Broken Base Lookback: Editions

[Desdichado]

My eyes are bleeding from attempting to read that first post, but I at least read the non-quote-blocked stuff, and I didn't see that this was addressed.

For whom, exactly, is the broken base a bad thing, and why is it something to make us sad/angry/alarmed or otherwise do more than shrug? I'm sure in an ideal world, WotC would like to have 4e sell to all the same customers that 3e (and 2e, and 1e, and BD&D and OD&D) sold to, but let's face it, that wasn't going to happen. There was an economic imperative to release a new edition, as they were running out of things to sell in 3e (and before that 2e, and 1e, and BD&D, and OD&D, etc.) From WotC's point of view, the broken base is an unfortunate but necessary attribute associated with continuing to operate as a corporation that publishes D&D. They can't keep publishing any one edition ad infinitum, so it's better to break the base and try to sell as much of a new edition as you can. With any luck, you can actually bring folks back to the fold who aren't current customers. By the way, did the discussion about the 2e>3e migration mention all the folks who were prodigal sons, not playing D&D at all anymore, who were brought back by 3e? There were quite a few of them, if my memory of a lot of discussions is any guide. Heck, I was one myself.

From a player's perspective, I also don't see the broken base as necessarily a bad thing. Proliferation of editions makes it more likely that I will find one that I want to play, and I can happily ignore the editions that I don't. If we had never had a change in editions, I guarantee I wouldn't be a D&D fan today; I was increasingly frustrated with the design sensibilities of 1e, and didn't find OD&D or BD&D to be acceptable alternatives (although BD&D came closest.) I suppose someone who feels left behind--and there are plenty of such folks, and plenty of them are plenty vocal--has some reason to complain, but otherwise, why do I care that WotC is publishing 4e if I still have years left of 3e still to go in me?

The folks I think who have a legitimate reason to gripe are those who have a hard time finding a group to play with, or for whom the group that they were already playing with migrated to an edition that they'd prefer not to play. Besides them, there are the folks who are at least (if not more) interested in being customers of D&D as they are in being players; i.e., they like buying new stuff and having new stuff to read and look forward to.

The latter, however, isn't a problem of the broken base, it's a problem of your edition of choice not offering new products anymore. In my opinion, the only reason most gamers begrudge the broken base is a sense of ideology; a sense of wishing that we were all on the same page gaming-wise. That all gamers were familiar and intimate with all the same esoteric tribe language of a single edition, or something.

Personally, I don't get any value from that, so I struggle to see how that's a meaningful issue. Plus, I think the notion of all gamers on the same page was a romanticized fantasy of the past anyway. Sure; when we had less choices in terms of RPGs, we tended to all play the same one, but in reality, the same fault lines of taste and preference existed then too, and folks either were unsatisfied with many aspects of their games, searched via trial and error for a system that better grantged them the experience they were looking for, or houseruled the heck out of their games to the point where they were almost unrecognizable from table to table.

Ultimately, it's those fault lines of taste and preference that are the cause of the broken base, not new editions. If new editions had not come out, the base would still be broken, as gamers would have searched for some other alternative to "fix" the game to better adapt to their tastes and preferences.

 

[Umbran]

For whom, exactly, is the broken base a bad thing, and why is it something to make us sad/angry/alarmed or otherwise do more than shrug?

I have to wonder a bit at this myself. I am not sure it behooves anyone, including WotC, to worry about the "base" so much as to worry about gamers, in general.

I'm gamer. I moderate a predominantly D&D message board. I think my devotion to games and gaming and D&D is not really in question, right? In my history, I've played a lot of D&D. I've also played a lot of other things. I think in total hours, non-D&D games might well predominate. I'm not currently playing or running D&D. I'm running Deadlands, and playing Star Wars Saga Edition - a WotC product, but not D&D, per se.

So, am I in the "base" or not? By the way the OP is talking, I was split from the "base" not by a D&D edition change, but instead when TSR released Marvel Superheroes, and we stopped playing D&D for a while because we wanted to play supers more. Ever since then I've basically alternated playing D&D with playing other games.

This is not to say that all players are, or should be, like me. Merely that not being a devoted "base" player doesn't necessarily prevent one from being a valuable customer. From WotC's perspective - I've bought a lot of their products over time. I can probably be assumed to buy more in the future, if the quality is high. They don't need me to be a fully devoted "base" customer to be able to sell me books.

They don't need me to be a devoted "base" player to have me as part of their gaming community.

They don't need me to be a devoted "base" player to have me think positively about their work, and recommend it to others.

So, they don't need me to be a "base" player at all. While this does not immediately translate to them not needing a 'base" at all, it does at least make me wonder.

It looks to me that the comic book industry understands this - the lifetime of the usual comic book buyer is something between two and four years, I'm told. Folks pick up comics, buy and read for a while, and then they tend to drop off. And that's okay - they pick up new readers as they go.

What if RPGs admitted the same - the timescale is a little longer, but the general flux may be very similar. Players come and go a bit. That's okay. Let them. Don't get bent out of shape over it.

 

[innerdude]

For whom, exactly, is the broken base a bad thing, and why is it something to make us sad/angry/alarmed or otherwise do more than shrug? I'm sure in an ideal world, WotC would like to have 4e sell to all the same customers that 3e (and 2e, and 1e, and BD&D and OD&D) sold to, but let's face it, that wasn't going to happen . . . . From WotC's point of view, the broken base is an unfortunate but necessary attribute associated with continuing to operate as a corporation that publishes D&D.

From a player's perspective, I also don't see the broken base as necessarily a bad thing. Proliferation of editions makes it more likely that I will find one that I want to play, and I can happily ignore the editions that I don't.

I get the gist and sentiment of this argument, but disagree with the premise.

A fractured "base" is "bad" for me as a gamer, because even if I could buy every RPG in the world that suited my whim (though seemingly a lot of people on ENWorld attempt to do just that ), my RPG playing time is limited by scarcity.

Why is it that when we find a good RPG group we hang on to it with a death-grip? Because for many gamers, finding and keeping a good group together is the hardest part of the hobby.

If the group I currently played with decided to move to 4e, I would essentially be out of a group, because I have enough fundamental problems with the system to never want to play it. At that point, unless I wanted to "search around" for a new group that was playing something else, my actual RPG playing time would cease. Based on my current "life conditions," finding a new group as a working professional with family responsibilities is going to be difficult (and no, I don't consider play-by-post, or play-by-Web to be in the same category).

The value of a "unified" player base/edition is that it gives players more overall opportunities for successful play.

That's why a broken player base is bad.

That's why Edition Wars happen. Yes, they're often about misplaced emotion and lack of maturity. But in a very real way, Edition Wars happen because those involved are fighting for their opportunities to enjoy the type of game they want to play to not be reduced.

All of us as players are invested in the types of games we have enjoyed in the past. When a system that previously accomplished that goal is no longer actively supported by the parent company, in most circumstances it reduces available play options, because players more often than not support the active system, not the defunct one.

The broad availability of thousands of RPG systems, mainstream and indie alike, is a good thing--can be a good thing, if it leads to us ultimately finding a system we enjoy, and a group of people that enjoy the same playstyle.

On the other hand, forcing gamers to choose between adopting a new system they don't particularly like, or finding a different gaming group that plays the style they do like, is a recipe for a fractured player base, lapsed gamers, and lost revenue for the industry. A new edition change is in some ways, essentially begging the question: "Do we as a playing group move on to the new system, or stay with the status quo?"

There are stories all across ENWorld and elsewhere of people "losing" their group because the group switched to a game system the player disliked, and couldn't convince the other players to stick with the current one.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Broken or not, all your base are belong to us.








Sorry, it had to be said.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Broken or not, all your base are belong to us.








Sorry, it had to be said.

You know, I almost said that, but decided not to, that folks would nuke me from orbit, the only way to be sure.

I was right. *Pushes the jolly, candy like, button.*

The Auld Grump

 

[Umbran]

There are stories all across ENWorld and elsewhere of people "losing" their group because the group switched to a game system the player disliked, and couldn't convince the other players to stick with the current one.

There's only so much that can be done for people who are very particular in their tastes.

In one group I play with there's a guy who apparently... doesn't like food. He has only a very narrow range of stuff he'll eat. And I mean, really, really narrow. So narrow that, while we usually provide dinner and home-baked desserts for game, he can't/won't partake of what we cook unless it is stuff on his limited list, and then only if it is prepared just the way he likes such things.

There is no way in heck that we are going to restrict the meals for every single game to his tiny list of allowed foods. It would be grossly unfair (and boring) to the rest of us who have wider palates. Thankfully, he understands this, and simply brings his own food and drink to the games.

Maybe having a split base is bad for you, because it means that you can't find folks to game with. But, by the same token, having tastes so limited that you'll only play one game is bad for you, for the exact same reason.

 

[Desdichado]

That's why Edition Wars happen. Yes, they're often about misplaced emotion and lack of maturity. But in a very real way, Edition Wars happen because those involved are fighting for their opportunities to enjoy the type of game they want to play to not be reduced.

No, I disagree with that. Let's say for the sake of argument, that you and I are involved in an edition war flamethread. You're a 4on (again; I have no idea if this is true or not, this is just an example for the sake of example) and I'm a die-hard 3tard. How is my involvement in an edition war with you, in a very real way, or in any way whatsoever at all, about me fighting for opportunities to continue to enjoy 3e?

All of us as players are invested in the types of games we have enjoyed in the past. When a system that previously accomplished that goal is no longer actively supported by the parent company, in most circumstances it reduces available play options, because players more often than not support the active system, not the defunct one.

Well, sure; you have to decide if searching for someone to game in the system of your choice is more difficult than merely accepting the game that your current group is using. I made that point too--for each player and each group, that "break point", where it's more worth it to seek out another group, will be different. I don't believe that that's as big or a common an occurring as you seem to be implying, though. I think in most groups, if opinion on what system to run is divided, they'll play a mixture of systems. Those who's preferred playstyle is too different from the rest of the group will migrate out eventually, even if they are friends. In my experience, it's not as hard to find gamers as you hint. Even for the married with kids working professional types.

On the other hand, forcing gamers to choose between adopting a new system they don't particularly like, or finding a different gaming group that plays the style they do like, is a recipe for a fractured player base, lapsed gamers, and lost revenue for the industry.

Yeah, but now you're not talking about why, as a player, I should care anymore.

There are stories all across ENWorld and elsewhere of people "losing" their group because the group switched to a game system the player disliked, and couldn't convince the other players to stick with the current one.

Although I'm only kinda sorta coming back from a break, I've been posting on ENWorld since before 3e was released. Maybe I've somehow missed all these stories, but I haven't seen many. Again; not denying that this is a problem, I'm just denying that it's likely to be a widespread one.

And this whole story is ignoring my other point from earlier... or from another thread... or from somewhere. It only works if you assume, quite erroneously I believe, that with only one edition, everyone will just play it happily. One edition to rule them all style. This is patently and easily provable as false. Some folks really just don't like certain editions. When we really only had 1e (and the very similar and highly compatible BD&D and OD&D) there was a real rush to come out with fantasy heartbreakers, new paradigms on gaming, new systems, RuneQuest, Tunnels & Trolls, Marvel Superheroes, etc. And groups had so many houserules that the game from one table to another was barely recognizable.

As I said earlier, the fault lines of personal taste and preference aren't going to go away just because the publisher of the game doesn't release more options to capture the demands of those players who's taste and preferences differ from the edition du jour. They'll either make do on their own or leave the game for greener pastures. We saw that happen in big numbers in the 90s, for example.

To continue the analogy, fault lines indicate crustal weakness. They inevitably lead to a broken base.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

There's only so much that can be done for people who are very particular in their tastes.

In one group I play with there's a guy who apparently... doesn't like food. He has only a very narrow range of stuff he'll eat. And I mean, really, really narrow. So narrow that, while we usually provide dinner and home-baked desserts for game, he can't/won't partake of what we cook unless it is stuff on his limited list, and then only if it is prepared just the way he likes such things.

There is no way in heck that we are going to restrict the meals for every single game to his tiny list of allowed foods. It would be grossly unfair (and boring) to the rest of us who have wider palates. Thankfully, he understands this, and simply brings his own food and drink to the games.

Maybe having a split base is bad for you, because it means that you can't find folks to game with. But, by the same token, having tastes so limited that you'll only play one game is bad for you, for the exact same reason.

Using the food analogy, what if half your group loves nuts, while the other half are allergic/don't like or what have you in regards to nuts. It then makes it kind of difficult because half the group simply won't want to eat nuts while the other half are hankering to try all these expensive nut dishes that the new nut place on the corner has opened up with. It's too pricey to not get most of the group on board if we're going to give the nut place a go. Well... you get the idea (sorry to screw up your analogy).

I think it valid to say that a new edition can place pressure on a group (I know it did and has ours). It makes it difficult when someone is giving something a go but you know they are just not getting into it (while others are finding it difficult to maintain enjoyment at even a moderate level). This is obviously not to say that one edition or the other is objectively superior but that when one edition splits opinion down the middle, it really puts pressure on the group dynamics and enthusiasm for play. We're a pretty tight gaming group and so we have fought through it rather than dissolving but still... not much fun when that's what it should be all about.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

The value of a "unified" player base/edition is that it gives players more overall opportunities for successful play.

Exactly. While you elaborated on how this makes it hard to find a group, I've noticed it also leads to a lot of confusion about rules systems. Successful play on some level requires familiarity with nuanced rules, hence having a bunch of editions with extremely complex rules has deterred my gaming experience (troll away).

Since I tend to jump between a bunch of different editions (not by my choice) I'm constantly switching from rules in 3.5 to PF to 4E that are just ever so slightly-different (99% the same while the devil is in the details). Most of the gamers I know and play with are distinctly casual and don't own core rulebooks. Consequently few people seem to be able to remember what the rules for using untrained skills in PF are after playing 4E for a while. For me it sort of breaks the immersion, always having to look up rules and ask for clarification. It also can lead to wide gaps in gaming skill between the most and least rules-savvy player, generally to the frustration of players coming from other editions.

People on this forum often claim the rules get stale and they start looking for new systems. That makes sense if you play the same game weekly for years. I've found for most gamers the rules change long before they get stale and usually before they've fully absorbed enough of the rules to competently run a game.

Many folks on this forum seem to lose sight of how much commitment it takes to learn a rules system in terms of time and money.

 

[Dannager]

Using the food analogy, what if half your group loves nuts, while the other half are allergic/don't like or what have you in regards to nuts. It then makes it kind of difficult because half the group simply won't want to eat nuts while the other half are hankering to try all these expensive nut dishes that the new nut place on the corner has opened up with. It's too pricey to not get most of the group on board if we're going to give the nut place a go. Well... you get the idea (sorry to screw up your analogy).

We're not talking about one group who likes nuts and one group who is allergic to nuts.

We're talking about one group who prefers walnuts and one group who prefers pecans, and then saying that if their range of tastes is so narrow that they're unable to enjoy the other type of nut, maybe they should consider an effort to expand their tastes.