Adapt or Perish!

[Hussar]

Korgoth - You're right. They are good games. Heck, they could even be fantastic games. But, that's not the point. Just because they're good games doesn't make a new game a bad one. They're good games for a certain group of people. That group of people is far smaller today than it was 25 years ago. That group of people is likely smaller than the total number of RPGA players currently (some 150 000 according to the RPGA), never mind the total number of 3e gamers.

Yes, great fantasy was written before 1970. That's 100% true. However, there's a huge amount more fantasy available now than there was then. To anyone who had even an oblique interest in fantasy in the 70's, there was a shared culture, simply because there were so few sources. Now, it's not even possible to read a single year's fantasy output in a single year. Even at a novel a day, you couldn't do it. The shared experience, and shared culture is just far, far wider than it was then if it could even be remotely called shared anymore.

 

[Scarbonac]

"Airbenders and Alchemists" would make an AWESOME RPG name. "Elder Scrolls" is kinda videogamey, though.

I wanna be a gestalt Plant/Earthbender with the Homunculus and Automail templates.

 

[Darkwolf71]

You meant:
1/ "sandwitch demographic", which is an intriguing concept; or
2/ "Sam age demographic", which makes me wonder how old Sam is, or if it is perhaps the Age of Sam and no-one told me; or
3/ "same age demographic", which is boring.

So I'm going to go with interpretation #2. What is the Age of Sam?

Cheers, -- N

When trolling someone for a typo, it is generally ill-advised to not spell-check yourself. (Sandwich)


Just sayin.

 

[Desdichado]

Why? Dungeons and Dragons, for all intents and purposes, IS fantasy roleplaying. No other fantasy rpg comes close to its popularity or influence.

What are these "current tastes" of which you are referring to? And if other fantasy rpgs are popular and influential enough to steer the direction of the next edition of D&D, why aren't they outselling it? Is D&D really in danger of losing ground to some other fantasy rpg? If so, which one?

Yet fantasy roleplaying as a whole is losing ground regularly to other pursuits.

This is a little like those business school anecdotes about the guys in the 80s who were the best typewriter makers in the world feeling secure in their place in the world because they never anticipated the prevalence of home computers with word processors and printers better than dot matrix.

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis! Now I won't have to go to the therapist this week.

It's not psychoanalysis, those are the "classic" steps associated with reaction to major change. Another business school tidbit.

 

[TerraDave]

1) Bringing em back: there is a trend on these boards (and not just here, Jonathan Tweet has said the same thing!) by posters saying "I will stay play, but I won't DM". 4thed seems to be apealing to just the people, while also trying to satisfy "I kinda like Castles and Crusaders, but want more options".

2) No adaption needed?: 3.0/3.5 is probably the best supported game ever. You don't need anything else. But this makes things worse for WotC. See next point.

3) Role-playing rests for no company: This industry is like any other. TSR came close to bankruptcy multiple times, and what do you think that whole "fire people, release 3.5, fire people" thing was about? And I distinctly remember when the leading RPG seemed to involve angsty vampires wearing sunglasses.

4) Trollops>Upper Class: The value of a random pleasure worker tables is so self-evident that it does not need defending. If the evolution of the game demanded a social class table, so be it. But that does not invalidate an gaming aid much missed in subsequant editions of the game.

 

[MerricB]

3) Role-playing rests for no company: This industry is like any other. TSR came close to bankruptcy multiple times, and what do you think that whole "fire people, release 3.5, fire people" thing was about?

Pokemon, unfortunately.

Cheers!

 

[Nifft]

When trolling someone for a typo, it is generally ill-advised to not spell-check yourself. (Sandwich)

Indeed. I think there's some internet law about spelling errors in spelling flames. (And if there's not, there should be!)

Thanks, -- N

 

[Li Shenron]

Or maybe it's just because most of the people don't want to play the same stuff over and over. Just like they don't want to listen to the same music, or watch the same movies, or read the same books. After a while, the majority gets bored and wants to cut their teeth on something different. If the old stuff is still their favourite, they will surely go back and play/listen/watch/read them again and again, and this is not incompatible with trying the new stuff as well...

But "adapt or perish" is a very arrogant thing to say. The only thing that can perish here is the business of the company, if they ever do something totally foolish. Gamers that won't play 4e will almost surely play something else, keep gaming and just direct their money somewhere else. Even in the worst case they will drop the hobby and pick up another one, which hardly qualifies as "perishing".

 

[MerricB]

But "adapt or perish" is a very arrogant thing to say. The only thing that can perish here is the business of the company, if they ever do something totally foolish. Gamers that won't play 4e will almost surely play something else, keep gaming and just direct their money somewhere else. Even in the worst case they will drop the hobby and pick up another one, which hardly qualifies as "perishing".

You might want to reread my original post, and a couple of my later replies, which say that.

Cheers!

 

[RFisher]

Even if you look at what you enjoyed back when you were a young teenager, is that the same as what you enjoy now?

Nope. In the 1980s I enjoyed the sci-fi/fantasy of the 1960s & 1970s. Now I enjoy the sci-fi/fantasy of the 1930s & 1950s more. (^_^)

What if--instead of Harry Potter--Rowling rewrote The Lord of the Rings to make it more "today"? What if Tolkien's then went out-of-print because--according to the publisher--Rowling's had made it obsolete?

Oh, sure. There are all kinds of practical problems with that analogy. And I don't really disagree with the point you're trying to make.

But sometimes I wonder if the real answer isn't to try to "update" D&D to make it more "today" but to try to design a wholly new game that is wholly "today".

If anyone could pull that off, Wizards certainly could. They could attract the talent. They could afford the marketing.