[WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out

[DragonLancer]

I disagree. Change is invevitable, the rules will always evolve to some degree, otherwise the game would remain mechanically stagnant. At the same time, each edition IS different, because it plays different, if the rules never changed there would be no more editions and vice cersa. I think the attitude is one that says new editions are supposed to improve upon the old ones, but nonetheless, I will admit, people will have their preferences.

I likewise, politely, disagree. Just look at games such as Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: the Masquerade, and other big RPG systems. In their history they have had numerous (especially in the case of CoC) editions with very minimal changes of the rules. D&D really doesn't need to change either. It's done just so that they can re-release old books updated to a new system and generate even more cash (can't fault them there it's whay a business is for) but I personally don't see it. D&D could easily have stuck with the mechancs from 2nd ed and 3.X and just tweaked them for each new edition rather than a complete and unnessecary overhaul.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

I likewise, politely, disagree. Just look at games such as Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: the Masquerade, and other big RPG systems. In their history they have had numerous (especially in the case of CoC) editions with very minimal changes of the rules. D&D really doesn't need to change either. It's done just so that they can re-release old books updated to a new system and generate even more cash (can't fault them there it's whay a business is for) but I personally don't see it. D&D could easily have stuck with the mechancs from 2nd ed and 3.X and just tweaked them for each new edition rather than a complete and unnessecary overhaul.

But of course there is a subtle difference between "D&D could easily have stuck with the mechancs from 2nd ed and 3.X and just tweaked them for each new edition rather than a complete and unnessecary overhaul." and

What needs to happen is for them to stop changing the rules every damn edition. Pick one and stick with it!

I do appreciate the clarification. I myself dont think my original post was entirely out of line with that idea, evolution is inevitable and happens over a long period of time with many small changes. Revolution turns things around, its series of big, sudden, rapid changes-more akin to mutation than evolution. Some would say thats a VERY accurate word for whats happened to the game. Some would not. Either way, those who support changes in the rules usually have an attitude and spirit that is about improving or fixing things as I mentioned. I would wholeheartedly support a revolution in the rules IF it made things better on every front. I have not experienced 4e enough to be able to say that 4e or Essentials was that.

ME personally? I think 4e's inception was admittedly, more driven by their need to protect their intellectual property (see many, many, other threads debating that point) rather than improving the game as it should have been-albeit I like some changes that I have become aware of, which is why I say "more" and not "totally".

 

[lamia]

Actually books go out of print all the time. While some authors such as Ms. Christie have the overall popularity to make re-printing smaller numbers of her older titles worthwhile as paperbacks, it makes less financial sense for D&D with it's relatively smaller demographic and the limited shelf space. Press runs cost money, and the set-up cost for them is the same whether you print 100 copies or 1 million. It might make sense to print a larger number, if they will sell quickly, but if not, you are stuck with the inventory costs instead.

Also, older Agatha Christie novels and Metallica albums provide something unique to the person being introduced to the artist for the first time. The new 4e D&D player who is enjoying the game is much less likely to go and spend money on an older ruleset that isn't compatible with their current one simply to experience it the way someone might want to read every book by an author or hear every recording by their favorite band.

It just doesn't make much business sense to leave all versions in print.

I can't claim to know a lot about business, but it does seem to me like there would be a good deal of opportunity for profit.

I know I'm one of those weirdos who owns multiple copies of my favorite books because of a fancy new cover or author commentary. Perhaps if they just added some minimal amount of new and special content, dressed the old editions in jaunty new hat..there are at least some of us who would want it!

I also see an awful lot of demand from working in a bookstore. Our 3 most requested items in the games section are 3.5 PHB, 3.5 Monster Manual 3, and Book of the Nine Swords. We could put out copies of any of these on the shelf for a hefty price, and even if it looked as if it had been dropped in the toilet and had the edges chewed off by Fluffy..they would sell within the week.

Not trying to be cantankerous, I honestly have no idea what kind of sales would constitute a reprint being worth it. And like I said before, I don't expect it. But it would be interesting to see how well such a thing would work out if the risk were taken!

 

[Stormonu]

I likewise, politely, disagree. Just look at games such as Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: the Masquerade, and other big RPG systems. In their history they have had numerous (especially in the case of CoC) editions with very minimal changes of the rules.

I don't think you can include VtM, really; there was quite a change between oWoD and nWod.

Although I agree D&D should have gone for smaller tweaks than an overhaul with the switch from 3E to 4E, I do seem to remember in the 90's that as D&D 2E started getting into being over a decade old it got plenty slammed - mostly by the WoD players I knew, but also by many of its long-standing players - about the game being "archaic" and losing fans left and right because its mechanics were being left in the dust by newer games with "modern" mechanics and systems (primarily skill-based systems, like the WoD books, GURPS and the like).

Were D&D not to seek a way to improve itself over time, I think we would have, in time, seen it grow long in the tooth like it had in 2E and lost a number of fans over a game that "hadn't changed in ages". (Though the OSR seems to prove that some people will come back to a game after some time away).

 

[Dark Mistress]

Actually you can included Vampire. You had 1st edition, then a couple of years later 2nd edition, minor changes and tweaks, then revised edition about 8 year later, which had more changes than before but still was basically the same game. Then they decided to redo the game and change all kinds of stuff. They keep growing until they did nWoD stuff then they tanked.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Actually books go out of print all the time. While some authors such as Ms. Christie have the overall popularity to make re-printing smaller numbers of her older titles worthwhile as paperbacks, it makes less financial sense for D&D with it's relatively smaller demographic and the limited shelf space. Press runs cost money, and the set-up cost for them is the same whether you print 100 copies or 1 million. It might make sense to print a larger number, if they will sell quickly, but if not, you are stuck with the inventory costs instead.

Nowadays we have technologies like .pdfs, or print-on-demand. Press runs are no longer necessary.

 

[Erik Mona]

We were always building keeps for our characters and stuff when we were kids. This was a major part of the game for us. Of course, as a DM there was nothing better than using a player's map of his stronghold to plan a vengeful monster invasion.

It was great.

--Erik

 

[Erik Mona]

Now that I think about it, running a business, editing an in-game newspaper, and claiming/refurbishing a run-down castle as the party headquarters were all major parts of Monte Cook's Ptolus campaign during the 3e era ("staffed" entirely by WotC designers and alumni), so this wasn't something relegated to the 1970s, either.

At least not for me!

--Erik

 

[Shazman]

"To put it a different way: D&D used to have a big tent. 4E very consciously decided to eliminate that big tent in the belief that "do one thing and do it well" was a better way to go.

Except if even that one thing (I presume combat in 4E's case) isn't done in an way that appeals to many players, that tent gets even smaller, dangerously smaller.

 

[Shazman]

"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all our fans and replace them.' With 4th Edition, there were good intentions. We are D&D fans. We want D&D to be the best roleplaying game it can be. We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say."--Mike Mearls.

Regardless of if they planned to it or not, they were pretty successful at "firing" a lot of fans. I don't know how successful they were at getting new fans, though.