Changes in Traditional Games

[fanboy2000]

Some games that haven't changed as far as I know...

Rummikub
Monopoly (if you don't count the many many knockoffs)
Risk (if you don't count the many branded versions)
Scrabble
Yatzhee

The classics:
Checkers
Chess
Go
Backgammon

To your first list, I would add Trivial Pursuit. IIRC, the core concept hasn't changed, though the subject matter of the questions and their method of delivery has changed quite a bit.

there's a lot of static games out there:

Poker
Stratego
Chess
Checkers
Risk
Backgammon
Go/Othello
Monopoly
Clue
Chutes & Ladders
etc.

It's interesting how many of the games mentioned on this list are brand name versions of older games. Statego goes back at least hundred years. Othello is the brand name of Reversi. Chutes & Ladders is Snakes and Ladders. Up above, Yatzhee is the brand name of Yacht.

Many of these static games are old (sometimes by centuries) games and have either enough time to settle down into their final rules set or have enough variation in them to keep people happy. Backgammon is settled down, the only change being the doubling cube from the early 20th. Chess has regional variations like Shogi, but is otherwise settled down. Everything else is a marketing gimmick.

Go has a lot of variation within it just by changing the board size and handicap.

Of board games haven't changed much in the since they were introduced, but are sill young enough to be owned by a single company, I'd say we have at least:

Trivial Pursuit
Risk
Mille Bornes
Scrabble
Clue
Candy Land
Hi-O Cherryo

All of the above games have numerous variations and cosmetic changes though. I wonder how often a cosmetic change or weird variation puts-off a potential buyer?

 

[DumbPaladin]

Just fyi, Life is a significantly different game now then the game I played as a kid.

QFT. You used to be able to sell your wife and kids for money. That was super helpful at the end.

 

[Aurumvorax]

The difference between D&D and board games is that Wizards doesn't reproduce their old products and call it "Classic Edition." Sure, we've got electronic games of Uno played by talking robots but at least I can buy a pack of basic Uno cards and play the same game I played 20 years ago. If I want to play AD&D I either have to find a retro-clone (which isn't a 100% accurate method) or take the time to buy moldy, smelly copies online.

Dear Wizards, why the hell aren't you offering your back catalog as PDFs?

Love,
The thousands of people who would buy up the 300+ products you could offer digitally.

 

[delericho]

The comparison is somewhat flawed. While traditional games may have house rules like D&D, and while the games may gradually tweak their rules over time, how many of them have had two complete top-to-bottom rewrites of the rules performed over their lifetimes, never mind in the last dozen years?

(And computerised conversions don't count - that's akin to the transition from D&D to Neverwinter Nights, not from 3e to 4e.)

 

[Aus_Snow]

The comparison is somewhat flawed.

Somewhat?!

 

[AllisterH]

The comparison is somewhat flawed. While traditional games may have house rules like D&D, and while the games may gradually tweak their rules over time, how many of them have had two complete top-to-bottom rewrites of the rules performed over their lifetimes, never mind in the last dozen years?

(And computerised conversions don't count - that's akin to the transition from D&D to Neverwinter Nights, not from 3e to 4e.)

Not really flawed..

As another poster mentioned earlier, you're comparing games that have had in some cases CENTURIES to work out the bugs.

Take a look at CHESS for example...

It reaches Europe around 1000 AD in its proto-form, starts being tinkered with for OVER 400 years until we get what we call the modern variant of chess in 1475 and even then, the rules about ties/stalemate aren't codified until the 19th century...

The better question to ask is why do we expect RPGs to be FIXED rules straight from the beginning when it took CHESS over 400 years to reach its final state?

 

[Raven Crowking]

In order to further the discussion, allow me to posit:

1. Saying Final Fantasy III is different than Final Fantasy does not mean that Final Fantasy has changed. It means they put out another game with in the same family. The makers ensure that the difference between games is prominent, because that is what causes the new version to sell. If Final Fantasy XXX came out without clear indications that it was a new game, no one would buy it.

2. Likewise, D&D 4 is a different game from AD&D 1.

3. If the D&D Red Box prominently said "D&D 4" in the same way a Final Fantasy makes its version prominent, my complaint in the original thread vanishes. It is my perception of an intent to make D&D 4 appear like another game (Mentzer Red Box), and thereby mislead the consumer, that is at the root of my complaint.

4. This is not at all different from buying the new version of Life and discovering it is not at all what you expected or wanted. To my mind, this re-inforced the primary complaint -- direct testimony that unexpected changes made to rules packaged to look like other rulesets don't necessarily go over well with consumers.

I would be interested also in some idea of the degree of changes that you see between versions of games. For example, Basic D&D and AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e are all different, yet they are all compatable enought to easily run modules from any one of those systems using any others. The degree of essential change is, IMHO, rather slight.

We might also look at the period of change. One major change to a set of rules over the course of 20-40 years is hardly analogous to what happens with rpgs, nor would it lead a non-gamer to conclude that an rpg he bought 20 years ago was going to be completely different when he buys it for his grandkids 20 years later.

My point was not that change does not occur. My point is that change of the scale between the orignal Red Box and the new Red Box does not tend to occur in other types of games during the timeframe it does with rpgs, and a casual gamer is unlikely to expect the degree of change that has occurred.

Remove the context of the point (quoted in the OP), and it suddenly seems to make sense to compare apples to Harley Davidsons. Within the context, though (time frame and degree), I would like to hear what comparable changes to other types of games have actually occurred. Life seems to be an example of a large change in a short timeframe, and I don't hear people saying that they either expected it or found it a pleasant surprise.


RC

 

[billd91]

But what really interests me is the idea (not explicitly state in the quote) that the rules for traditional games stay the same for decades. That’s simply not true. First, traditional games are often subject to house rules. For example, when I play Rummy 500 with my fiancee we play that when you pick-up a discarded card you have to meld it right away. This isn’t, however, the way I was taught to play with my family. Monopoly is infamous for it’s house rules. I don’t know about now, but the ubiquitous house rule of putting money in the middle of the board for the person who lands on free parking used to not be in the rules at all.

I’m met people who don’t play Checkers (Draughts) where you have to jump if it’s available. Back in the Navy, I met someone who had never heard the rule and refused to play that way.

Many traditional and card games are taught by word of mouth rather than from a written set of rules. That leads to a lot of variation without being consciously house rules. It's more like parts of the rules get lost in the translation.

 

[fanboy2000]

In order to further the discussion, allow me to posit:

1. Saying Final Fantasy III is different than Final Fantasy does not mean that Final Fantasy has changed. It means they put out another game with in the same family. The makers ensure that the difference between games is prominent, because that is what causes the new version to sell. If Final Fantasy XXX came out without clear indications that it was a new game, no one would buy it.

Let me clarify. In 1990 Square released Final Fantasy III in Japan. They then remade the game and released it for the Nintendo DS. New graphics, new programing, same name. (I originally thought it was the PSP, whoops!)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let me clarify. In 1990 Square released Final Fantasy III in Japan. They then remade the game and released it for the Nintendo DS. New graphics, new programing, same name. (I originally thought it was the PSP, whoops!)

Ah. Changes to the game based on the gaming console format I understand.

This is, I think, a subset, where most people with more than one gaming console/system are aware that games change.

However, it sounds like the FF game was more than just the console, so, yes, I would consider that a similar change if the packaging didn't reflect the changes.


RC