I don't want 5E, I want a definitive D&D (the Monopoly model)

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I mean, people here have talked about Monopoly like it is unchanging, but that simply isn't true. Sure, it was mostly unchanging from the mid-nineteen-thirties to 2008, but that isn't its entire history. The 1938 edition is pretty different from the original 1904 game that inspired it, after all. And of course, the big thing is that Monopoly has gone through a major rule change more recently than 4E was released. The "Speed Die" and other rule changes in 2008 represent a major change to the game. Monopoly is a changing game that gets new editions just as much as anything else. All games change.

Speed die, blech! More randomness slows the game down, rather than speeding it up, and makes it harder to leverage skill.

 

[ANewPosterAppears]

The idea that nerddom or geekdom is somehow in a decline since the 80's is laughable at best. Scared WASPs are still burning fantasy books, they're just burning Harry Potter instead of D&D.

Fantasy isn't in a decline since the 80's. Maybe your specific tastes in fantasy are, but that's a part of life. It reminds me a bit of some old Trek fans I knew that couldn't understand why anyone would like the new remake of Star Trek. They got so many technical details wrong!

 

[Dausuul]

The idea that nerddom or geekdom is somehow in a decline since the 80's is laughable at best. Scared WASPs are still burning fantasy books, they're just burning Harry Potter instead of D&D.

Fantasy isn't in a decline since the 80's. Maybe your specific tastes in fantasy are, but that's a part of life. It reminds me a bit of some old Trek fans I knew that couldn't understand why anyone would like the new remake of Star Trek. They got so many technical details wrong!

I don't see anybody claiming geekdom as a whole is in a decline. The discussion is about D&D and role-playing games.

 

[wingsandsword]

It reminds me a bit of some old Trek fans I knew that couldn't understand why anyone would like the new remake of Star Trek. They got so many technical details wrong!

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | Onion News Network

 

[BryonD]

I think fantasy in the culture is clearly growing.

But it is also diversifying rapidly as well.

I think the total prospective fan base for table top RPGs is growing, but is not (quite) keeping pace with the overall population. So we are very slowly becoming more dilute, but there are more of us overall.

 

[BryonD]

I agree with you that we are living in a golden age of geekdom.

The economic prospects of a high school geek have grown solidly over the decades. Perception of that has lagged, but that lag has expired. Social dynamics have adapted to that.

Which isn't to say that there is not a ton of stuff that non-geeks still find really amusing about geeks. Just that the view is much better balanced than it was.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't see anybody claiming geekdom as a whole is in a decline. The discussion is about D&D and role-playing games.

The heart of the discussion is about RPGs, but Hussar and I got into a side trek on genre films. I think in hindsight he was right that science fiction and comic book movies are aplenty today (now that I have reflected on it), but I do think standard Fantasy fair is less plentiful than in the early 80s (at least wide release stuff).

However, you are right, the question is whether RPGs are on the decline. I think it is a hard issue to answer because there isn't much data to draw on. Even sales can be misleading as a devoted core audience can drive sales (and people can play games without buying them---not everyone owns monopoly but most people have played it even if they don't).

My belief is we've lost blood over the last ten years and the products I see look a lot more like "by gamers, for gamers". That could be good or bad depending on your point of view. On the other hand, I don't think we've ever had this much gaming material before. Everyone and his brother is self publishing these days. So chances are you can find a game for any concept that appeals to you. Though I think most of these companies are labors of love and not very profitable (or just making enough to keep producing books).

Again this is all perception. When I was a kid in the early 80s, it felt like I was surrounded by a gaming boom. I just saw D&D everywhere, and I didn't play until '86. In the 90s, it felt like we had another boom (probably smaller) with WoD and the endless clusters of TSR settings (yes TSR mismanaged and went out of business, but people were playing these settings when they intially came out). When TSR went bust I noticed the number of active games in my area declines (I think people just have a need for their game to be actively supported). Then when 3E came out (which coincided with the LOtR and Harry Potter films) I think there was another huge boom (probably close to or bigger than the early 80s). But from where I am standing now, it looks like things are on the decline again.

So I am not saying the hobby is dying. Nor am I someone who wants to go back to 1982 (though I do believe WOTC could learn a lesson about modules from the 80s-90s). In fact, if I had to pick a year I would least want to revisit, it would probably be 1982. I just think there are booms and busts in gaming, and I think the gaming culture has codified itself more overtime (which could have an impact on people trying to break into the hobby). Either way I think as gamers one thing we can do to grow our hobby (whether it is on the rise or falling) is game openly to reduce the stigma (for example playing at the mall foodcourt, coffee shop or bar) and be more open to new gamers (I think this last part is also dependent on game publishers making RPGs more understandable to the new gamer). Note: Not saying gamers are unfriendly to new people, I just think we sometimes could be more proactive (I know I could at least).

 

[BryonD]

I mean, people here have talked about Monopoly like it is unchanging, but that simply isn't true. Sure, it was mostly unchanging from the mid-nineteen-thirties to 2008, but that isn't its entire history. The 1938 edition is pretty different from the original 1904 game that inspired it, after all. And of course, the big thing is that Monopoly has gone through a major rule change more recently than 4E was released. The "Speed Die" and other rule changes in 2008 represent a major change to the game. Monopoly is a changing game that gets new editions just as much as anything else. All games change.

Well, first, I think it is safe to say that no one was talking about pre-1940s monopoly.

Seventy years from now I expect that tabletop RPGs will be a lot different. And I don't expect I will care. And I also doubt the typical gamer then will have any memory of my games now, so they won't be relevant.

But beyond that, the point remains that between "official" changes and houserules, there are vast differences in the ways that *modern* Monopoly can be played (strip Monopoly is played ). And yet I've never heard of anyone playing a variant of Monopoly that was not recognizable as Monopoly. However, I would be willing to bet that there are multiple examples out there of people who have created entirely new games out there using their Monopoly sets. It would not surprise me in the least. This new game would be a board game and it would use the exact same pieces as Monopoly. But it would not BE Monopoly. Mike the game designer might say that "Mike's Monopoly" was a monopoly game that was in every way better than "Parker Brothers Monopoly", but even in that it would be a distinct game.

I could walk up on a game of Mike's Monopoly and go "Hey, you guy's are playing Monopoly." And then after watching for five minutes realize that you are playing something completely different.

Monopoly has vast variations. All of them are recognizable as Monopoly.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Monopoly has vast variations. All of them are recognizable as Monopoly.

I have to admit BryonD, I have very little idea of what you are trying to say in your post, or how it is meant to reply to what I was saying... Sorry.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

From the first 20 posts:

Football and Monopoly and all games get tweaked - they don't get entirely revamped like D&D did for 3E and 4E. I'm talking about the foundation of the game. While Football and Monopoly vary and evolve, everyone recognizes that a field goal is worth three points and you get $200 when you pass go...

Just in case this hasn't already been corrected, the original American football rules had field goals worth 5 points, and touchdowns worth 4. (Or maybe the other way around.) This was on the grounds that kicking the ball through the uprights was incredibly difficult, and thus few teams would risk it for the difference of one point. Later, when the original situation changed to make this no longer true, the rules were changed.

I also dimly recalling reading a board game history (some 30 years ago) that suggested that Monopoly added the $200 when you pass go very late, because of some complaints people had about running out of money too soon. The designer was rather miffed at how his design for making people feel poor was being watered-down. I might be getting that part wrong, though, since I haven't read about it since.