Adapt or Perish!

[RFisher]

Let's not forget that D&D has adapted throughout its existence - even when it was just Gary doing the bulk of work for it. There's some significant differences between his original writings on the game and later work.

Sure. But almost any product starts our being something that changes rapidly &, over time, the rate of change slows down until it pretty much stabilizes.

(Of course, with software, much of this process actually plays out in the market. With books, much of it happens before it reaches the market &--depending on the kind of book--hitting the market can mean that it never gets to finish stabilizing. RPGs seem to be somewhere in between.)

It's then that the marketing people step in & rationalize further change. (^_^)

 

[The Little Raven]

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".

But D&D has survived by reinventing itself. 3rd Edition is most definitely proof of that, as active D&D support would probably be dead if 3e hadn't happened.

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

Not on the level of D&D, which is what they want. Even the Star Wars RPG can't compare with D&D's sales.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

Cheers!

Merric, I wasn't pointing my finger (of death) at you

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

Cheers!

META: That's a common problem, and I fall prey to it sometimes, too. People like to read just the topic name and than post an answer, maybe based on the last few posts, but not neccessarily the first post. Finding a title that hits the core of your topic/arguments is difficult, but important.

 

[Treebore]

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.

I would bet that if they cleaned up the OD&D rules a little bit and then published it with all the modern bells and whistles they have, it would sell very well. Heck, I would buy it, and I own the originals.

 

[Falling Icicle]

No.

I'm saying if the leading fantasy RPG wants to stay the leading fantasy RPG, it needs to appeal to current tastes in fantasy RPGs.

Last I checked, no-one was tearing up all the previous editions of D&D. Not only that, you can still acquire most of them thanks to the glorious way Wizards said, "hey, you can sell all of these as pdfs for us!"

Last I checked D&D is the most popular fantasy RPG.

I don't buy this nonsense that anything they're changing will attract more people to the game. Nobody is going to buy the 4e book because there are Eladrins, points of light, or a new background for demons and devils. If they've read the book enogh to notice those things, they're already interested in the game.

What gets most people interested in the game? Their friends that are playing it. It's the grassroots that keeps pen and paper RPGs strong. And that's exactly the audience that WotC risks insulting by treating their style of gaming and preferences as if they don't matter. It's not just 40 or 50 year old gamers but the 3e generation as well.

Adapt or die? That's nonsense. Hasn't it occured to you that just because some change in a new edition is inevitable, people aren't in any way obliged to like whatever is changed? Change for the sake of change does not always yield good results. If WotC decided to put ray guns and space marines into D&D, would you still be saying "adapt or die?" I certainly hope not.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Last I checked D&D is the most popular fantasy RPG.

I don't buy this nonsense that anything they're changing will attract more people to the game. Nobody is going to buy the 4e book because there are Eladrins, points of light, or a new background for demons and devils. If they've read the book enogh to notice those things, they're already interested in the game.

Well, if nobody is attracted by it, why could some people be appalled by it?
Why do "fluff" books sell at all if nobody could be attracted by that.

I admit, the main reason why I want to pick up D&D 4 are the new rules (assuming that they are indeed better as what I have now, which is heavily indicated by the fact that the Designer see the same issues that I do, and indicate fixes that make sense to me). But the new flavour bits, I like too. They sound interesting. And they make me want D&D 4 even more.

 

[Midknightsun]

And that's exactly the audience that WotC risks insulting by treating their style of gaming and preferences as if they don't matter. It's not just 40 or 50 year old gamers but the 3e generation as well.

Some may be insulted. Then again, some people are rather easily insulted, and at no time will everyone be happy with anything WotC does. I learned D&D "grassroots style" back in the 80s, and got no heartburn for the change of editions. As a matter of fact, despite having dumped a huge chunk of $$$ into 3.5, I'm more than glad to see a new edition on its way. The designers are top-notch, so I doubt it'll be a flop.

Adapt or die? That's nonsense. Hasn't it occured to you that just because some change in a new edition is inevitable, people aren't in any way obliged to like whatever is changed?

No matter what exists, its pretty much a gaurantee that someone won't like it. Though that doesn't mean that new editions/versions shouldn't come out either.

Change for the sake of change does not always yield good results. If WotC decided to put ray guns and space marines into D&D, would you still be saying "adapt or die?" I certainly hope not.

The assumption here is that 4e is change for the sake of change. I do not agree that this is the intent, let a lone the goal, and there are many indications that the system was in need of an overhaul. The point is, the system is still developing. 3e had many innovative ideas, but many ideas that sucked too. I personally know several players who stopped playing it because of its kludgyness. And my group, for one, was already starting to look for alternate systems because of this even before the announcement of 4e. The ray guns or space marines comment is pure hyperbolie, however, any extreme example makes a poor counterpoint, despite fairly commonly held beliefs that it somehow is useful in doing so.

 

[SavageRobby]

I'm saying if the leading fantasy RPG wants to stay the leading fantasy RPG, it needs to appeal to current tastes in fantasy RPGs.

But are they trying to appeal to the current tastes ... or are they trying to redefine them?

I see a lot of change for changes sake in the new fluff and flavor (beyond the rules, where I see a lot of that syndrome as well). Its like this group of designers is trying too hard to put their stamp on the flavor of the game, and make it something new and interesting - and that seems to mean means throwing out current tastes for untried new ones. Maybe it will work (see: Magic), maybe it won't (see: New Coke).

 

[hong]

But are they trying to appeal to the current tastes ... or are they trying to redefine them?

Of course they're trying to appeal to current tastes. That's why it's videogamey.