Revisions Verdict

[eruditus]

I thought I would bring one of Trayer's comments up for discussion here...

I thought this an appropriate place to give my two cents on the whole Revision/Edition issue.

Despite the tendancy to use them as cash cows I have no real problem with revisions. But there is a fine line.

If the game comes out and there is a significant amount of play and talk about the game so that in a NATURAL next printing the revisions can be added then I think this is good. This should probabaly happen over the course of maybe a year or two. Typos, errata and clarifications are quite alright. Even a little retcon action is a rule doesn't seem to work well in the mass market.

Personally I think that many of the changes in D&D 3.5 are good ones. I think they could have made a few more. Will I spend $90 to revitalize my 3e experience.. probably not. But that has more to do with the fact that I play BW now and have changed from four D&D games to one d20 game (an EQ campaign I am not running). Also, the d20 games I am likely to play are not 3e (I adore d20 Modern). If I was playing D&D then I would probably pick 'em up.

Here are some comments that Monte Cook makes about 3.5

http://www.montecook.com/review.html

A lot of this is right on the mark, some is a little annoying and some I don't agree with. But its a good, well thought out opinion. Although I have mixed opinions about Monte's work (most I agree with) that which I diverge in is usually solved by playing BW :)

So, as far as BW getting revisions?

I would rather see a new revision with erratta and some minor reviosns in the 2nd printing (which is completely up to Luke, of course. Because I have faith in the playtesting Luke did and the long term discussions as more of us play the game I know that a revision is not a money-grubbing manuever. I, and I am certain, the developers, are VERY excited about a 2nd printing because it means the first 1000 copies were sold!! YAY!! Once that happens I think BW will be enough of a force in the industry that a revision will only serve to escalte sales.

IMHO

[eruditus]

Okay, so there have been 16 views on this post and only four people voted.

We were talking all about this at DragonCon. Your developers would like to hear your opinions. Please participate in the poll if you have not already.

Thanks

[Drozdal]

I would love to partitipate in dat pool - but it seems like it's been closed or something coz i cant vote :(

Drozdal

[luke]

first of all, you must be logged in to vote in a poll; so log in and tell Don what you think!

second of all, our first run was 1000 copies, not 100.

third of all, i am extremely pleased with the way BW is playing out in the wide world. often even i am surprised with how well it runs and how few hiccups there are. thus, if we ever do go to a 2nd printing, there will be some minor rules revisions, some editing, and new art. But no major system overhaul. Long live d6! Long live scripting! Long live obstacles!

(it's funny, i guess BW plays much better than it reads. Ken Hite's latest review is testament to that. Prose=funny. System=good. Better than prose=good, system=crappy though!)

-abzu

[eruditus]

second of all, our first run was 1000 copies, not 100.
-abzu

noted and editted for other's reading pleasure.

I am really pleased with BW (I think that's obvious) and many of the ideas which get thrown around here I consider as optional rules. Personally I think this only makes the game stronger. As long as you don't go crazy with optional rules and they are considered in future supplements. I really only have one real mechanical beef and I think its being handled well.

I think that Ken is right on the mark with his comments.