable product line, AD&D 2nd Ed lasted something significantly less than eight years.  

 

(If you've never seen it, http://web.archive.org/web/20040530094717/http://atlasofadventure.com/Archive/TSR1997Buyout.asp

 has an account of the state of TSR at the time it was bought out by the guy who had to work through its books.)

 

3.0 lasted three years, and 3.5 lasted five.  The first edition of AD&D is by far the longest lasting one, at 12 years (but not if you start from the time the last core rulebook was actually released, which makes it 8 years).  The various editions of "non-advanced" D&D lasted about five or six years each on average -- "red box D&D", which was probably the single best-selling edition ever, lasted seven years.

 

All of which is to say: 4e is going to have a five or six year run, which is actually pretty much the standard for "time to buy new books" D&D updates.  The only real exception to the rule led to TSR going out of business.

Jon Burfoot (13/01/2012 14:21:00)

An interesting read in how to not run a company. It would seem that it was not the game system that caused TSR's downfall, necessarily, but the unwise investments in games that simply did not work and a lack of using data about their clientele, and too much use of guesswork and guy instinct, as the author puts it.

I suspect if they'd not made disastrous investments and bad decisions re:print runs  (eg "Why had a moderate success in collectable dice triggered a million unit order? Why did I still have stacks and stacks of 1st edition rulebooks in the warehouse?") then 3.0 would have been better designed, with the flaws removed, and 3.5 then not published until much later. I'm guessing 3.0 was somewhat rushed (a last roll of the dice, so to speak), to try and generate immediate income. I think it could have waited a little longer, and WoTC could have supported 2nd Ed (which was doing pretty well, still) for a year or two more, enabling a better 3rd Ed to come out. But, looking at the state of the finances, I can see why they did it.

It will be interesting to see what 5th Edition becomes. And I think the 40th Anniversary for release might be what WoTC are aiming for.

:-)

Gary Yam (13/01/2012 22:47:25)

This is the conundrum that all RPG companies have, and is the reason why the history of pen and paper RPGs is absolutely littered with business failure. Never mind D&D, considering it was a much smaller product - look how many cycles Runequest has been through, and how many different publishers. Call of Cthulhu has been through 6 editions (or more if you count the fractional editions and "special editions"), but absurdly has barely changed - certainly the rules appear fully compatible regardless of edition.

TSR didn't simply make a series of isloated bad decisions. The inescapable axiom of RPGs (as stated before) is that you only get to sell the core book (ie PH) once to most players. Then, some players buy a few splat books, and only the GMs buy the campaign settings and modules. Once the players manual has been sold, far fewer other books are sold, and much less frequently.

So TSR did all sorts of other things, some of which were meh, but they did make huge bucks on PC games licensing and the Dragonlance novels. This probably gave them the idea that diversification was the way to go (and they weren't necessarily wrong) - but they made some bad decisions, and the actual core business of D&D wasn't making any money. This being the early days, they probably knew no better, and possibly assumed that some day everyone in the world would be playing D&D and they could sell the PH forever.

D&D is the big daddy of RPGs, and has vastly more players than any other system - indeed probably all other systems put together - that's the only reason the re-editioning is big news. David King was only saying the other day how Mongoose themselves have re-issued Runequest three times in four years with totally different rulesets, without any peep of how that's going down.

Alexander Hay (14/01/2012 13:20:34)

One approach might be to just hook the punters with the core rules and then make your money by releasing new splatpacks, but this 'games console' approach isn't very sustainable - look how upset the 3.0 brigade were when 3.5 was sprung on them. Expect similar drama among the 4e faithful.

How are games companies going to make their money, then? The good old days when you could get the kiddies in via Fighting Fantasy game books are long over - they're gobbled up by computer/video games instead nowadays. This may lead to the depressing conclusion that RPGs are going back to being the products of cottage industries. I rather they didn't, though.

Gary Yam (14/01/2012 15:03:25)

Alexander:

You are right, but give or take, that's the only strategy that games companies have. There are a few finesses on it - a few companies have gone down the "Explorer's Edition"core rules route, with the core rules being absolutely dirt cheap (Savage Worlds, Reign, Wild Talents). Others have lately been putting out the core rules at full whack, £30 or so (Ashen Stars, Stars Without Number, Bulldogs! spring to mind). But essentially it's all the same.

The irony is that the only companies to break the cycle have been Games Workshop and WotC, with extremely variable degrees of success. GW only exist to sell minis, and WotC have tried various formulae, most of which are greeted by derision from "diehard roleplayers" who seem to think that there is some inherent nobility in being an ignorant cynic.

For a brief time, I was one of those, when I came back to D&D after 15 years out - I contributed on Dragonsfoot and such like. But I soon came to realisation that there's nothing clever about championing pen and paper RPGs on the one hand (telling all and sundry how great they are), and at the same time actively killing the industry (and the access to new players) by denying the right of games publishers to be businesses. The result is actually very sad - a bunch of gamers that think they own the rights to a game, and that now they have had their enjoyment, no one else can be permitted to join in as RPGs should now be published as acts of altruism.

There is no similar industry where this happens, where loyal supporters of a hobby profess to love it so much, yet stymie evolution or progression of any kind because things were so much better in the 1980s.

Nick Hughes (14/01/2012 19:38:49)

Of course games companies have to make money, but the balancing act is putting out enough product to sell to keep the business going and not alienating the fan and customer base.

An evolving system has worked for both Call of Cthulhu and Champions.  As you say with CoC, the system itself has not fundamentally changed since it's orignal incarnation.  The subsequent new editions merely expanded and extrapolated what has gone before.

D&D has not evolved beyond 2nd edition.  1st edition expanded and evolved from basic.  2nd expanded and evolved from 1st.  3rd and 3.5 marked a break with a lot of what had gone before and was fundamentally a whole new system that kept the veneer of basic, 1st and 2nd ed.  4th ed. then broke with 3rd and all that went before it to create something new.  I suspect the 4th ed. system was probably developed as another game unrelated to D&D which in the end became D&D so that WotC could put their own, untouched by the TSR regime, FRPG onto the market and having the D&D name would guarantee it sales.

The question for a lot of gamers has been was the break from the past worth it?  It's what D&D fans asked themselves when 3rd came out.  If your answer is "yes", you buy the new system, the king is dead, long live the king.  If it is "no", you don't opt into the new system and you stay with your fan supported version.  Some people have the money to keep replacing and upgrading their games every time a new edition comes out.  For me, I've got to be convinced the new version is a significant improvement on the old before I change over.  I stopped upgrading Traveller when The New Era came out.  Champions 6th edition isn't worth the money to upgrade from 5th (however the supplements still work for 4th and 5th editions).  4th edition hasn't impressed me after playing 4 games of it.  I've been fair to it and given it a go but it's not for me.  I would have liked to see D&D evolve from its 1st ed. incarnation instead of being totally re-invented; whether 5th edition represents a return to the past for inspiration remains to be seen. 

I suspect that most people at the club have their favourite version of the old warhorse but are quite willing to play other incarnations.  I think we all know who here likes which version so we shouldn't beat each other up over our preferences.  I reckon I could run a 1st or 2nd edition AD&D game and still get a group of 4-5 players. 

Gary Yam (14/01/2012 20:25:20)

NickH:

I would argue that evoultion necessitates the games undergoing a huge change. If you don't change the game fundamentally between editions, there's really no point bringing out new ones.

D&D has changed in every edition, and it had to otherwise no-one would buy it. 1e AD&D was just a mess. 2e, whilst compatible did put the rules into a recognisable and intelligible format. 3e was a big change, but then needed a million minor changes to make it into 3.5e. 4e was different from anything that went before - but it is fundamentally still a d20 game with the same classes, races and all the central in-game concepts. The only thing that is seemingly not a change is 3.5e-to-Pathfinder, which is touted as being fully compatible, with the only real changes being the Combat Manouveur stat, and some of the spell mechanics.

CoC is the exact opposite case. There was nothing wrong with the rules as they originally appeared (ie they weren't insane scribblings and copied out of textbooks like the 1e DMG), and over God-knows-how-many editions, it's basically never changed. If you played the game in 1986, you'd notice no differences if you played now. And that's the problem. This kind of deckchair-rearranging does nothing for the games company, which is why CoC is basically a dead system. All the advances in the game have been third party, and most of them no longer relate to CoC at all. There's interest in playing Realms of Cthulhu and Trail of Cthulhu, and the consistent favourite among hardcore CoCers is the Delta Green setting (again, third-party). Everything else is just fannying about with old material. The reason I don't see much interest in CoC anymore is that basically, once you've done one or two of the major campaigns (Masks/Shadows/Orient Express etc), everything in CoC is just a series of haunted houses, and people pretending to know a lot about the 1920s and doing Blackadder impersonations. Nothing whatsoever is happening for the original game, and that's why it's constantly in trouble and is only really played as a dead system.

I was suckered in by the Mongoose Paranoia. I used to love Paranoia, so I bought the re-issue and a ton of the "old" material. It was only later that I realised that it was pointless. I was doing the Pathfinder thing - buying a game that I literally already owned - down to all the scenarios being re-issues. Ultimately, I think I've only played three sessions since buying it - and this is because it's a pointless re-hash which offers absolutely nothing new, and it's only an exercise in nostalgia that's doing nothing for RPGing as a hobby.

Jon Burfoot (15/01/2012 01:24:29)

The only thing that is seemingly not a change is 3.5e-to-Pathfinder, which is touted as being fully compatible, with the only real changes being the Combat Manouveur stat, and some of the spell mechanics.

There is an overhaul in the classes (the way skill points work, the preferred class rules, several classes are completely re-written/substantially different to their 3.x counterparts etc). 

The basic game does not change (it is still a d20 system) but it is a much tidier version of the game, with fewer bugs. In much the same way that 2e tidied up 1e, so Pathfinder has done the same to 3.x D&D.

Having played all the incarnations of D&D, from Basic, through to 1-4e, they all have their faults and foibles. Some work better than others in certain situations. I, for one, am glad that a new edition is due. 4e does not work for me. I just hope that the system is well designed and supported for the next 5-8 years.

:-)

Alex Dickinson (16/01/2012 08:14:43)

Gary, you are conflating the health of the hobby with the health of the biggest company currently profiting from supporting it. The two are obviously related but not identical.

Since the OGL, players now have a choice of which company's vision of D&D they wish to support. And the death of any one company will not be the end of the hobby.

You denigrate anyone who isn't prepared to support the hobby by buying up everything WoTC brings out and you dismiss other company's offerings, without recognising that that's just your personal preference and your views are as biased as anybody else's. One of the strengths of RPGs is that there's no one 'correct' way of playing them.

Dismissing people who have a different opinion to you as "ignorant cynics" doesn't make for worthwhile discussion, just as buying product just to keep a company healthy won't make for quality product.

Nick Hughes (17/01/2012 20:35:59)

Rolls eyes...

CoC is a game still widely played all around the world, almost everyone enjoys it, people are always up for playing it, as Nic proved you can put novel spins on the genre with it, it is still going...not bad for a "dead" system.  I think you're in a minority opinion there, Gary.