Stifling Innovation

[rkwoodard]

true but

It's simple. If you want to innovate, then do a new game entirely. Games have fans for a reason- they like them... the way they are.

This is true to an extent. For example, when Magic: The Gathering came out, most D&D players either played it or didn't, but they didn't, by and large, take person offense.

Yet, when 3rd and then 4th edition came out, the ones that saw the game shift toward that style of play got upset.

So, we have an interesting dichotomy. The traditional face to face RPG with no props but character sheet and dice becomes a smaller niche. But, some companies build that concept into different directions. Make them more like boardgames (for example).

The market will decide if the innovation will succeed and start a new market/market trend, or if it will be an interesting but failed experiment.

I think RPGs will have to shift from the standard Pen, Paper, dice, mini, character sheet to thrive, but on the other hand, my game of choice is C&C which is very much the traditional minimalist RPG style game.

RK

 

[ST]

I think there's a subset of roleplayers who want to take a system, have fun fiddling with the fiddly mechanics, and in every other way keep playing the same way they've always been playing.

That group tends to get pretty tetchy about games that have a specific, focused design, because they can't easily use them like that.

Nothing wrong with that style of play, although I personally don't see the point of buying a new game if I'm just going to play it the same way as stuff I already own. Clearly, others feel differently.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think the issue is that, like many kinds of cultural works, fans feel a sense of ownership of their games.

Very true. On another board when discussing this, someone wrote "I can't believe they did this to *my*game". Pretty clear there.

Think about the response to the recent GI Joe movie, which is, honestly, pretty bad. Lots of people watched the cartoon as children, grew up with the action figures, etc. Because of this, it's not just a bad movie, but a bad movie that treads upon a piece of culture that a lot of people hold dear.

But I don't understand such a reaction. I hold GI Joe more dear than anyone I know. It's very very important to me. I saw the movie earlier this week, and enjoyed it for what it was: big dumb fun.

I know some people get enraged by things like making huge changes to Ripcord's character, for example. Or making them an international force rather than an American one. Or whatever. But I'll never understand the reaction of strong negativity, regardless of how important the thing is to you.

I guess I'm just of the view that new versions of things do not change or invalidate the old versions of things.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's simple. If you want to innovate, then do a new game entirely. Games have fans for a reason- they like them... the way they are.

The way I see it, a new version of something doesn't invalidate the old version, as I said above. This new WFRP does nothing to invalidate 2E, which you can still play to your heart's content.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The questions I have is will these strong negative reactions to innovation by major game companies stifle creativity and innovation in the long run, or should the trying of new ideas be limited to indy games/companies or to brand new games with no pre-existing baggage and expectations, to avoid upsetting people?

"Stifling Innovation" seems a really strong way to put it.

AFAICT, the negative reactions come from this:

The new editions don't give the people who like the game as it is enough reason to switch.

If you've been plugging along blissfully in your game of choice for a few years, you may very well have some issues with it -- some quirks you're not a fan of, or some rough spots you need to iron out. But by and large, you like the thing you do each week. You don't want a major overhaul. You don't want a new way of doing things. A revolutionary innovation has no appeal -- no value -- to you. You're getting mostly what you want.

Now, you might be on board for a change. It's been some years and there are some rough spots. You have no problem with a re-working of your game. But you don't need the entire way you play to be changed. Addressing complaints from people who don't play the game isn't going to help the new edition appeal to you in the slightest. You're pretty happy with it.

So what does this new game give you in exchange for loosing all the value of your old game?

This is part of why an edition treadmill is kind of unsustainable over the long haul. As you make better games, more people are going to be satisfied with what you produce, and more people will be against changing when the hot new thing comes out. By the time you hit edition 5 or 6 or whatever the rough spots you can smooth out are fewer and father apart, or more basic and require a bigger system overhaul, and neither of those are a selling point for your new edition to the people who play the current one.

Innovation is fine and good and great, but the place for it is not generally in a game that a lot of people like as-is.

 

[Obryn]

It's simple. If you want to innovate, then do a new game entirely. Games have fans for a reason- they like them... the way they are.

Unless you're Chaosium, every new edition is a new game.

Like I said in the other thread, I see no reason I should get upset over a company making a game I don't like, regardless of whether or not it has the same brand name as a game I do like.

-O

 

[Uzzy]

The way I see it, a new version of something doesn't invalidate the old version, as I said above. This new WFRP does nothing to invalidate 2E, which you can still play to your heart's content.

Except it did. Not only will the term WFRP be associated with the 3rd Edition of it, but players of 2E are denied continuing support for the game, which impacts directly on the number of players they can find.

Now, if companies want to innovate, they can. Just with new games. If the third version of WFRP had been called Warhammer Quest or something similar, that'd have been fine.

 

[billd91]

Star Wars has now at least 4 rule systems I am aware of - the WEG d6 version, and three d20 Versions. Star Wars is all flavor, and yet somehow 4 different games managed to capture it - at least for the fans of each version.

I think rules should _never_ be a sacred cow. Always look at what it achieves in your game, which includes concerns of mere playability, as well as concerns of flavor. If you find a different way to evoke the same flavor but it seems more playable, that rule can go. There is nothing sacred about this cow.

Star Wars is a particularly interesting case. It's a license to a particular 3rd party IP that brings its own fans to the party. People come not particularly wedded to a set of game rules, they're attached to the setting, genre conventions, and character archetypes.

By comparison, with something like D&D, people often point out that the game itself is responsible for many of the genre conventions adhered to in D&D games. While initially providing a basic simulator for playing through swords and sorcery-type adventures (and going on missions for fantasy wargames), over time, D&D moved from being just the vehicle to get to the destination to being the destination, to being it's own genre.

Other fantasy RPGs, like Warhammer, by being in contrast to D&D, end up filling a very similar niche - they become the genres rather than emulate. Messing with the conventions of the D&D genre (and WHFRP) with a major change in the rules, runs higher risks as a result.

I would also submit that the differences between the first two d20 versions aren't that big. They're what you'd expect from a simple edition change - revised edition improvements to the existing system. SWSE is a much bigger departure, though, but with a lot of general structure preserved. So I'd say that Star Wars really covers more like 2.5 game systems than a full 4.

 

[Leatherhead]

Except it did. Not only will the term WFRP be associated with the 3rd Edition of it, but players of 2E are denied continuing support for the game, which impacts directly on the number of players they can find.

Support is a really big issue, once a game stops getting new books it becomes harder to get new people into it, and it becomes much harder to replace things as they degrade or get damaged. Even PDFs may need replacement if their storage is damaged.

 

[Obryn]

Except it did. Not only will the term WFRP be associated with the 3rd Edition of it, but players of 2E are denied continuing support for the game, which impacts directly on the number of players they can find.

Now, if companies want to innovate, they can. Just with new games. If the third version of WFRP had been called Warhammer Quest or something similar, that'd have been fine.

I'm trying really, really hard to get into a mindset where this new game would upset me. I am failing utterly. I read something like the above, and I'm left absolutely confused - like I'm listening to a conversation in Martian. I've never had an issue with finding players for an out of print game; a good game is a good game, period. And continuing support was never a promise for any game I've ever played, so it's not something I've ever felt was my due.

Also, I like innovation, and I like seeing existing settings reimagined with new mechanics. I always have the option of not moving on if I don't like them. As far as I can see it, I now have more choices, not less, and I can't bring myself to get upset about having more choices. Like I said, each edition is essentially a new game, and nobody's ever promised me I'd like every new game that comes out, regardless of whether or not it shares the same name as another game I like.

-O