>>I thought that whole changing the rules every 4 years thing was just a scheme to sell more books.<<
dewinblaidd expressed my own thought. I think there's a world of difference between an individual GM tweaking the rules of the game to fit his personal campaign and a RPG company yanking the plug on a viable game and replacing it with something different. Of course they're going to keep doing that, because whenever Malibu Stacey gets a new hat everyone rushes out to buy it.
Legally WOTC have the right to publish a new game and call it "Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons". Ethically, at least in my opinion, it was at best a questionable marketing scheme. And I don't mean to pick on WOTC - other companies have done the same thing. Admittedly, when it comes to board games, you can also buy funky versions of Clue and Risk, but the companies who produce these don't discontinue the original games.
I still favor the classic, original D&D over all of the so-called "advanced" iterations. I miss Gamma World. So I may be somewhat biased in my opinion. But I think if you're going to make up a new game, even if it's loosely based on an older game, it ought to have a new name and not pretend to be something it isn't.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-07 09:50 pm (UTC)Legally WOTC have the right to publish a new game and call it "Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons". Ethically, at least in my opinion, it was at best a questionable marketing scheme. And I don't mean to pick on WOTC - other companies have done the same thing. Admittedly, when it comes to board games, you can also buy funky versions of Clue and Risk, but the companies who produce these don't discontinue the original games.
I still favor the classic, original D&D over all of the so-called "advanced" iterations. I miss Gamma World. So I may be somewhat biased in my opinion. But I think if you're going to make up a new game, even if it's loosely based on an older game, it ought to have a new name and not pretend to be something it isn't.