Are Gognards killing D&D?

[Nifft]

I agree, because it is probably the wrong question.

It should be, "If WOTC tried to keep the grognards happy, would D&D die on its own?"

And the answer to THAT is probably yes.

Good thing they aren't.

This mojo has my approval.

Cheers, -- N

 

[mhensley]

I thought there was going to be something *like* a basic set...like, isn't H1 out before the core books, and containing pregens and a rule book? I could be mistaken. You're absolutely right, though. I got into D&D because there was a big black box with a dragon on it in with the Monopoly &c. at a Toys 'r Us. I was like ten or twelve, and I read the entire rulebook and GM-thingy full of cards that one night. I was up until three in the morning. This is the sort of scenario we need.

Yeah, H1 will probably be kind of, sort of a basic set. The problem is that it will almost certainly not have character generation, only pregens. It's just not the same. Creating characters is probably the most fun activity beginners have when they first get a game. Especially if you were like me and there were years between buying your first basic set and actually finding someone to play it with you.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I agree, because it is probably the wrong question.

It should be, "If WOTC tried to keep the grognards happy, would D&D die on its own?"

And the answer to THAT is probably yes.

Good thing they aren't.

Can somebody please explain to me why this is?
What has D&D done so wrong that it is on perpetual life support? Why it is always threatened with extinction and needing to adapt or die? Why is its staying power seen to be so utterly pathetic compared to rule systems for other games?
Why can't you bring in new gamers to old rules, like chess, Trivial Pursuit, or soccer manage to do?
Are the rules for all versions of D&D just that horrible that people only play until they realize the flaws (such as at high levels)? Are gamers some breed that get bored with *mechanics* to the point where not even new and cool stories, settings, and adventures can engage them?

Why are RPGs so flawed in this manner that they need perpetual revision in a way that other games do not?

And going forward, 4e and onward... will this always be the business model? New rulesets, continual tinkering, and so on? Is it destined to be a game that its players ALWAYS look at and say "It's not good enough yet"?

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I think this is a very important lesson to all game companies. Unfortunately, I don't think wotc is going far enough in making the game more accessible to newbies. Making the rules easier or making the job of the dm easier is not enough although it's a good start. Having to buy 3 books with over 900 pages that cost more than $90 is too high a hurdle for many people who might otherwise consider playing. Why isn't a basic set the first thing coming out? Why are we still saddled with the concept of a 3 book core system? If they really want to make the game more accessible, D&D needs a one book core like the old D&D Cylopedia. It also needs a good boxed basic set that sells in toys stores.

Or like Arcana Evolved... one book with all of the rules you need to play.

 

[EricNoah]

You're gonna have to remind me -- did AE have monsters in it? Did it assume you had access to the SRD or the Monster Manual?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I hope the standard for when a new edition is due is not "when its needed as much as 3e was needed." Its like saying that you're not allowed to buy a new car until you're running from the wreck screaming and covered in burning gasoline.

Exactly.

 

[Umbran]

Why are RPGs so flawed in this manner that they need perpetual revision in a way that other games do not?

No, it isn't a flaw, per se, but it is the nature of the beast. In a sense, RPGs are less like more traditional games, and more like hobby activities - like building model railroads, and making scrapbooks. This is due to the complexity and time commitment involved.

The vast majority of what we'd call hobby activities each cater to a small, niche audience that happens to like that particular activity. What you're seeing are the results of working in that niche market - a market so small that it could, in theory, completely evaporate if you aren't careful.

 

[megamania]

Not everyone who played 1e played it when it first came out.

I started in 1990 with 2e then went to 1e for several years before going 3e and finally 3.5.


So yes, just because someone has played 1st edition doesn't make them an old person.




....unfortunately however I am....(38+)

 

[Turjan]

You're gonna have to remind me -- did AE have monsters in it? Did it assume you had access to the SRD or the Monster Manual?

It had a few monsters in it, but not many. It assumed access to the SRD and made suggestions on how to use those monsters from there.

 

[sjmiller]

OK, I first have to admit that I only read through page 2 of this thread, but felt I should comment on a few things. Hope I am not retreading too much here.

I am someone who started playing D&D in 1979. I played a lot of AD&D. When 2nd Ed came around I bought the PH, DMG, MM, and got most of the Complete ___ Handbooks as gifts. I stopped playing D&D for a number of years in the late 90s, finally coming back when 3e came around. I got people who have not played D&D since the 80s to play 3e, and we are still playing today. We did not get 3.5, mainly because we liked what we had and did not see the need for it.

I've been hearing a lot about 4e, reading the blogs, reading the message boards, and have made the decision that I am not going to buy 4e. My main reason for not buying it is not because it is different than the version I am playing, or that it different than my favorite version (AD&D 1e), but because I think that a great many changes are being made because "it's cool" or they are changes made just for the sake of change.

Lots of the changes appear to be influenced by things I am not a fan of (video games, wujia [sp], MMORPGs, animation of all sorts, etc.) and add things I don't find particularly fun. that's one of the big things, actually. None of the changes I have heard of sound like they make the game more fun than what I am playing now. Since fun is the reason I play RPGs, that motivates the games I buy.

So yes, I am a grognard, of sorts, but my reasons for not buying 4e are entirely personal, and I am not trying to get others not to buy it. I am just saying why I will not be buying it.