D&D General Ben Riggs interviews Fred Hicks and Cam Banks, then shares WotC sales data.

[Parmandur]

But 3e wasn't innovative in terms of RPG's though. It borrowed pretty much wholesale from existing games. Granted the d20 mechanics was pretty innovative, but, otherwise, very little in 3e was unfamiliar to anyone who played games other than D&D. 4e brought in mechanics from other games and put them in D&D, but, again, very little of it was particularly new.

If you only look at D&D, sure, each edition is innovative, but, I'd argue that pulling ten year old mechanics in from other games that have proved tried and true is not how I define innovation.

Something to ve said for iterative improvement...but yeah, the market leader is juat not positioned to offer wild innovation.

 

[Dire Bare]

But 3e wasn't innovative in terms of RPG's though. It borrowed pretty much wholesale from existing games. Granted the d20 mechanics was pretty innovative, but, otherwise, very little in 3e was unfamiliar to anyone who played games other than D&D. 4e brought in mechanics from other games and put them in D&D, but, again, very little of it was particularly new.

If you only look at D&D, sure, each edition is innovative, but, I'd argue that pulling ten year old mechanics in from other games that have proved tried and true is not how I define innovation.

Shrug. Okay. Agree to disagree.

Innovation isn't binary, it's a matter of degree.

Are the various D&D editions the most innovative games ever? No, of course not. But to argue they did not significantly innovate at all . . . well, again, agree to disagree.

There's also some pretty innovative books within some of the various D&D editions. The Player/DM Option series from AD&D 2E. Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic from 3E. And more. D&D has been good innovating with settings for games as well; Dark Sun, Eberron, Jakandor, and more.

 

[Reynard]

But, again, why would you ever look to D&D for that? D&D has never been that.

You literally just said it was with 3E.

 

[FrogReaver]

At that point aren't you just chasing the owner of the trademark though? What's to say the group who buys the trademark are any better than the designers working on other flavors of fantasy RPGs? I just don't see how the actual D&D logo matters that much to each of us individually. Brand recognition is certainly a thing but that doesn't have a lot to do with game design.

One reason to buy big name anything at big name prices is you can expect continued albeit not free support.

Another is the networking effect.

There’s also usually a decent quality and compatibility standard. Those without that big guy logo can be all over the map in terms of quality, some better. Some worse. Little networking effect. Spotty continuing support.

Buying something because of a well known and established logo isn’t just cheap tricks and gimmicks and irrationality, there’s value in it.

 

[dbolack]

I don't understand the relationship between these two statements. Is D&D doing okay or not? Is Hasbro spinning or not? They seem to be at odds.

They don't have to be.

 

[Hussar]

You literally just said it was with 3E.

No, I said that D&D was bringing in innovations that are several years behind the curve. 3e was heavily influenced by Rolemaster, a game that had been around for, what, a decade or more before 3e?

Pulling tried and true things into the game is a great way to build a game. But, it's not what I consider to be innovative.